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: long-gone who wrote (72297)	6/25/2001 10:18:55 AM
From: Ken Benes	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 116753

Instinctively, I would say this may not be positive for higher gold prices. Barrick now has access to millions of ounces of unhedged reserves. As an arm of the bankers, barrick has more leverage to work its derivative magic which is detrimental to higher gold prices. With lease rates continuing to drop, the temptation is too great for barrick. Investors should continue to shun barrick and drive its price into the ground. Ken

To: long-gone who wrote (72297)	6/25/2001 10:29:12 AM
From: Crimson Ghost	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 116753

I have no comment on this particular merger. But I will say that that gold mining industry needs to consolidate in a big way. The fact that so many miners are financially weak makes it easy for the bullion banks to force them to hedge to obtain financing. A gold mining industry dominated by a few big players would find it much easier to cut production sharply until prices improve instead of hedging reserves at firesale prices.

To: long-gone who wrote (72297)	6/25/2001 12:34:31 PM
From: Rarebird	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 116753

It is a very good merger for HM because they needed ABX's $$$ to fully untap the tremendous assets in Veladero. ABX's cash flow is a tremendous asset to HM. HM went on an acquisition binge over the past couple of years, diluting shareholder value, mistakenly assuming that the Gold Bear was about to end. This is not to say that HM erred in its most recent acquisitions. The Veladero acquisition became a steal and ABX knows it, as a 40% partner. I think ABX came to regret that it did not outbid HM for the remaining 60% stake of Veladero. From a gold mining standpoint, this merger is bullish. ABX is clearly making a statement here that it expects the POG to enter Bull Mode over the next couple of years. Let's see how the market treats ABX's shares over the coming weeks. Given HM's good balance sheet, I doubt the Market will treat ABX the same way it did NEM when it acquired BMG. BMG was loaded up to its ears with debt. I welcome this merger.

To: long-gone who wrote (72297)	6/25/2001 2:56:26 PM
From: goldsheet	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 116753

I mentioned ABX/HM as a logical/possible acquisition about a year ago. I figured ABX would eventually end up with the other 60% of Veladero, one way or another. HM issued 21 million shares around 4/28/99 (then trading around $9) to acquire Argentina Gold (when reserves were about 5moz), so ABX is buying these same HM shares at about $8 over two years later. They are effectively paying less for Argentina Gold than they would have two years ago and are picking up an asset that is now well over 12moz. In hindsight, ABX now looks VERY smart for not getting into a bidding war with HM two years ago.

To: long-gone who wrote (72297)	6/25/2001 9:08:57 PM
From: Tom M	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 116753

Quite surprised to come home tonight and read around about HM. What I haven't seen is anyone talking about the potential of shareholders not voting for it. I don't like the premium - almost at historic lows for a NYSE listed company for over 100 years. Also haven't seen any mention of potential higher bidders. Isn't there potential that this isn't a done deal? ABX needed HM more than any gold company & I don't feel that reflected in the offer. Seems like a great mandatory shake-out at 8 bucks though - before any GATA lawsuit outcome which could have made an HM buyout considerably more costly, IMHO, and according to historic charts when the companies assets weren't marked down at 20 year lows. Not to mention its announcement 2 days before another expected interest rate cut that would further cut into the gold carry trade and can be seen in the charts that recent cuts have been bullish for gold and gold stocks. I had no intention of getting out of HM at 8 bucks. It sure pried a lot of shares free today - if it fails to go through. It would have taken something of this magnitude to do it. Time will tell if this passes the smell test. Tom