ABX /Barrick Gold: une bombe à retardement

Barrick Gold/ABX est une vraie bombe à retardement :depuis le tps qu'on le dit !


Source midas

Barrick Gold is a ticking time bomb … from Auckland Ed:

Hi Bill:
Any news about the Barrick hedge book? The following comments by Placer Dome in urging shareholders to reject the Barrick bid reveals that Barrick had an unrealized loss of $2.4 Billion as of Sept 30th. Well Gold is now $50 higher. In my calculations are correct and Gold holds these prices, then Barrick's Mark to market loss will exceed $3 Billion by Dec 31st. Their bankers must be about to panic seeing these kinds of numbers. Barrick is short 420 tonnes of Gold. Cheers from Auckland, Ed

Reject the Barrick Offer Conference Call Transcript

"The second issue is that their financial performance has been partially driven by deferring delivery of gold into their hedge positions. Barrick’s strategy of continuing to push 13.6 million ounces of gold hedges into the future is inconsistent with their statements to shareholders that they think the goldmarket will remain strong.

This strategy continues to mortgage the future for the benefit of short term results. The growing financial obligation that they have been accruing is significant. As of September 30, 2005, Barrick’s unrealized mark-to-market loss on installed hedges was $2.4 billion.

The average current price of their positions is about $300 per ounce or $190 per ounce below current spot prices. We do not believe the state of Barrick’s hedge book is well understood by investors. As you know, we have gold hedge position as well. But we told investors that we would reduce it consistently over time and we’ve done just that. We will reduce our hedge book by 1.5 million ounces this year or 17%. Our shareholders have taken the opportunity of cost sharing this year and that cost should not be borne for the benefit of Barrick.

So far in 2005, Barrick has delivered 400,000 ounces into their gold hedges at $375 per ounce. Clearly they’re delivering an immaterial amount of goldinto their hedges, 3% of their book year-to-date and clearly they are delivering only the higher priced positions. Both of these factors have enabled Barrick to report better financial results in the near term possibly at the expense of longer term performance."

-END-

et oui ... et la ça sort de "la bouche " des gens de chez placer dome ... qui sont tb placés pour connaitre le risque d'une exposition trop lourde aux ventes à terme d'or ... et qui annoncent des chiffres de short gold pour barrick dont vous n'avez même pas idée ! .

Citation :

-prix moyen des hedges = 300 $


-au 30 sept 2005 , pertes potentielles sur la position short : 2.4 milliards de $

etc etc

some more , source Midas ..

__________

Save this one for down the road. The combined Barrick/Placer Doom hedgebook is more than $4 billion underwater. At some point it is likely to be $8 billion underwater. At the moment the banks carrying their positions are going to get very nervous. At that moment the banks are fine. However, when substantial market chaos kicks in down the road, the credit committees at the banks are likely to become very nervous about counterparty risk.

On the other hand, if the US Government is behind these hedges, Morgan won’t sweat much at all. Shareholder gloom is another story.

Big Barrick-Placer hedgebook manageable - analysts

Wed Dec 28, 2005 3:10 PM ET

TORONTO, Dec 28 (Reuters) - Analysts are recommending that Placer Dome Inc. shareholders tender their shares to Barrick Gold Corp.'s sweetened takeover offer and seem unperturbed by the combined company's big hedgebook.

If the $10.4 billion acquisition succeeds, Barrick will inherit Placer's hedgebook, which sits at around 8 million ounces of gold. This will push the total of Barrick's forward sales contracts to around 21 million ounces from about 12.9 million -- representing the largest hedgebook in the industry.

John Ing, president of Maison Placements Canada, said Barrick's strategy will be to either deliver into the gold contracts or buy them back.

"Unfortunately, we have a rising gold price. That makes the task difficult," he said in a recent interview.

"If you mark-to-market the portfolios together, you are looking at multibillion mark-to-market losses, particularly with gold at $500-plus."

He added: "Unquestionably (the hedgebook) is a challenge, but with a combined balance sheet it should be less of a challenge."

