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 : MIRANDOR-MIQ ON MONTREAL -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: saul mikaliukas who wrote (2146)	9/2/1998 11:08:00 AM
From: Mike Paulin	Respond to of 2635

Thanks Saul. eom .

To: saul mikaliukas who wrote (2146)	9/2/1998 6:08:00 PM
From: Sailfish	Respond to of 2635

Hello Saul... You may be correct and I certainly hope you are... However, there's another reason why Trimark recently bought those 300K shares of Kinross ... It's called leveraging... For example, why didn't Trimark not buy ABX instead...?? The 300K of Kinross(if they were purchased at the opening price today of $3) would have cost them $900,000 Now, if they had bought $900,000 worth of ABX at this morning's opening price of $20.90, they would have received 43,062 shares for the same amount of dough (I'm not factoring commissions into this scenario because they should be about the same in both cases)... Let's say that gold will recover to it's recent high when Kinross' 52 week high was approx $7 and ABX's 52 week high was approx $35 and that both stocks returned to these highs... That would mean Trimark made $4 x 300,000 = $1,200,000 on the Kinross purchase... It would also mean that Trimark would have only made $14.10 x 43,062 = $607,174 if they had purchased ABX.. So, I believe that is why Trimark recently purchased that 300,000 shares of Kinross as was reported... The same scenario would apply to any other of the major gold companies... Just my opinion... And the beat goes on... Regards....Ray