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.

Pastimes : The Big Picture - Economics and Investing -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: The Vet who wrote (482)	12/2/1997 6:17:00 PM
From: Greg R	Respond to of 686

That is interesting. I took a look at Barrick. They have also hedged two years of production into the future or another 6 million ounces. barrick.com If gold is too cheap, why wouldn't they consider buying cheap gold and selling. Perhaps that is part of the reason they are not concerned about lost production capacity by closing mines.

To: The Vet who wrote (482)	12/3/1997 7:35:00 AM
From: Sid Turtlman	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 686

The Vet: " your figure on the CB's gold is a little high, even if the banks actually really had the gold that they claim to have." My source is the Nov. 22 issue of The Economist, in its "Economics Focus" column: "Central banks and international financial institutions such as the IMF own more than 35,000 tonnes of the shiny metal, equivalent to 30% of all the gold ever mined and to 18 years of world mine production." The point is that even if every mine in the world shut down, there is still plenty of it around in the hands of those who may rather own something earning interest. It might be unwise for the banks to sell it in the long run, but when have bankers ever been wise?