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.

Strategies & Market Trends : VOLTAIRE'S PORCH-MODERATED -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Cactus Jack who wrote (49407)	4/3/2002 11:41:17 AM
From: Jim Willie CB	Respond to of 65232

Barrick could easily lose large money if gold hits 350 the collusion by Gold Cartel had two nonbrokerage participants the Jewelry Council accelerated production efforts, taking advantage of low prices, and thus consumed at a much higher rate recently the mine producers cooperated by hedging forward sales I have called this a double-edged sword but EACH sword edge is horribly negative forward sales enable a miner to continue producing loser highcost mines, with internal subsidies, thereby not managing the mine at all, and keeping marginal mines open how stupid forward sales put the mining firm at great risk if prices turn up this is why I believe a cozy deal has been struck with central bankers and hedged miners they are assured of bank gold auction sales if & when they need them at high supply levels, and probably rather low price, with total security in delivery Barrick is excluded from the HUI goldbug index, rightfully the contrast stock share price charts will be unbelievable by yearend ABX might flatline while many others triple in price / jim