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 (2787)	5/17/2002 8:11:59 AM
From: nickel61	Respond to of 3558

"your inadequate financial education and laziness to perceive" You are getting a little insulting aren't you Russett?

To: russet who wrote (2787)	5/17/2002 8:15:20 AM
From: nickel61	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 3558

The future gold production committed under spot deferred contracts in our Premium Gold Sales Program totaled 18.2 million ounces at December 31, 2001. This represents approximately 22 percent of proven and probable reserves, deliverable over the next 15 years at an average price of $345 per ounce at the scheduled delivery dates. Fifty percent of planned production in 2002 is committed at an average price of $365 per ounce. The balance of 2002 production is expected to be sold at prevailing spot gold prices. If gold prices, interest rates and lease rates remain at current levels ($290 spot gold), we would anticipate that our realized gold price would be in the $330-$340 per ounce range over the longer term." I take it that the current $310/ounce gold spot price already has them underwater then. By the tune of $20/ounce. This should reduce the average realized gold price on their contracts to about the $310-$315 range. No wonder they are being questioned.

To: russet who wrote (2787)	5/17/2002 8:41:11 AM
From: nickel61	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 3558

Yes that is very clear. I am frankly surprised that the shareholders have any trouble understanding if the books are accurately reflecting the total corporate risk to Barrick. I wonder what the Enron books looked like before the bubble burst. Did they have as lucid a treatment of their now proven inflated and massively falsified financial situation? In a nut shell when you are running a hedge fund and a gold mine don't be surprised if the shareholders have a lot of questions about what risk exposures you really have. If you make it difficult for the shareholders to see the risk they are going to keep digging. That is a reality in the post Enron, GLobal Crossing, World COm, Adelphia, Xerox, world..So you and your friends at Barrick can pound your chest all you want and refer to me or anyone else as "dumb lazy ass" "stupid" or whatever. The fact is that they are purposely obscuring what they are really doing with the assets on the hedge book side of the business. They switched from a "managed bond portfolio" approach to investing to a deposited with the counterparty banks way of managing their proceeds from the prior sales and the lapdogs like your self are not even questioning them on why. So in between your insults to me Russett maybe you can ask yourself why your are such a complacent lacky. The complex financials that the managements of Enron and the others mentioned above forced down the throats of their shareholders have already bankrupted a score of companies in the last six months... Maybe we are not all as accepting of obscurity and double talk as you and Enigma appear to be. So get used to it baby we are going to get the answers from the management, either today or when they cave the financials as their "bets" on interest rates, lease rates, and currency rates prove less then clairvoyent in a rising gold enviroment.