The merger of the two Canadian miners would create the world's largest gold producer.

Hedging, through which producers fix prices for their metal using forward sales and/or options, fell out of favor with investors when the gold price started to rise late in 2001.

Although hedging protects miners when the gold price is low, it has also prevented some producers from fully benefiting from the price rally. On the year, the price of gold is up 20 percent at around $510 an ounce amid inflation worries and as investors diversify into the safe-haven metal from currencies.

For Barrick, its strategy remains the same: to reduce the hedgebook. But exactly how and when, no one knows at this point.

Currently, 14 percent of Barrick's reserves are hedged, including those allocated to Pascua-Lama, which is an unmined project in South America. Around 13 percent of Placer's reserves are hedged.

Kerry Smith, an analyst with Haywood Securities said that Barrick's large hedgebook is manageable.

"It's not that problematic," he said. "Right now Barrick has a big hedgebook. What the new strategy is, I can't speak to that."

Robert Mantse, vice-president with DBRS, said the debt rating agency is very comfortable with the combined company's hedgebook.

"Looking at it from a debt perspective, we are comfortable with their position," said Mantse, the head of DBRS's mining and metals group. "It works out to about 15 percent of annual production, so you still have quite a bit of upside, but you've got that insurance on the downside."

He added: "Don't forget it's 10 years out and a lot can happen with the gold price over 10 years."

Last week, Placer agreed to be taken over by Barrick after Barrick sweetened its offer to $22.50 a share from $20.50. The offer expires Jan. 19.

-END-

Note the comment about Barrick reducing their hedge book. They say they are going to reduce it, but they are not. What are they waiting for $600 gold? Perhaps they are waiting for the Placer deal to go through. Then, they can delight shareholders with a quarterly report which will show gold sold at $330 instead of $520. Think about how mining costs have risen since they hedged a bunch of their forward production when gold was below $300 per ounce.

le point de Ted Butler sur le sujet ..

que dire de +? fire

sinon que j'approuve totalement ces propos chiffrés et extremement précis .. ce qui n'est pas une surprise de la part d'un master comme l'est Ted Butler ..


bourrique est tristement connue pour avoir mis en oeuvre la "gestion" baissiere de l'once d'or avec le bien connu GS...

en dehors de toutes autres considérations maintes fois postées ici et ailleurs .. ce simple fait est pour ma part tout simplement rédhibitoire

je n'investis pas dans une boite qui joue contre mes intérets ... simple bon sens ...

sans même parler de l'action hautement frauduleuse sousjacente ... évidemment ..

lire plus particuliérement les § soulignés par mes soins :


-en bleu pour barrick
- et en violet pour apex ( sil )

$ qui soulignent les motifs de notre position négative sur ces 2 valeurs ..

________


January 3, 2006


Lessons Learned?

By Theodore Butler



Just this morning, my wife informed me that she just had a telephone conversation with an old friend who passed along regards for me, as well as the comment that she noticed gold had moved up quite a bit and how she hoped I wasn’t feeling too bad because silver hadn’t. When I told my wife that silver had gone up even more than gold, she was genuinely surprised, as I’m sure her friend would have been.

With 2005 now history, we can speak with precision about what occurred over the past year. The most obvious is to record and note actual price performance. For the year, silver appreciated 30% in price. This gain was 50% greater than the almost 20% increase in the price of gold. To the casual observer this might have been somewhat surprising, given the amount of publicity given to gold. But silver investors have learned to take it in stride, content with profits and value and not headlines, as silver has outperformed gold in each of the past three years

In fact, silver has cumulatively outperformed the other popular precious metals (gold, platinum and palladium) over the past three years by a wide margin, with the three-year return on silver close to almost double the equivalent gain in gold, 50% greater than platinum and almost 7 times the gain in palladium. Considering the value and fundamentals of silver, I would think that the out performance of silver compared to other precious metals (and all other natural resources) should become a regular feature in the years to come. By the time you do see silver in the headlines, the out performance should be astounding.

