|
GOLD
BREAKOUT DELAYED
by Jim Willie CB
May 4, 2007
Home:
Golden Jackass website
Subscribe:
Hat Trick
Letter
Jim
Willie CB is the editor of the “HAT TRICK LETTER”
Use the above link to
subscribe to the paid research reports, which include coverage of
several smallcap companies positioned to rise like a cantilever during
the ongoing panicky attempt to sustain an unsustainable system burdened
by numerous imbalances aggravated by global village forces. An
historically unprecedented mess has been created by heretical central
bankers and charlatan economic advisors, whose interference has
irreversibly altered and damaged the world financial system. Analysis
features Gold, Crude Oil, USDollar, Treasury bonds, and inter-market
dynamics with the US Economy and US Federal Reserve monetary policy. A
tad of relevant geopolitics is covered as well. Articles in this series
are promotional, an unabashed gesture to induce readers to subscribe.
All
the conditions were there, a euro currency breakout, a British sterling
currency breakout, and pronounced USDollar weakness. The sterling
exchange rate even hit $2.00 to capture a tremendous amount of
attention. The denials streamed in on how the weaker USDollar is not
such a big deal, which always serves as a confirmation of a dire
situation. Imagine a harlot on a London Piccadilly Square citing her
extra 30 pounds around the haunches, her heavy paint to cover remnants
of faded femininity, the complexion lost long ago, and her deep whisky
voice, as she actually claims she still possesses her intense sexual
spark. The crippled USDollar cannot buck the passage of time and
inexorable destruction through unfettered monetary inflation abuse and
colossal irresponsibility. The protection racket actually open the door
for executive perks which dwarf whatever was condoned at Tyco with
lavish Roman toga parties and gold bathroom fixtures. The world reserve
currency is in the process of upchuck rejection.
GOLD SLAMMED BUT FIRM
Anyone
wondering why gold has not made new highs during a time when the
USDollar is teetering need only look to the official Euro Central Bank gold sales. Thanks to the Gold
Anti-Trust Action (GATA) organization for their steady professional
reporting on activity behind the scenes. Intrepid Blanchard reports the
ECB sold a whopping 76 tonnes of gold bullion in the five weeks ending
April 24-th, including 17 tonnes in the fifth week. That is a huge jump
over their pattern in the last six months. They clearly waited for a
time when the USDollar was exceptionally weak to dump gold. They call it
dishoarding, in blatantly irresponsible fashion, since bullion is bank
collateral for currency, the banking system, and their economy. These
Keystone Gold Cops can only succeed in delaying the inevitable crescendo
of a gold breakout. In the process they will destroy their currencys and
banking systems. New highs for gold come soon!
In
the spring of 2006, when the ECB last dumped a tremendous volume of gold
bullion on the market, the gold price fell from $730 to $550. So the
resilience of gold is vividly clear, powerfully strong. In the same
cited five week time span during the most recent ECB gold dump, gold
actually rose from $640 to $690, only to take a hit and find some
temporarily stability near $680. When official ECB gold sales abate,
look for gold to easily surpass the $700 mark and make new highs.
Pressure is relentless and ECB sales will dwindle. Gold will continue to
be disgorged from the vaults of these crippled and mindless central
banks, intent on supporting an unsustainable fiat system. Experts
believe Western banks are underwritten by gold pledges from the US Dept
of Treasury in what is called in Orwellian style ‘deep storage gold’
to mean future mine output. But there is much more to the story.

THE HEDGED MORON MINERS
Enter
Barrick Gold, self-admitted agents for the Western central banks.
Barrick exited two million ounces of gold forward contracts from its
acidic black hole hedge book in the first quarter of 2007, thus
incurring a whopping $557 million loss. Why a certain prominent Toronto
analyst (who provides excellent information about China regularly)
supports this stock is beyond me. The contract price of exited contracts
was 41% below current gold prices! Barrick fetched a mere $386 per oz in
Q1, 28% below a year ago. The average market gold price during Q1 was
$652.8 per oz. Barrick announced another half a million ounces to be
sold from their hedge book in Q2. In 2006, they exited 9.4 million oz in
gold hedge book contracts, comprising 62% of global total. Without any
doubt, a coordination took place between this scummy company and Western
central banks so as to obstruct any gold rally to new highs. They wanted
at all costs to avert a gathering storm for the USDollar, confirmed by a
gold price explosion. The ECB has agreed to limit its gold bullion sales
to 500 tonnes annually, but experts do NOT expect them to come close to
their permitted limit.
What’s
more, Australian miner Lihir Gold announced a nearly $1 billion
secondary dilutive stock issuance in order to close its hedge book,
repay debt, and fund expansion. They will close a 934.5k ounce forward
contract set at $343/oz, and repay a 480k ounce gold loan at $449/oz,
each a disaster. Together, Barrick and Lihir will remove $1.1 billion in
gold off the market to worsen the critical supply shortage already.
