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: russwinter who wrote (74352)	8/2/2001 9:17:22 AM
From: IngotWeTrust	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 116816

(forward prices: 2003 is 280, '04 is 290, '05 is $301) aren't strong enough. Ah, but the CURRENT FUTURES POG that far out is NOT the only consideration here...there are the double no-knock offsets, delta-risk hedging in related or non-related sectors, etc. all of which can fatten the bottom line of a ABX or Goldfields which kick that price higher and higher, especially since Q1,2,3,4 of 2003 is such a LONG ways away and a lot of roll-forward/roll out choices, just to name one alternative, are still available to them. I've been to your other haunt, and like it mostly, with the exception of Doug A K who posts his absurdities there. Thank God for the SI ignore button! Makes that thread a good read and cuts down on the surfing here as well<g> You wrote: My iceberg theory (IMO, a fact <g>)relates to the supply side (not demand) of the gold market. Supply side and not demand side, eh? Well, Russ, there is another example, a second if you will in about as many back to back exchanges as you and I have participated in thus far, of an assumptive initial utterance "qualifiers" stuck in a post-initial utterance follow-up posting. I am not a mind reader here. Now, if wishes were horses...as my mama usta say... .... and I could just rely upon you to say what you are thinking the first time, *qualifiers and all....* but alas, alack...I think I'm beginning to see a pattern here. It's going to make it increasingly difficult to respond to you in the future should this pattern continue to emerge and you have to go back and clean up by adding post initial utterance qualifiers in order to discourse with you. While I admire your parsing of words for the sake of brevity, would you consider a tad more preferential emphasis upon assumptive clarity in your initial postulates and less reliance upon "clean-up laterqualifier additives post-scripted" communication technique? Just a sincere suggestion... gold_tutor