But, I am not using the occasion of the closing of the books on 2005 to showcase silver’s price performance. I have another thought in mind. The end of the calendar year is also the occasion for marking-to-market on a wide variety of derivatives transactions. While it will be several weeks until the publicly traded mining companies report official year-end hedge book results, it is the closing prices of December 30 that will determine those results, plus any positions that were added or liquidated during the third quarter.

I’m going to go out on a limb here and talk about two companies in particular, even though there could have been trading changes during the quarter that cause my figures to be wide of the mark. I don’t think there have been major changes and the situation is serious enough that I don’t want to wait until the companies report to get my message out. If there have been major changes that render my numbers way off, I will acknowledge my error, if and when that becomes obvious. In the meantime, I just don’t want to wait.

The first company I want to write about is Barrick Gold, which is scheduled to become the largest gold mining company in the world by virtue of its merger with Placer Dome. On December 30, that merger was not consummated, so the figures I will discuss apply to Barrick without Placer, although also being a hedger, the addition of Placer to Barrick will only increase the numbers I quote.

Barrick Gold is the largest gold hedger in the world, holding a short hedge position of almost 13 million ounces. In the last quarter alone, because the price of gold increased by roughly $43, Barrick should record a mark-to-market loss of $560 million on its gold short hedge. The loss for the year and half-year comes to a cool billion dollars. This should increase the total outstanding loss on Barrick hedge book to just shy of $3 billion. With Placer added in, the loss has to be greater than $4 billion.

The almost $3 billion open gold loss on Barrick’s books is greater than their cumulative total profits for the entire existence of the company. To my knowledge, it is the largest derivatives loss in history. I ask you to think about that for a moment. The world was atwitter with the recent $200 million copper loss by China, as well as the $500 million oil loss and bankruptcy by China Aviation Fuel (Singapore) last year. Barrick is set to report a $560 million gold hedge loss for the quarter, $1 billion for six months and almost $3 billion in total, and the financial world looks the other way.

According to Yahoo, of the 20 analysts covering Barrick, 18 rate it as a hold, buy or strong buy and 2 as a sell (there were no strong sale ratings). This, for a company that is holding the largest open trading loss in history. Why is that?

I think it is because Barrick has succeeded in doing the only thing it can do – trying to downplay the short gold position and to hide it deeply in its financial statements. It has even taken to splitting the gold short position into two pieces in its financial notes. I think this is to make it look like the loss is smaller than it actually is, although even cut in half, it still ranks as the largest single trading loss in history.

The problem with Barrick’s gold short position is that it is too large to be covered, or bought back, without major consequences, either to the company or the gold market. With a total dollar amount approaching $7 billion needed to buy back the short position, it would seem too costly for the company to buy back. A close out would also force the company to acknowledge the trade was stupid and ill advised in the first place, something the company’s reputed arrogance would argue against. And at 13 million ounces, the short position is much larger than the combined gold held in all the gold ETFs. A sudden gold buy of 13 million ounces would surely send the gold market flying, greatly compounding Barrick’s loss.

What makes the Barrick record derivatives trading loss even more shocking and remarkable is that the company was given ample time and repeated warnings about its outsized gold short position. I know this to be true because I personally warned them. Actually, I did a lot more than warn the company personally; I also warned them publicly. And I did it when gold was below $275 an ounce. In addition, I also contacted and warned their auditors, the New York Stock Exchange (where Barrick trades as ABX), the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC).

My main reason for attacking Barrick’s short position then was because I felt it was manipulative to gold (and silver) prices. I still do. I know Barrick denies it has manipulated the gold market, but when they put the position on and caused millions of ounces of gold to be dumped on the market, the price of gold dropped by almost $200 an ounce, and when they stopped, the price rose $200. It’s as simple as that.

