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 (84986)	5/1/2002 10:35:21 AM
From: IngotWeTrust	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 116791

Richard, dear, my "question" was NOT regarding whether hedges were or were not being unwound, but HOW OLD THE HEDGES ARE that are being unwound. As I stated before, when I tried to articulate my question, and I thought you understood by the content of your original reply, some of these hedges have been in place 10-15 years, and some for 10 minutes. Or to put my "hedgebook curiousity", I will ONLY be impressed if the OLD ONES get closed. Otherwise, any anglo-hedgebook pronouncements such as you posted are only so much flatulence in my opinion, and could easily be the "churned" 10 minute variety to take advantage of "mandated" trading ranges in gold, with each successful long or short reducing cash costs per ounce, which do not reflect in the least savings in labor or increased productivity or grade improvements. In otherwords, these "announcements" are squid ink. Since Bob Johnson's data from his ground up analysis supports an industry increase in "gold production throughput" thesis, then just what is all this churning of hedges try to obscure? Just some points to ponder. g_t