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.
Gold/Mining/Energy : Gold Price Monitor -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: lorne who wrote (4909)12/29/1997 7:22:00 PM
From: goldsnow  Respond to of 116762
 
(UPDATE) Some Gold Firms See Glitter In Rivals' Cheap Stocks

Dow Jones Online News, Monday, December 29, 1997 at 03:19

By Bob Ortega
Staff Reporter of The Wall Street Journal
Gold companies are down, but they aren't out of the action.
Last week, Homestake Mining Co. said it agreed to acquire Plutonic
Resources Ltd. of Sydney, Australia, for $640 million in stock. And
several other, mostly large gold companies say they are exploring
acquisitions.
Gold stocks generally have been beaten up as the price of gold has
fallen below $300 an ounce to 18-year lows. But the most efficient gold
companies see a chance to snap up promising reserves at reasonable
prices, which could help cut their production costs. "We see this as an
opportunity to pick up some good properties," said Karen Gross, a vice
president at Royal Gold Inc. of Denver. "We're looking all over."
Prudential Securities Inc. analyst J. Clarence Morrison said he sees
Amax Gold Inc., Echo Bay Mines Ltd., Getchell Gold Corp., Crown
Resources Corp., Golden Star Resources Ltd. and TVX Gold Inc. as
potential targets. Many of these companies, along with other U.S.,
Canadian and Australian producers, are shutting down less-efficient
mines, laying off workers, deferring projects and cutting back on
exploration.
Echo Bay Mines, for instance, will lay off 100 of 450 workers at its
McCoy/Cove mine in Nevada in January, with another 20 to 30 layoffs to
follow next year, said a spokeswoman. Two development projects will be
deferred. "Everything is being reviewed across the board," she said.
Getchell Gold, Denver, recently announced it would lay off 100
employees, one-fifth of its work force. "That makes them look more
attractive for a possible takeover," said Michele Stell, managing
director of the Denver Gold Group, a trade association.
Some companies are seen as potential predator and prey. Amax Gold of
Denver is viewed as a takeover target not only because of its attractive
assets, but also because its stock has been battered, falling below $2 a
share in early December, from $7.625 a share last February. But Amax
says it is looking for additional properties even as it cuts spending.
The company benefits from a hedging program that allows it to get $25 to
$30 an ounce over the spot price. And it produces gold at an average
cost of less than $200 an ounce, thanks largely to two new mines in
Alaska and Russia with average production costs of $190 an ounce. "We've
worked hard on our costs for times just like these," said spokesman Mike
Rounds.
Battle Mountain Gold Co., Houston, also has positioned itself to
weather the storm while looking for good deals. The company closed three
mines in the last year and will close a Chilean mine in January. Battle
Mountain cut its exploration budget for next year to $25 million from
$35 million and narrowed its targets to eight countries from 16. Still,
said Ian Bayer, president and chief executive officer, "We believe we
can grow in this environment." The company would pay for any acquisition
in stock rather than cash, Mr. Bayer said.
Some analysts said that Homestake's purchase of Plutonic shows that
acquisitions these days are likely to use stock rather than cash; buyers
will need their cash reserves to develop whatever properties they
acquire. And while stock prices are low, even for healthier companies,
Ms. Stell said potential acquirees aren't likely to balk at stock
because of its high potential for rebound.
And many higher-cost mining companies are in such straits "that it
would be difficult for their shareholders to avoid taking stock if a
deal came along that was attractive," said Mr. Morrison of Prudential.
The most attractive targets have proven low-cost reserves that would
lower the acquiring company's average production cost. Daniel McConvey,
an analyst at Goldman Sachs who doesn't expect a gold rebound soon, said
that Canadian and Australian accounting rules don't usually allow
acquiring companies to pool their accounting with companies they buy;
that gives U.S. gold companies a financial edge because they don't have
to write off acquisition premiums as goodwill.
But analysts don't expect a raft of purchases because many of the
available properties may be too expensive to develop at current prices.
"We're looking for our next property," said William Reid, president and
chief executive officer of U.S. Gold, a small Golden, Colo., company
with a 40% stake in one mine not yet in production. "But we'll have to
be much more selective."
Meanwhile, at least two of the biggest companies most often touted as
potential buyers, Newmont Mining Corp. and Barrick Gold Corp., say they
aren't actively shopping.
Newmont, the biggest gold-mining concern outside of South Africa,
also is one of the lowest-cost gold producers, with an average cost of
about $188 an ounce. But Newmont executives, thinking that the low gold
prices wouldn't last, didn't engage in much forward-selling, so now they
are concentrating on cutting costs.
Newmont cut its quarterly dividend Dec. 2 to three cents from 12
cents a share, which would save it $60 million over a year. Doug Hock, a
spokesman, said the company may defer a planned joint venture in
Uzbekistan, and may trim its exploration budget for next year from $102
million this year, though it is not clear by how much. Mr. Hock said any
cuts won't affect the company's Nevada operations, its massive Batu
Hijau project in Indonesia, or its Minera Yanacocha mine in Peru, which
will produce one million ounces of gold this year at a cash cost of $97
an ounce.
Barrick Gold, Toronto, said it plans to buy back as many as 31
million shares, or 8.3%, of its shares outstanding, because it believes
they are undervalued.
In a recent meeting with analysts, Barrick said the buyback made more
sense than acquisitions. Barrick, which has perhaps the most aggressive
hedging program of any gold producer, locked in prices of more than $400
an ounce for about 10 million ounces of its future gold production,
helping insulate it from the fall in prices. Still, it took a
third-quarter charge of $385 million to close five mines in the U.S. and
Chile. At the same time, Barrick is spending $260 million to build its
Pierina mine in Peru, which it expects will produce 750,000 ounces of
gold a year at a cost of less than $100 an ounce, beginning next year.
One big company still on the prowl is Homestake. While some analysts
said the 86% premium it paid over Plutonic's closing price Friday was
too much, Jack E. Thompson, president and chief executive officer, said
the purchase will cut Homestake's cost of production to about $225 an
ounce next year from about $240. Mr. Thompson said Homestake continues
to court other companies, and might make other acquisitions next year.
Copyright (c) 1997 Dow Jones & Company, Inc.
All Rights Reserved.



