To: Claude Cormier who wrote (93917 ) 3/3/2003 8:12:58 PM From: d:oug Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 116753 NY Times examines Barrick's hedging and Blanchard's lawsuit . To: SiDougak@zol.com Date: 3/2/03 [GATA] From: GATAComm @ aol.com Source: groups.yahoo.com group gata . Dear Friends of GATA and Gold: . Barrick Gold's lagging share price and Blanchard & Co.'s antitrust lawsuit against Barrick and J.P. Morgan Chase for manipulating the gold price made a big story in today's New York Times, which is appended here.... . Note particularly the description in the Times story of Barrick's "spot deferred" forward sales of gold, apparently based on information provided by Barrick itself. It often has been reported elsewhere that Barrick could postpone for as long as 15 years its repayment of this borrowed gold. But the Times story says Barrick can postpone delivery virtually forever: .. "In addition, if the dealer agrees, Barrick can 'reset' the time limit every year, starting the clock over on the 15-year deadline. If the dealer refuses, which Barrick says has never happened, delivery would be required 14 years later." . That is, Barrick's counterparty has never refused to postpone repayment of its gold loans. . Now who possibly wouldn't mind if a gold loan was never repaid? Certainly not a conventional financial institution. But maybe a central bank whose first objective was to suppress the gold price through intermediaries like Morgan Chase and Barrick? . Maybe the author of the Times story, Kurt Eichenwald, could be persuaded to look into the gold story a little deeper -- starting with the question of exactly who wouldn't mind if Barrick's gold loans are never repaid. . CHRIS POWELL, Secretary/Treasurer Gold Anti-Trust Action Committee Inc. * * * Gold is on the rise, so what's bugging Barrick? . By KURT EICHENWALD The New York Times Sunday, March 3, 2003 --- All the best, Bill Murphy Le Patron, Le Metropole Cafe