Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Gold/Mining/Energy : Gold Price Monitor -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: goldsheet who wrote (60506)	11/4/2000 5:10:59 AM
From: d:oug	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 116786

Bob, Your effort to provide "just the facts" have been very well received on GPM. As for knowing if those gold production reports that you have kindly placed onto your web site represent good pr:o)duction or evil pr:o(duction, we all know "The devil is in the details." as was just example'ized by the Australian gold/currency hedging discussion you helped me with. Just as a follow up to what you detailed about the inners of hedging, to me its like putting a dozen hungry meat eating snakes into a box and try to predict what will be there after a couple days not know for sure which snake will eat another to show a gain, while another snake may start to eat it so that any gain will be lost at the other end. Bet Ken will describe a gold producer's hedge as a single snake that is feeding through an eating of its own tail. ... Normandy, a 2.2moz producer, has almost 13moz hedged. This is 60% of reserves, making Barrick and Placer look sane at 15% Please Bob, my plate is already overflowing over the edges with my gata nuts attacking Barrick, I have no room for another unless GATA's Chair Bill puts out new marching attack orders. d:o)

To: goldsheet who wrote (60506)	11/5/2000 1:24:02 PM
From: Fun-da-Mental#1	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 116786

Bob, thanks for posting that table of gold production. I've been thinking about how to interpret the numbers and it occurs to me there are 2 ways of calculating the year-over-year change in total production, neither of which is perfect. One way (which you've done) is to add up the totals for all the companies with info available for each year and then divide. The other way is to take the totals for all the companies with info available for BOTH years and then divide, giving the change in same-company production. The numbers you get each way are very different: Change in total available production figures: 00/99 -1.3%, 99/98 +16.8%, 98/97 +27.4% Change in same-company production: 00/99 -1.7%, 99/98 +7.0%, 98/97 -1.5% So the question is, which way is more accurate? The same-company numbers probably underestimate changes (either positive or negative) because they don't take account of new companies starting up and old companies closing down. However the total-available-info numbers are always biased upwards because older information is harder to find. So I think the same-company totals probably give a better picture of the direction of the industry.