Furthermore, a global survey by Mitsui of 118 producers revealed a 25%
decline in forward contracts sold by gold miners in 2006. So hedging is
lessened, often reversed, when misguided desperate central banks are
running low of bullion to dump, much like secure ballast on a ship at
sea during a big storm.
INELASTICITY IS
HIGHLIGHTED
In a
February 2006 article of mine titled “Inelastic
Gold Supply” (click here),
an attempt was made to explain how gold mine output would not rise in
ANY significant way with a higher gold price. Many factors were covered,
from hedge books to rising costs to labor shortages. WE ARE SEEING THAT
PRECISELY NOW. The recently applied trick for heavily hedged miners (see
Lihir Gold of Australia) is to dilute the stock or to burden the debt
load in order to finance the hedge book buybacks. Either way, the stock
looks less attractive. If energy
firms are not buying back shares instead of investing in their
companies, we see gold miners buying back their acidic hedge books
instead of investing in their companies. Outcry should be shrill and
endless, except that Barrick answers to central banks, not share
holders. And the big energy firms answer to the White House and
Military. The major point is that higher gold price is NOT resulting in
higher gold output. This is the ESSENCE of inelasticity. Barrick and the
other corrupt financial appendages to bankers (I mean miners) testify to
the failure to produce greater amount of gold bullion at higher prices.
An
unflattering portrayal of Barrick Gold was given 15 months ago, now
firmly established. For those Americans who slept through chemisty,
math, and other science classes, if you mix acid with an alkaloid (its
opposite in hydrogen surplus), you get harmless water.
Barrick Gold hedge book
losses have begun now to be quantified. Don't expect setbacks are over
for either this firm or other hedge device abusers. Barrick was once accused of being a financial firm masquerading as a
gold miner, for the unexpressed purpose of selling forward gold
contracts far in excess of actual production. Its entire existence
is an anomaly, most likely from its inception being a corporate illicit
hedge apparatus, a gold cartel tool. Their senior management hailed from
financial firms, not mining firms, and surely not of geologist
background. Their central unstated non-chartered modus operandi was
founded in neglect of their mine operations, sure to exacerbate their
future (like now) gold output. Their reported 13 million gold ounce
short position vastly eclipses any future production schedule, an
outpouring of acid on their balance sheet of as much as $560 million
lost in a single recent quarter. To
put that quantity into perspective, 13 million oz short position exceeds
all gold exchange traded fund (ETF) holdings. In the past six
quarters, try imaging the harsh reality of a $1000 million loss for
Barrick.
Anyone who cannot conclude that
their acquisition of Placer Dome was motivated by a desire to blend acid
with some valid production and cash (alkaloid) is naďve at best or
blind at worst. Their
combined short position is 21 million oz gold. To date, a $3 billion
loss on the Barrick books is staggering, but that amount is likely less
than half of the sum necessary to close out their "ingenious"
hedge book. Again, perspective is needed. Such a cumulative loss over
the years offsets the entire profit generated by Barrick from its
ill-designed inception. One can serve up Barrick in an MBA business
school program as the quintessential hedge disaster in all of history.
My view is that at least one mining firm, and very probably Barrick,
will blow up in the next derivative disaster with full publicity and
notoriety. My conjecture is that Fanny Mae already blew up, but its
publicity has been smothered in secrecy under the aegis of the US
Federal Reserve. My other evil conjecture is that the USFed is illicitly
transforming Fanny Mae mortgage backed bonds into US Treasury Bonds.
Does anyone watch? Does anyone care? Is the law even apply? Are laws
relevant to the game anyway?
Finally, the point to be
gained from this line of thought is that Barrick, like some other gold
miners, has been forced to exhaust its precious cash position. They
have therefore denied themselves needed funds for mining operations, to
satisfy their charter for gold production (seemingly a nuisance), in
order to secure current precious metal output. They aint producing
anywhere near as much gold, silver, and other byproduct metals due to
their greed, stupidity, arrogance, and fractured fallacious phony
business plan. The irony is that first, miners are buyers of gold
contracts in a very very big way. Second,
as the gold price rises, they might actually produce LESS GOLD.
They are being bled dry of cash. A mining stock investor must lick
chops, salivate, and find glee in their highly deserved misery. Overly
hedged gold miners actually produce less with higher prices.
Numerous
points were made in that article of February 2006, each now prominently
cited as part of a systemic problem. At the market bottom, enthusiasm
with demand was absent, typical of an inelastic system. As the market
advances, supply is curiously absent as well, again typical of an
inelastic system. Mine output globally for gold was down in 2006,
despite a higher gold price.
- Most people are
familiar with the basics of the supply & demand curve. Well,
except perhaps economists, who re-invent their craft as they go
along, fully sacrificing time-tested principles as they "sell
out" and defend their interests. Their self-serving analyses
disseminated to the public are routine landscape shrubbery. We are
often subjected to questionable economist arguments... Whenever a
convenient spin is needed on an economic subject, it is alarming how
often either supply or demand is ignored, as an oversight
(unintended or blatant), or a distortion (accidental or planned)
within an argument.
