SI
SI
discoversearch

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.
Strategies & Market Trends : The Epic American Credit and Bond Bubble Laboratory -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: mishedlo who wrote (63447)6/12/2006 12:11:10 PM
From: Claude Cormier  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 110194
 
- So what happened to Barrick at $320, $325, $350, $450, $500, $525, $700+?

It cost them $814M in the 1st quarter. But they were able to manage it seems. Don't ask me about this off-balance-sheet accounting, I don't understand it.



To: mishedlo who wrote (63447)6/12/2006 12:43:37 PM
From: russwinter  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 110194
 
Barrick covered much of their hedge position at 500 plus, at year end, which served as a catalyst for the run up in gold.
money.cnn.com

They are idiots, as had a very wide window for several years to do this when gold was 260-325. If I was a miner I'd be hedging some now.



To: mishedlo who wrote (63447)6/12/2006 1:09:34 PM
From: Tommaso  Respond to of 110194
 
Thanks to the experts for answering that. I ws only vaguely aware of what was going on.


HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2026 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News