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 : Barrick Gold (ABX) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: russet who wrote (2574)	5/9/2002 1:36:25 AM
From: Enigma	Respond to of 3558

Another clown RIP

To: russet who wrote (2574)	5/9/2002 9:39:04 AM
From: nickel61	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 3558

Cash flow will flow at expected levels unless there are some things that impact it that Barrick management either didn't anticipate or their computer model didn't factor in or they just plain forgot to make clear to us. The whole reason that the analysts are pushing for more full disclosure is that in the post Enron enviroment the shareholder is not willing to take the management's word for it. That should be pretty clear. You might be willing to trust them but evidently their shareholders(of which you claim you are not one) are apparently not sure they do. Transparency means being able to understand what the hell they are telling you with out personally inspecting each line of code in the software model they use to price the damn hedges. I suppose you are going to tell me that they have all the various parameters of the software model that they use to price these hedges with in the financial statements as well. Could you tell me which page, Please?

To: russet who wrote (2574)	5/9/2002 10:29:44 AM
From: Activatecard	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 3558

Nah, I'm not going to do all that. I just start the ball rolling.-g- Barricks' accounting shenanigans ,(i.e., Changing certain gold call options and min-max gold options for Variable Price Sales Contracts to keep it "off-balance sheet") are red-flag enough for me. Why should management be trusted when their instincts are for opacity.

To: russet who wrote (2574)	5/9/2002 10:40:23 AM
From: tyc:>	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 3558

Yours was a great posting, russett. However, leaving aside all the BS, if we look at the subject in isolation, we find that Barrick has been selling borrowed gold and investing the proceeds in (inter alia)"corporate bond funds". They propose to change now and simply leave the proceeds of the sale in the bank. Do you really think this is a smart thing to do ? Do you really think that the market should reward this acumen with a higher PE ? Have you ever heard Barrick say before that they were investing in "corporate bond funds" ? If not, why not ? Why all the BS about "premium gold sales", when in fact the premium was simply the proceeds of investment in bonds of various calibres ? If that is what it is why didn't they say so ?

To: russet who wrote (2574)	5/9/2002 11:36:58 AM
From: nickel61	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 3558

Maybe the reason the articles ignore this "fact" is that it is false, or at least based on your naive interpretation. The only way you can say "?"that 80% of Barricks production in near years excepting the current one gets the spot price because on average only 20% of any future years gold production is currently hedged." Is to assume that they really can wait 15 years to deliver on the hedges...That is absurd..the market is not going to let them and even Barrick management seems to understand that. They produce 6 million ounces a year and they have at least 18 million ounces sold forward. The dumbest rock in the box knows that is at least your next three years of production...Your continued assertion that Barrick's has the ability to get the Central Bank owners to wait up to 15 years to get their gold back is about as solid as Barrick's plans to invest their hedge proceeds in corporate bonds sold them by their bankers JP Morgan. Where in the financials did it mention what corporate bonds they were invested in? So you trusted them to tell you everything? Now which one of us looks like a clown?

To: russet who wrote (2574)	5/9/2002 12:28:43 PM
From: nickel61	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 3558

Here is another of those GATA knaves or "clowns" as you call them. BOBBY GODSELL:"we think the gold price is firming and that we've got better prospects for the gold price than we've had certainly since 1993 (1993 = 400 an ounce), maybe even since 1987 (1987 = 500 an ounce). Against that background, we've been trimming back our hedge book." If the above message is not a signal by a major world player & market maker informing the world where gold is heading I do not know what is!!! Bobby Godsell goes on to say, "We've reduced our hedge book by 1.7 million ounces this quarter, or <<<<<<<120 percent of the company's production.>>>>>>>>> We are now significantly less hedged than we were last quarter. That increases our participation in the firmer gold prices…" MONEYWEB: Now the gold price is flirting with around the $310 level. Where do you see that by year-end? BOBBY GODSELL: Byron, all we can say is -- my colleague Kelvin Williams has studied this market for 17 years now -- everything is in place for a firmer price. Again, "Better prospects for the gold price than we've had certainly since 1993, maybe even since 1987." (500 + gold price) BEFORE BOBBY GODSELL became a shill for GATA he had already been the head of ANGLOGOLD of South Africa, the world's largest gold mining operation.