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 : Precious and Base Metal Investing -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: jimsioi who wrote (18820)	8/30/2003 7:45:12 PM
From: The Vet	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 39344

CEF (gold and silver bullion fund) - 13.21% The problem with closed end funds like this is that there is absolutely no pressure for the fund to track the NAV. It's a bit like RANGY which has traded for months way below its NAV which is easily calculated from its 43% holding of GOLD (Rangold Resources) which works out that on NAV RANGY should trade at somewhere north of $18 (last time I calculated it) when the market gives it $13. Similarily with CEF. There is no connection that the shareholder can make with the NAV so in fact it can trade anywhere that the market takes it. The advantage of the open exchange traded gold funds is that the shareholder has the option of exchanging his shares directly for metal or alternatively holders of metal can exchange them for shares. This ensures that the NAV and the share price stay very close at all times. See the following to see how it works... goldbullion.com.au I see that the US markets hate the idea (too much competition for the entrenched player and it will make gold a real market force) so they won't approve anything this radical besides it's NIH (Not Invented Here)...