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.

Pastimes : Clown-Free Zone... sorry, no clowns allowed -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: yard_man who wrote (65609)	2/7/2001 5:59:34 PM
From: pater tenebrarum	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 436258

ALL: GOLDFIELDS this is the e-mail i just sent to the Goldfields investor relations dept.: (camartin@gfexpl.com). i suggest everybody send them something along those lines, doesn't have to be that longwinded, just let them know we care... Dear Mrs. Martin, there have recently been persistent rumors that Anglogold, possibly in conjunction with Barrick Gold, is planning a takeover bid for Goldfields. it seems there is some substance to this rumor in view of Anglogold's parent having raised its stake in Goldfields to 17%. i have conferred with several other shareholders on the subject, and frankly we are not enamored with this possibility. in a recent speech an Anglogold director referred to that group's acquisition strategy in general terms, and emphasized their intention not to 'overpay' for assets. reading between the lines, this means with a wink to Anglo shareholders "don't worry - we'll get Goldfields on the cheap". however, all the people i spoke to are invested in Goldfields for mainly two reasons: 1. its huge mineral reserves and resources and 2. because it is UNHEDGED. unfortunately if one wants to invest in unhedged gold mining companies, there are only two choices left (you know which one's the other one). the very thought that Anglo and Barrick, who collectively are short over 40% of annual global gold production could get their mitts on Goldfields' assets is evoking revulsion. the fear is that these companies will then be in a position to perpetuate the hedging game, to the detriment of the gold price and all gold related investments. when news broke that Anglo wants to increase its hedge, US brokerage houses immediately lowered their forecasts for the gold price and downgraded the equities of major gold producers. this self-defeating strategy (they are now hedge funds in the business of selling gold short and are running a few holes in the ground on the side basically) is hurting the industry, and if their activities were to extend to Goldfields' production, we fear that the chances for the gold price to finally get off the ground would be severely diminished. therefore, we want to urge management to fight this takeover should it be attempted, or failing that, extract as high a price as possible. we do not want an 'old boys network' type of deal behind closed doors and then be presented with a fait accompli price that seriously undervalues Goldfields' assets and potential. my personal opinion is that shareholders would in the long run be much better off if Goldfields stayed independent. recent quarters have shown that it is possible for an unhedged gold company to operate profitably even in the current difficult environment, and shareholders would likely reap huge rewards once gold prices firms up (contrary to popular opinion we do not believe that gold can only go down). it would be a great pity, if after one has patiently waited for such a long time this potential would be snatched away at a cheap price by the big hedgers (who frankly are crazy to increase their hedge at a 20-year low in the gold price). please convey these concerns to management. thank you, Yours sincerely, heinz blasnik