Here are some articles that I offer as documentation of my claim. You decide if Barrick and the regulatory authorities were adequately forewarned.

http://www.gold-eagle.com/gold_digest_99/butler050599.html

http://www.gold-eagle.com/gold_digest_99/butler050699.html

http://www.butlerresearch.com/the_death_of_hedging.html

With the company, its auditors, the NYSE, and the SEC, I argued that the giant gold short position could jeopardize shareholders and employees. With the CFTC, I argued that Barrick was manipulating the gold market and was circumventing commodity law by being short years worth of production, way above the 12 month limit granted to hedgers. I was not successful in convincing the company or the regulators to rectify the situation.

The irony is that had any one of these organizations done anything to end the stupid and manipulative short position, Barrick would be better off by $3 billion. As an aside, I have often joked that had Barrick taken my advice, I could have earned a sizable commission for the billions I would have saved them.

The lesson here is that just because those in positions of great power and responsibility say or do something, doesn’t make that something right. Barrick and the regulators were clearly wrong not to address the issue then, when gold was way below $300. It was, and is, wrong for a company to short years of production. Too many bad things can happen. It’s just common sense.

Just like it is wrong for silver to have a COMEX short position larger than all known world inventories and to be larger than world mine production. It’s also common sense that something bad will eventually happen to the shorts there, no matter what the regulators say.

With Barrick’s rotten experience of shorting years of production so obvious, you would think no company would ever do that again. You would be wrong. Apex Silver (SIL) just did it. And they did it at precisely the wrong time. Specifically, Apex sold two years’ production of both zinc and lead during the third quarter, as well as 6 months’ production of silver. At the close on December 30th, zinc prices had climbed almost 40% since September 30th, with outsized gains in lead and silver as well, putting Apex’s shorts immediately under water. They’ve got to be many tens of millions of dollars in the hole already. We’ll see when they report 4th quarter results.

And get this; Apex is not scheduled to actually produce any metal for a couple of years. So there is no way the company could deliver material against their short sales now, even if they wanted to. What is it that makes mining executives take such big trading risks? I have seen no evidence that shareholders want mining management to take such big risks. Shareholders want management to increase production and reserves and show a profit, not to try to outsmart the market.
The purpose of this essay is not to pick on Barrick or Apex, but rather to offer something constructive. First, if you are going to invest in mining companies, you must be aware of your company’s hedging position. You don’t have to invest in a company that insists on hedging; there are plenty of companies that don’t hedge. Mining companies that hedge have not had better performance than non-hedgers, to my knowledge. Besides, most invest in resource companies precisely because they think the resource will go up in price. Shorting the resource takes away the very reason for resource investing.

Second, if you are part of management of a mining company, think long and hard before shorting the resources you produce. Your shareholders generally don’t want you to, and much can go wrong. I can’t think of any management-hedging heroes. And please remember, selling more than one year’s actual production is not hedging; it’s gambling.


et pour ceux qui préférent le verdict du graphe
barrick vs hui



http://stockcharts.com/def/servlet/SC.web?c=abx:$hui,uu[l,a]dalannay[dd][pb50!b100][iLa12,26,9]&pref=G

étrange , hein comme ce ratio baisse depuis septembre 2005 ...sept 2005 démarrage de la fusée gold ..

10/18 Arthur Hailey - Letters to Barrick Gold
The Moneychangers


Arthur Hailey
Letter to Barrick Gold

From: "THE MONEYCHANGERS"
October 18, 1999

ARTHUR HAILEY

PHONE: (242) 362-4011
LYFORD CAY

FAX: (242) 362-4411
P.O. BOX N-7776

NASSAU, BAHAMAS




October 17, 1999


To: The Barrick Gold representative(s)
At Gold Group Gold Conference
Denver, CO, U.S.A.
Fax: 1-303-572-7288

Sir:

This note is from an active and enthusiastic supporter of the Gold Anti-Trust Action Committee, who until a few days ago was a long-time shareholder of Barrick Gold, first as an individual, then as a joint owner (with my wife) of Storyteller Ltd., a Bahamas company. But no more!