- Anyone who cannot
conclude that their acquisition of Placer Dome was motivated by a
desire to blend acid with some valid production and cash (alkaloid)
is naďve at best or blind at worst. Their
[Barrick & Placer] combined short position is 21 million oz
gold. To date, a $3 billion loss on the Barrick books is
staggering, but that amount is likely less than half of the sum
necessary to close out their "ingenious" hedge book.
- Don Lindsay, CEO of
Teck Cominco, paints a bleak labor picture… Lindsay traced the
origins of the labor shortage back to 1997. According to him, the
feeder systems were disrupted by the Bre-X scandal, the Asian
Meltdown, and the commodity bear market. He expects demand to remain
robust from China. Keep in mind that over two thirds of geologists
in the world hail from Canadian schools. So if professional
shortages exist in Canada, we have a very large problem indeed.
Mirroring the crude oil roughneck labor shortage is the mining labor
shortage. Another parallel exists. Lindsay points out that within a
decade, 60% of all Canadian scientists working the geosciences will
be at least 65 years of age. The overall impact is surely that new
mine deposits will take longer to find, longer to produce, and cost
more.
- Contrast for a
moment to the year 2001, when gold was at its bottom $265 price.
Nobody could … care less, as financial rags ignored the tremendous
bargain, as dealers had to beg customers to purchase the barbarous
relic in any form. So at the lowest price, gold went begging with
little interest. So at the highest price, gold garnered enormous
interest and enthusiasm. That is backwards, grasshopper.
- Let us all rejoice
for the screwed up self-destructive overly hedged gold miners. May
they enjoy a slow death from a thousand cuts as they endlessly cover
their acidic hedge books, and add to relentless demand from their
own folly. It is my theory that they will never fully cover such
hedge books. They will endlessly purchase, endlessly move their
"line in the sand" to incrementally higher price levels,
endlessly avert death by buying a little more time.
FUTURE CONSIDERATIONS
Barrick
is typical of large stodgy producers. Both Barrick and Newmont report
much higher average cost of mining gold per ounce, compared to just a
year ago. Output for Barrick is down also, from 8.6 million oz in 2006
to an expected 8.25moz this year. These large lumbering giants hold back
the HUI stock index, since overweighted. They discover next to nothing,
gobble up smaller firms, acquire their gold (not discovery), and assume
gigantic hedge book losses. In short, they create a false impression for
smaller, smarter, more nimble, and less burdened gold miners to invest
in.
The
nightmare for Barrick Gold is not over. In fact, it is only half
complete. After their desperate grab for Placer Dome, their combined
hedge book was 21 million ounces (moz) gold. In 2006, they covered 9.4
moz on that disastrous millstone around their financial balance sheet
neck. In Q1 they covered 2.0 moz. They state plans to cover another 0.5
moz in the next Q2 quarter. So by mid-2007 they will have covered 11.9
moz of their 21 moz total hedge book. THEY ARE HALF DONE WITH THEIR
NIGHTMARE. So Ing and his ilk still like this acid-ridden firm which
needs tons of milk to form water? Methinks not, as one can smell
compromise.
NEXT: BREAKOUT TOWARD $750
In
the next few weeks, gold will cut through the $700 price mark like a
quiet hot knife. It would have done so already, if not for the COLLUSION
between Barrick and Western central banks. The Euro Central Bank cannot
keep its pace of official gold sales. They will undoubtedly NOT SELL as
much as the corrupt Washington Accord dictates as allowable. This is
much more destructive than burning the home furniture for winter heat.
It is akin to burning the wooden support beams, burning the wooden load
bearing pillars, burning the basement den, burning the recreation room,
destroying the entire foundation to the home!!! The contractors are the
corrupt gold miners who masquerade as miners, but are actually gold
cartel agents. Imagine the wisdom of selling off your entire collateral
for the currency and banking system, in utter desperation, hopelessness,
and anguish!!! Keep up the hedge book covering, guys. We have been
counting on you for a couple years. Continue to sop up and exhaust
supply, wherever it comes from. BECAUSE WHEN YOU GUYS REST (COVERING
HEDGES, DUMPING ECB GOLD BULLION), GOLD WILL ZIP EVER HIGHER. Its
destiny is to do so.

©
2007 Jim Willie, CB
Editorial
Archive
Jim
Willie CB is a statistical analyst in marketing research and retail
forecasting. He holds a Ph.D. in
Statistics. His career has
stretched over 24 years. He
aspires to thrive in the financial editor world, unencumbered by the
limitations of economic credentials. Visit his free website to find articles from topflight authors at
www.GoldenJackass.com.
For personal questions about subscriptions, contact him
at “JimWillieCB@aol.com”
The
opinions of FSU contributors do not necessarily reflect those of
Financial Sense. |