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

To: Bobby Yellin who wrote (33197)	5/5/1999 6:39:00 PM
From: Enigma	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 116760

"ps if that is right and if Peter Munk was one of the few who knew that BRE-X was a fraud..what are the implications if any?" Flawed premise - Barrick hadn't done its dd on Bre-X - and would have done so just as Freeport did - as soon as they signed a deal with Bre-X and the other parties. They may have had their doubts, but the prize seemed to be so rich, that it was worth signing a deal subject to the usual escape clauses. Munk realises they had a lucky escape (not even that really - who thinks the worst of Freeport now?) - if you knew anything about Peter Munk you would know that he would not want to get into anything fraudulent - his reputation is most important to him, and he would have, simply, have had far too much to lose, and this has its roots in his early business history in Canada. d

To: Bobby Yellin who wrote (33197)	5/5/1999 6:54:00 PM
From: donald martin	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 116760

Morgy, You've touched on something in your BRE-X discussion that intrigued me some time ago. This is in a somewhat different direction. I started following Bema Gold when it fell below US$2. From the end of September '97 to the end of November '97, BGO went from 4 15/16 to 1 15/16. That's in the ball park of $300 million in market cap. I've grown very accustomed to commentators making the statement over and over again about capital "flowing" out of one sector or stock and into another. The average volume of BOG for October '97 was under 500,000 shares per day. For November '97 it was under 750,000. I forget exactly how many trading days there were, but just eye-balling the numbers I'd guess that's a total of ~25,000,000 shares at an average price (being generous) of $4...so $100 million in capital "flow" resulted in a change of market cap of $300 million? That's not capital flow. That's capital destruction. (The other flaw I see in using "flow" to describe markets is that, for every seller there is a buyer...even if it's a buyer at a lower price. There is no net capital flow.) When Mikey (or whoever it was) fell out of the helicopter, I too thought it'd be good for gold (all that gold wouldn't be coming to market). I don't give Peter Munk credit for knowing that everyone and his brother would cop the "I'll never buy another mining stock again" attitude. On the other hand, we all know that these small outfits need a constant supply of capital to stay in business...capital supplied by folks who bought Bre-X.

To: Bobby Yellin who wrote (33197)	5/5/1999 7:14:00 PM
From: goldsnow	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 116760

Bre-x was good for gold long-term not because of "no supply from Indonesian hoax" but because Bre-x coupled with Asia/commodity cycle shut exploration as we knew it....Result? All these aquisitions but no new gold... Very bullish long term...and great opportunity that is just about to expire completely..:)