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.

Strategies & Market Trends : The coming US dollar crisis -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Secret_Agent_Man who wrote (22661)	9/9/2009 4:26:53 PM
From: Elroy Jetson	3 Recommendations Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 71456

Barrick Gold executives were pessimistic about the price of gold at $350 an ounce. Now they're feverishly optimistic about the future price of gold, now that the price is $985. History suggests you can make good money by taking a view contrary to these wrong-headed executives. Don't catch the fever. .

To: Secret_Agent_Man who wrote (22661)	9/9/2009 8:29:14 PM
From: Nevada9999	1 Recommendation Respond to of 71456

If the hedge contracts were settled for cash, it really doesn't sound positive for gold. Someone who could have demanded delivery of gold has accepted cash instead. I suspect Barrick got a good deal to do this now and the counterparty got cash now instead of gold over time. This deal may have resolved some otherwise unresolvable tightness in the physical market, but that is speculation. Now Barrick will be delivering into the spot market. Anything involving Barrick is usually bad for gold. I think gold goes higher in the coming months, but not necessarily right now.

To: Secret_Agent_Man who wrote (22661)	9/10/2009 4:32:51 AM
From: RockyBalboa	2 Recommendations Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 71456

While the economic result being correctly described the basis is so utterly wrong and twists the facts. Here´s why: It is correct that barrick did not deliver gold, but rather negotiated a break up the contracts by cashing out the counterparty; and since it didn´t have that kind of money available it needed to place stock. To repeat, Barrick has not defaulted on its gold deliveries. Barricks contracts had delivery dates further out none of which was met today. So, technically there are no grounds to deliver gold today. Rather, Barrick faced an ordinary margin call where the counterparty demanded additional collateral, something which is entirely legal if a derivative contract goes underwater. This did happen earlier and nearly sank Ashanti Gold. What could barrick do? Instead of stating that it has been met with a margin call it could not meet, it tried to spin the facts into something less negative, "We want to get out of our hedges because we are so bullish"... this and that makes me even more bearish on gold since counterparties just pushed it to see some blood, i.e. cash.