The depression will end as it always does, when the savers start spending again. Mow if you are a saver what looks like the safest place to move your savings toward? When gold starts exhibiting momentum as inevitably it will, money will be coming out of treasuries which will be losing value as interest rates go up due to inflation and... blah blah blah!
Gold: Not an Effective Hedge Against Inflation [View article]
The real question is not what an ounce of gold returns against other investments; it is what does an ounce of gold buy today and what does $35 dollars buy today vs. in 1935?
Surprising Call for Return to the Gold Standard [View article]
I agree; we're most interested in a blockbuster quarter than in building a company!
On Nov 19 08:25 AM Black Rain wrote:
> My theory is our current mess is GREED! It appears to me that risk > has been mis-aligned with senior executive compensation. There is > simply too much incentive to drive corporate earnings at any cost. > > > Most compensation is in the form of stock options. When you are a > CEO you only care about driving the earnings of your company during > your tenure. There is no long-term consequences to taking outsized > risks -- all of the risk lies with the shareholders if you put the > company on a path to destruction that will play out years down the > road. > > When you retire, the guy behind you (next CEO) has to take even bigger > risks in order to keep driving earnings upward at an increasing pace > to make HIS stock options pay off. Rinse and repeat as you go through > multiple CEO's and you have a perfect recipe for overleveraging your > balance sheet and taking unwarranted risks to drive as much short > term earnings as you can. > > I think this is what caused Alan Greenspan to question his belief > in the system. His view of the system was that companies would have > a motivated interest in their own survival that would prevent them > from doing the absurdly stupid. But how can that be when you are > going to increase top CEO compensation from the normal $5M - $10M > to $10s or 100s of millions for a few extra nickels and dimes of > earnings today? The only way to achieve this would be to increase > the risk your company is taking . . .
The 7 'Golden Rules' of Picking a Gold Stock [View article]
Northgate has a negative cash cost to mine its gold courtesy of copper extracted. When Young Davidson comes on line it will have 4 productive mines and about 15+ years of mining life. (And mines have a way of extending their lives). The company also has a nice cash reserve and is in safe locations politically (Canada and Australia). The only thing not to like is their copper is hedged 2nd half of 2009 thru 1st half 2010 @ $2.50 a lb.
Why Gold Juniors Have Not Yet Popped [View article]
Does anyone know a good warrants play in precious metals? I remember when no one wanted Agnico Eagle warrants at $2 and they went to $40? PS: the high cost producers and the juniors with provable reserves will eventually quadruple from here. When they do, that's the end of this PM cycle. Meanwhile base metals and dry bulk shipper paying nice dividends should work over a longer time period.
Pursuant to ur article, what do u think of Northgate Minerals. I am getting frustrated as a long time holder. I profitably transferred some money out my position into Aurizon a while back. I now understand a little of the reason for the present price disparity but don't know whether AZK is over valued or NXG is undervalued?
Gold Will Shine in 2009 (Part II) [View article]
When gold starts exhibiting momentum as inevitably it will, money will be coming out of treasuries which will be losing value as interest rates go up due to inflation and... blah blah blah!
Gold: Not an Effective Hedge Against Inflation [View article]
Surprising Call for Return to the Gold Standard [View article]
On Nov 19 08:25 AM Black Rain wrote:
> My theory is our current mess is GREED! It appears to me that risk
> has been mis-aligned with senior executive compensation. There is
> simply too much incentive to drive corporate earnings at any cost.
>
>
> Most compensation is in the form of stock options. When you are a
> CEO you only care about driving the earnings of your company during
> your tenure. There is no long-term consequences to taking outsized
> risks -- all of the risk lies with the shareholders if you put the
> company on a path to destruction that will play out years down the
> road.
>
> When you retire, the guy behind you (next CEO) has to take even bigger
> risks in order to keep driving earnings upward at an increasing pace
> to make HIS stock options pay off. Rinse and repeat as you go through
> multiple CEO's and you have a perfect recipe for overleveraging your
> balance sheet and taking unwarranted risks to drive as much short
> term earnings as you can.
>
> I think this is what caused Alan Greenspan to question his belief
> in the system. His view of the system was that companies would have
> a motivated interest in their own survival that would prevent them
> from doing the absurdly stupid. But how can that be when you are
> going to increase top CEO compensation from the normal $5M - $10M
> to $10s or 100s of millions for a few extra nickels and dimes of
> earnings today? The only way to achieve this would be to increase
> the risk your company is taking . . .
Credit Markets and the Price of Gold [View article]
Gold Miners: Amazingly Cheap [View article]
Will Gold Break Out? [View article]
Why I'm Re-Establishing My Gold Position [View article]
The 7 'Golden Rules' of Picking a Gold Stock [View article]
Bullish on All Metals [View article]
Why Gold Juniors Have Not Yet Popped [View article]
PS: the high cost producers and the juniors with provable reserves will eventually quadruple from here. When they do, that's the end of this PM cycle. Meanwhile base metals and dry bulk shipper paying nice dividends should work over a longer time period.
Finding Value in Gold Stocks [View article]