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 : Homestake Mining -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: long-gone who wrote (405)	7/20/2001 11:48:59 AM
From: Rarebird	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 415

<When he sold the company for less than the future true value> Future Value? That depends on the POG. And what about downside risk? ABX/HM has more choices and is a much greater value than HM as a standalone company. Nothing is written in stone that ABX will not cover its hedges when the time is ripe. In the last cyclical gold bull in '93, that is precisely what ABX did! If and when ABX does cover its hedges, its shares will rise sharply and fully participate in any Gold Bull. <Reaping maximum profit for shareholders is the very essence of real capitalism!> That's true in a way. But the shareholders with the greatest stake and who sit on the board making decisions for the remaining passive shareholders, will always construct deals that suit themselves first. Yes, ultimately their interest should represent the interest of all shareholders. But there has always been a division and conflict of interest between management and Labor in this country and that is usually evident in mergers and acquisitions. I see nothing unusual in the HM/ABX merger. It represents capitalism in its innermost spirit. Why not lead a shareholder revolt? The problem with that is that even the passive shareholders realize that HM stands a better fate merging with ABX under the present agreement.