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: stockman_scott who wrote (51222)	5/9/2002 11:19:18 PM
From: t2	Respond to of 65232

Gold stocks should gain from the weakening dollar. The dollar bounced for a couple of days but looks to be giving it back and start heading down again. Weak dollar means rise in price of Gold. Still think that decision by Barrick to cut back on certain forward sales yesterday was big news overshadowed by Cisco and the Nasdaq. If Barrick turns bullish on gold prices, I am taking it seriously; they have great management. Not only that but they will not be putting money into corporate bond funds...I don't know what that statement means but it is giving me something to think about. All in their press release yesterday.

To: stockman_scott who wrote (51222)	5/10/2002 6:52:06 AM
From: Clappy	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 65232

Great analysis on whether or not gold stocks are over- priced at these levels: I'm not sure I agree. (No offence, Scott. Maybe I don't understand it completely...) It seems similar to analysis that I've seen of the Nasdaq and the Dow high flyers. They sort of just arbitrarily pick a value that jives well with their math. Instead they should be looking at how the $HUI and $XAU lead the price of gold by 4-5 months. Go pull up carts of the miner indices and compare them to Comex gold futures. The bottoms are approx. 4-5 months apart. They are now trying to put a value on something that is attempting to call a price several months in advance. I don't think one thing has to do with the other. They are comparing apples and oranges. It seems silly to do so. Perhaps if they wanted to compare these in a different manner over history, say like finding out how much the $HUI or $XAU typically leads Gold at various points in the past, then I could consider what they are saying. It still won't tell us that $HUI is fairly priced against gold. That equation is something that only a mathmatician like Jim Willy Silver Balls could tell us... A company like NEM's stock price has several things figured into it. Not simply what price it should be with gold at today's price. Low floaters like HGMCY and DROOY might be priced well above perfection already. If we could figure out that math we could make millions. But then we would also have to know if gold was going to continue upward far beyond expectations that are already priced into the $HUI/$XAU... The more gold miners gets hyped like tech companies the less faith, I begin to have in them. But then we might only be in the early stages of hype. Ameritrade has not begun running commercials featuring the sale of prospector equipment yet... I wonder how much different is calling $1,000 gold from calling 10,000 Nazdaq. Sometimes we let these writers and "analysts" let us believe in extremes. (I know your article didn't say that. I just meant this in general...) Things are either incredibly good or incredibly bad by their standards. Meanwhile things always sort of feel mediocre to me... -ClappyTheSkepticOfComparisonReportsAndLettersOfHype