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 : HONG KONG -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: David C. Parker who wrote (2686)	2/22/1999 11:39:00 AM
From: Tom	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 2951

Appreciate it, David. I'll check it out.

To: David C. Parker who wrote (2686)	2/23/1999 11:38:00 PM
From: Tom	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 2951

OT The article is as I have known Mr. Wyatt to be -- a good advisory. And, yes, very interesting. He warned a few years ago in a column about unregistered silver stocks of significant size in above-ground warehouses, and that traders should be on their toes for a price-rally that would end very suddenly and swiftly when these warehouses were let into the marketplace. I heeded the warning and passed it along. The warning was not well received by all that it reached. Some were caught flat-footed when the price of silver did correct suddenly and swiftly, and I rarely alert anyone about metals prices anymore. Stephen Wyatt's is a round warning, I think; even though the title certainly doesn't suggest that. However, as Faber indicates, gold as "insurance" is not such a bad idea at the present time. It has certainly assisted me within the past year. Production cost wasn't mentioned. It should be said that when mining is forced to scale-back production or go off-line for an extended period (one that bridges contracts), the market price of the mined material reacts predictably to the up-side. Some producers have been affected to that extent, but their numbers are diluted by increases in production elsewhere. The cutbacks are, therefor, not significant as yet. Additionally, were the price of gold to correct as deeply as is suggested in the article, many would be forced to abandon production altogether. We should then take particular notice of the London fix. More and more I'm reminded of how the price per ounce has a history of correcting to production cost, and am convinced the current circumstances emanate from the down-component of such a cycle. I'm also convinced of a concerted effort to suppress the price. The effort is committed of course to favor the paper currencies. Paper provides liquidity, liquidity is supporting economic growth; and economic growth is an absolute necessity for military deployment of the type we are witnessing. Others see it differently, I'm certain. In any case, thanks again for the point-out. -----