Crocodilian

Is Barrick Responsible for $1,000 Gold?

On Sep 10 07:43 PM Andrew Butter wrote:

> Good article and good sleuthing.
>
> No one sends hate mail like the gold bugs.
>
> What I think is significant is you only got 16 hate mails, last time
> I said something rude about gold I got 50, could that mean gold >is going to go down?
----------------------...

Wow, you know Andrew, that's a clever idea. I tend to ignore the cranky comments, but there may well be an some interesting sentiment data in them. It never occurred to me to do frequency analysis on the inane, but one does suspect that so long as we keep hearing "Goldman-bankster-vampire squid-fiat currency" the market will keep going up.

Is Barrick Responsible for $1,000 Gold?

One wonders how this $1.9 Billion cost affects Barrick's breakeven: they have previously stated that their breakeven is [was] at least $700 an ounce: clearly it must now be significantly higher.

Not positive for the stock, or for gold, IMO. Had they wanted to let their hedges roll off without replacement would be one thing, but to spend real dollars to terminate them is a speculation on the price of gold, not a business decision.