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 (2941)	5/21/2002 8:38:24 AM
From: nickel61	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 3558

LIAR????? GGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG I think anyone who thinks a price of gold denominated in dollars that has increased more than 20 times in the last hundred years is "flat to down is sadly mistaken and more than a little mathematically challenged. The years in which the change took place may have been less than the years it stood constant (as a minority of a hundred, if that is what you mean????)Since most of the period was during a gold convertibility standard and when change occurred it entailed a significant devaluation of the US DOLLAR and golds price changed abruptly and dramatically. But what the hell does that have to say about the long term relative value of gold versus US dollar currency???GGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG Check the chart below and see the absurdity of your assertion...http://www.kitco.com/scripts/hist_charts/yearly_graphs.cgi What are you claiming? , that Barrick's strategy is not going to blow up in their faces based on you analysis that there were a higher number of years when gold stayed constant than when it changed dramatically upward in price??? GGGGGGGGGGGGGGG Well that makes a lot of sense! GGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG Gold appreciated against the US dollar twenty times during the last hundred years but to you this is irrelevant because all the change occurred quickly????? DUH! GGGGGGGGGGG kitco.com What the hell has that got to do with anything?...it only suggests the complete bankruptcy of your thinking. GOLD could stay relatively flat and then double as it did in 1933 or stay flat and then go up three times over as it did in 1970-1975 or triple again in 1975-1979 or go up another 50% as it did in 1980....Yeh that makes sense we wouuldn't have to be concerned about that because it happened in less than a majority of the hundred years...WOW talk about ridiculous!!!! Do you really believe that? "GGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG What possible point are you trying to make? The bottom line is that gold went up TWENTY FOLD during the period and most of that change took place in the last thirty five years...so what point are you trying to make??? THAT Barrick is sure we are returning to another fixed gold period like the 1900 to 1932 period? OR that you can't grasp the basics of arithmetic?

To: russet who wrote (2941)	5/21/2002 9:04:23 AM
From: nickel61	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 3558

In a direct sense they could not claim this high sale price if the gold wasn't borrowed. If they just sold their gold in the spot market they would have to report that and then if they wanted to invest in US treasury notes they would simply show that as an asset on the balance sheet and recognize the marked to market value of the interest payments and the bonds. But this way they get to claim that they have gotten a higher price for their product. Complete bullshit and nothing more then an accounting trick. Once it is exposed it is obviously nothing more then taking advantage of a loophole in the FASB accounting regulations. Much like the absurdity of being able to recognize both sides of an energy trade as "revenue" allowed Enron to rapidly inflate their reported revenue growth. This is how Enron ever got to be able to claim they were the 7th largest corporation in the United States. They were working an accounting loophole and the bankers and accountants, JP Morgan/Chase, Barrick's bankers by the way, and the now infamous Arthur Anderson, were the only ones who knew they were cooking the numbers, and they shut up about it so they could sell more bonds, stocks and whatever, or charge them 50 million a year in accounting fees. The process of accounting for both sides of an energy transaction as your revenue is analogous to a stockbroking firm trading a 1000 shares of a $100 stock and claiming not the commission as their revenue but the sum of the value of the stock sold and bought in the transaction, i.e. not $35 but rather 1000 X $100 = $100,000 for the sale and $100,000 for the buy...that is what made Enron's revenues grow so spectacularly.$200,000 or revenue on a trade that really under common sense accounting would have produced only $35 of revenue for the brokerage firm .....and it was allowed to continue for years... until it came under the light of day and collapsed taking the Enron employees and investors with it.