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 : Gold Price Monitor -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: lorne who wrote (93640)	2/19/2003 10:44:53 AM
From: long-gone	Respond to of 116756

I don't know if Ted's got it fully correct and I never believed ABX guilty of manipulation, for they too(as all mining firms) have been held as if for ransom by the bankers & their minions - the credit rating organizations.

To: lorne who wrote (93640)	2/20/2003 3:44:19 AM
From: E. Charters	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 116756

The biggest thing affecting silver is Kodak and the film market. The largest part of that is the movie industry, which is using less these days as they do so much in video. Still, silver for prints is the highest quality, and I would rather have a silver print or slide rather than the computer display-only gif/jpg/png or electronic photo as handy and versatile as they are. A child can see the difference. Paper and silver are not dead by far. The paperless office is awash in a sea of wood and has increased the use of print and ink. Barrick had a "unique" hedge book in that it could renegotiate the price of its hedge upward with a rising POG. People have held forth in the past about Barrick's "lack" of exposure to uncertainty (risk, so-called) towards POG (price of gold rise), in that they were not downside liable. Who was? -- the question is begged, as someone has to hold the other side, or the "bag", in any transaction that bets on, or is paid in a trade. Still the decision to unwind hedges is prophetic. Could it be that they did it not caring which way gold went? If Gold went still further down, let's say a catastrophic 100 dollars per ounce, was their money still "there". Had they bankrupted their banks? Who took the loss? Doesn't sound like business that goes on forever to me, regardless. They could have run out of bankers if gold plunged any further. A major use for gold selling forward, that I contend too, ultimately depressed the price of gold, was to finance operations. That is what they and others used it for. To build gold mines. The gold loan. Theoretically, you sell a mill-money amount. But the gold paying off the loan to be worth the interest must be sold for less than it is eventually worth. You bank on inflation. What it does is intoduce a double gold sale into the market and a blizzard of option and other paper in order to create money for the miner. Banks loaning gold to banks loaning gold all must derivative hedge to protect their position. In the end paper gold units outnumber real physical gold by a vast margin. There should be inflation in paper gold, but paradoxically because of all this looking for buyers for the paper flurry, the price has to trundle downward. And all this suits the issuers of currency, the real iffy paper in today's trade, just fine. As long as other investments look bad, currency looks good. Bankers ultimately profit from everyone else's loss. There ought to be a law. EC<:-}

To: lorne who wrote (93640)	2/20/2003 12:44:51 PM
From: IngotWeTrust	Respond to of 116756

Lorne: I'd draw your attention to this Butler highlight:>> While Barrick is being intentionally cryptic in saying they will *"financially settle"* a large chunk of their silver short position, even if they paid cash for all 35 million ounces held physically short, that comes to $175 million, something Barrick could afford.<< COMMENTARY: While I do NOT agree with Butler's conclusions about silver moving to $100 an oz, his highlight merits this notice. There are several mothballed ops where Barrick could step up, buyou/take over and deliver into silver hedges to the tune of several hundred oz to the ton. A small example would be one mothballed Montana operation where there is a significant vein yielding 1200 oz to the ton over a multi-kilometer strike zone.. Doesn't take many braincells to see THAT one faces "absorption." However, Barrick and Butler's point is one most G&S-bugs forget...all of these forward contracts have "financial closure in lieu of physical delivery" languaging. One has to look no further than Ashanti and Cambior's 16 bank consortium workout at NO interest and NO Margin Call proviso's and infinite time to "work out" as well as deliver...in exchange for a piece of the equity and a few board seats. se le vie gold & platinum_tutor