Disgusted with the excessive hedging (much of it concealed) by Barrick, and the present opposition to allowing the gold price to rise to natural and honest levels, I have sold our Barrick shares and am actively urging others to do the same. I tell them: "You simply cannot trust these people to put shareholder interest first, because quite clearly some at the top are looking out solely for themselves." I continue, "So don’t take a chance! After selling Barrick, buy into those gold companies who haven’t hedged, or have only done so mildly. It’s easy to find out which they are."


I happen to live in a wealthy community, Lyford Cay, Bahamas, where I fine many people are interested in what I have to say. Also, because of my activity as an international writer (my books are published in 40 languages) I also have a wide circle of friends and contacts, and am passing the word along, urging others to do the same as I have, plus tell their friends. At the moment this may not have enormous effect, but as you know, when a pebble is dropped into a pool the ripples spread outward. And oh yes, my contacts in the media, which are many ¾ something else that goes with being a long-time author ¾ are becoming increasingly interested and objective. (One thing that helps is that I am almost 80, not too active these days, so have lots of spare time to help GATA, which is so splendidly representing ordinary investors such as my wife and myself).


Of course, all of the foregoing could change if Barrick revised its stance and actively supported such believers in a free gold price as Chris Thompson, chairman of Gold Fields, who is also, I understand, attending the Gold Group Conference ¾ which is going to receive a great deal more critical attention than was probably expected.


Yours truly,


A H




BOOKS BY ARTHUR HAILEY

DETECTIVE
1997
AIRPORT
1968

THE EVENING NEWS
1990
HOTEL
1965

STRONG MEDICINE
1984
IN HIGH PLACES
1962

OVERLOAD
1979
CLOSE-UP (TV Plays)
1960

THE MONEYCHANGERS
1975
THE FINAL DIAGNOSIS
1959

WHEELS
1971
RUNWAY ZERO-EIGHT
1958

some more from Bill

This Barrick story came out last week. With the extent of the real number of gold out on loan now exposed to the gold/investment world, it makes it more poignant. According to Barrick, almost half of their hedge book is devoted to this project. Should this project get in trouble, Barrick will be in even worse trouble that they already are with that book many billions underwater.

Barrick vs Bachelet

New Chiliean president likely to oppose Canadian gold mining company's plans.

Dateline: Monday, January 30, 2006

by Stephen Leahy

The controversial, billion-dollar Pascua-Lama gold mine project, located on the Chile-Argentina border and requiring the removal of Andean glaciers, may begin construction this year despite strong opposition from environmentalists.

Pascua-Lama is one of the world's largest untapped sources of gold ore, with the potential to produce 17.5 million ounces.

Canada's Barrick Gold Corporation owns the mining concession for Pascua-Lama and for 3000 square kilometres in the surrounding region. The company, which recently became the world's largest gold producer, plans to begin construction of the 1.5-billion-dollar project this year, despite public protest inside and outside of Chile.

http://www.straightgoods.ca/ViewFeature6.cfm?REF=68

apres parutions résultats Q4 , Butler confirme son analyse et ses chiffres
le profit trimestriel annoncé de 175 $ millions ne représente qu'un tiers de la perte du hegge book sur le même trimestre ... soit 500 $ millions ...

à bon entendeur ...


http://news.silverseek.com/TedButler/1141180479.php

http://news.silverseek.com/TedButler/1147188385.php

BARRICKS BLACK EYE en 3eme partie de l'article

ça laisse réveur sur la créativité comptable de cette boite qui transforme - sur les comptes - tout ça en profit ..

Citation :

The surprise in the Barrick report was the aggressive covering, or buy back, of the gold short position. Fully 25% of the year-end 20 million ounce gold short position was bought back in the quarter, with more since the quarter end. While the first 4.7 million ounces covered in the first quarter cost Barrick $814 million, or a loss of $173 per ounce, the last million ounces bought back after quarter end cost Barrick $386 million, or an astounding $386 per ounce.

Dehedging Gold -- Why Barrick's In Trouble / Bill Cara

http://gold.seekingalpha.com/article/20570

avec des tableaux de hedge books à voir absolument !

barrick... qui trompe tjs les investisseurs et actionnaires sur son carnet de hedges ..
lisez bien les chiffres de Hommel, ils sont impressionnants !

http://www.silverstockreport.com/2008/barrick.html

(A perfect example of what not to do.)