To: lorne who wrote (4909)12/29/1997 7:40:00 PM
From: goldsnow  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 116762
 
Lorne, to follow CB's and gold flow, IMO is very curbesome and
not productive. The mining people are also very tricky..
As pointed-out by other people on the thread that on one hand
Mr. Munk can talk the gold-up, and on another sell gold forward.. That
is not necessarily a contradiction, as Mr Munk has other issues at hand-outsmart the competition, snap properties on a cheap and
so on.. as long as shareholders allow..(usually major firms and banks)
However Mr. Munk has also many cards in his hand..the best indicator
that the tide has turned and that producers smell blood are impending aquisitions that would come in waves for a reason, PDG's and ABX's
would not want to come to the plate second or look silly..that is why
it is rare that seniors would jump ahead of juniors, but that would
suggest that they are so incredibly undervalued that even bears are trying to look over the fence..very bullish IMHO, more so juniors
are just about to comlete tax-selling season and many have survived
with cash on hand.. Couple of HM type of moves and January rally should begin..I agree with people not expecting major move 60-100+
until EMU clears-up or becomes so confused that would make no sense at all, not that it does now..



To: lorne who wrote (4909)12/30/1997 6:53:00 AM
From: lorne  Respond to of 116762
 
Gold steadies after Monday fall, could head lower
06:13 a.m. Dec 30, 1997 Eastern

LONDON, Dec 30 (Reuters) - Gold steadied on Tuesday after Monday's four-dollar fall, hovering above $290 an ounce as analysts and dealers offered scant hope it would hold that level for long.

Gold fixed at $290.90 an ounce in the morning, down from Monday afternoon's $293.05, as the spot held steady during early European trade. With spot gold last below Monday's London close of $291.80/$292.30, analysts saw it going lower.

''They already tried it in December when it came very low. I think $280 was the target, everybody was speaking about it and speculators are really looking to get it,'' said Michael Wagner, chief trader in Frankfurt for brokers Brandeis.

Wagner saw no imminent change in the picture for gold mining output, saying the sector would not act as any sort of saviour for gold while current production continued.

''The supply side does not influence the market at all for the moment. There are a few announcements (of mine closures) but we have also seen some mergers so we may see new mining companies, with lower costs, producing nearly the same amount of gold as the old ones,'' he said.

''I could see the supply dropping in two or three months time,'' he said.

Wagner added that economic problems in Southeast Asia had damaged demand there and foresaw net exports from some countries if dishoarding continued.

Part of the reason for gold's faltering efforts came from continued dollar strength against the Australian unit, the latter still buffeted by the knock-on effects of Asian financial troubles on commodity prices and regional sentiment.

The Australian dollar was last at A$0.6535/40 against the U.S. currency, still within the $0.6490/6605 range held for the last fortnight and waiting for pointers.

If holed on the downside, it could challenge the 10-year low of $0.6410/20 of October 1993 and possibly the deep 60 cent trough touched in 1987, a prospect local miners would grab with relief given current U.S.-denominated gold prices.

That effect was evident in Hong Kong, where local dealers saw gold's rally to nearly $297.00 on Christmas Eve snuffed out by renewed producer selling.

''We hear that producers are selling the market at $295-$297,'' said one Hong Kong trader.

As for the rest of the precious metal complex, only palladium moved significantly from its Monday close in early trade, putting on $7.00 to reach $204.00/$206.00 an ounce.