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: nickel61 who wrote (2940)	5/20/2002 11:04:56 PM
From: FuzzFace	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 3558

Agreed and well said. It is interesting to me how Russett assumes there is a big difference between ungrown crops and unmined gold (calling the latter "gold in the ground" as though it were just sitting there 6 feet under in fine gold bars waiting for transport to the surface.) I can see no persuasive difference that justifies 15 year hedges for mining but not farming. I can even see a little more justification for hedging crops further into the future, since unlike mined ore, crops are truly renewable - unless the sun stops shining or the land disappears. And there is no need to find more cropland after rolling the hedges over for 15 years. Perhaps farmers could learn from ABX how to convince the market of the need for long term crop hedging. If they would just call it "future crops in the ground", I'm sure Russett would snap to and salute. Perhaps they could leverage the religious right and start a campaign to save the "unborn corn." One big difference between gold and crops is the government suppresses the price of one while supporting the price of the other. Maybe if they didn't do the former, they wouldn't need to do the latter.

To: nickel61 who wrote (2940)	5/20/2002 11:13:53 PM
From: russet	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 3558

Barrick sells an ounce of borrowed gold today at $312 and invests in a five year US treasury note yeilding 5% to maturity in May of 2007. That is 5% compounded for five years which allows them to claim a "sale" price of $398/ounce!!!!!!!!! You admit they make more money than anyone else most years,...good for you fool. You actually get it, but refuse to admit it. The plan looked somewhat feasible in a constantly declining market but is absurd in a rising gold market. Once again you get it,...and a declining to sideways action in gold is the norm,...dumb chit!!!!!!!! Constantly rising price of gold is the abnormal situation,...but you suggest that Barrick can't adapt to that as well. The game came about because they wanted to push the spot price of gold lower to take out the other competitors Now you admit what you wouldn't before,...this is the real reason you post on no other thread,..you are anti Barrick because you think they have the power to lower the price of gold,...bullshit to you dumbarse,...the market for gold is so fractionated that no one can do this. More stupidity on your part. Barrick is the low cost producer, and forces chit companies to reduce their costs. They destroy the monopoly forces on gold, and improve competition in the market. You are a complete idiot. Barrick is the angel that keeps the price of gold low so we can all afford it, not just the elite chits like you. Namely a lower gold price meant that the US Treasury could inflate the value of the US dollar and our trading partners went along with it because it allowed them to export to the US market with a low currency price for their production and stimulate economic activity in their domestic markets. The US gets to print money with no perception in the financial markets of the amount being excessive because the US dollar is able to show a rising trend against it's historical benchmark of gold and therefore there is no inflation, and we can continue to inflate the US dollar money supply almost without check. Nice game if you can pull it off. Barrick of course is just a minor player in this drama, but their participation is critical if you wanted to ensure that the price of gold would continue under pressure. This assertion proves you have no understanding of the gold market. To think that one company that commands less than 3% of the entire gold market supply could have any effect on the price of gold is complete idiocy,...but then that what this thread has grown to expect from you.;