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 (33204)	5/6/1999 7:41:00 AM
From: donald martin	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 116761

<<could you explain a little bit more what you just wrote?>> Pretty muddled, isn't it? What I was trying to get at is that conventional ideas about "capital flow" don't seem to apply to the post Bre-X metals world. I know one person who was leveraged to the hilt, not in BRE-X, but in other issues, through '96. We haven't spoken in a couple of years, so I don't know if he was wiped out or not. Certainly he can't be much of a buyer these days. And this brushes up, sort of, on where I was meandering in my previous post. You need a healthy buy-side of a market for there to be "capital flow". The 200 million ounces of gold that is NOT going to come out of the Bre-X property...that's nearly 5% of the above ground global gold supply, isn't it?...should've been a big positive for gold. The damage to the buy-side players was too overwhelming. It just makes this market all the more attractive to me. The fundamentals of the gold market itself seem to point to higher long-term prices. (I know, not from a technical standpoint.) And over time the buy-side of the market will get healthier. Just a hunch.