Silver Stock Report


by Jason Hommel, February 25, 2008


Since my email on Feb 23, Barrick Gold has made it easier to find information about their gold hedge book liability.
They updated their website, and replaced the link at the bottom of the page here:
http://www.barrick.com/Investors/HedgePosition/default.aspx
Now, the link goes directly to an excerpt from the recent quarterly report:
http://www.barrick.com/Theme/Barrick/files/Project%20Gold%20Sales%20Contracts.pdf
Barrick is to be commended for making this information more accessible, so we can see the bad position they are in.
On page 34, they note: "we have 9.5 million ounces of existing gold sales contracts specifically allocated to these projects."
On page 35, they note: "Based on closing spot price of $913 per ounce on February 15, 2008, the mark-to-market liability is $(5,095) [in millions]."
This is slightly less than the $6 billion loss based at a spot price of $950/oz. that I estimated yesterday, based on older estimates from the company.
Since Barrick Gold only has $2.2 billion in cash, and $1.1 billion in annual earnings, it could be some time before this hedge could be lifted, because they don't have the cash to eliminate it today. If they tried to buy back the gold today, they would have to come up with the "mark to market liability" of over $5 billion.
But Barrick Gold does not plan to deliver these ounces until 2011, 3 years from now. There could be a big problem if their project mine, Pascua Lama, which has been a project for over 7 years now, does not get built.
As Antal Fekete has noted, Barrick could have purchased offsetting call options to reduce the ever increasing exposure to a rising gold price; and that would be far cheaper than buying back the entire hedge. I wonder how high the gold price will be, 3 years from now, and I wonder how much that will cost Barrick Gold and their shareholders.
I think it is rather shameless and deceptive for company president and chief executive, Greg Wilkins, to speak as if higher gold prices are good for Barrick Gold, while having 9.5 million ounces of gold on the hedge book which exposes Barrick to nearly unlimited losses as gold prices continue to rise.
Furthermore, Barrick Gold has promoted itself has having "no company hedges;" which is extremely deceptive because the company does have hedges on several projects. It seems as if "company hedges" must be a technical term used to differentiate between "project hedges", but who in the general public, and who among TV commentators that Barrick Gold takes advantage of, will know that the word "company" is a technical term that means the opposite of "project"?
Barrick should quit playing games with words, and move aggressively to close out their rising hedge liability, or at least hedge it with options!
Another industry practice that is highly deceptive (besides being less than clear about gold hedges and their losses) is cash costs.
Cash costs only include operating costs of a pre-built mine.
Cash costs do not include:
Exploration, which includes things such as prospecting, staking, claims fees, air surveys, ground surveys, drilling, mapping, 3d modeling & resource calculations, etc.
Development, which includes things such as environmental impact studies, engineering studies, feasibility studies, and mine construction capital costs, etc.
Administration, which includes things such as office space, accountants, lawyers, annual reports, trips to mining shows, litigation expenses, share listing expenses, entertainment, emergency web site updates, commissions and premiums for acquisitions, and hedge book losses, etc.
In a rising metals market, the best way to purchase protection from downside movements is not to sell the metals short like Barrick Gold did, but rather, to buy puts. Puts give the holder the right, but not the obligation, to sell at a set price. Thus, with puts, there are not continuing losses in case the metals prices continue to rise.
(You can also sell "out of the money" puts below the market prices for metals, so that the market automatically sells to you on the dips. And if they don't, you just keep the premium from selling the puts.)

Jason Hommel
www.silverstockreport.com

Cet article là va vous faire sourire je parie!

Citation :

F. Berthelin (AAZ FINANCES) compte profiter de la flambée de l'or

(Newsmanagers.com) - Depuis sa création, en septembre 2006, AAZ Prestige Or (3,2 millions d'euros d’encours), référencé auprès de plusieurs plateformes, a progressé de 17% et son gérant compte bien profiter de la flambée du métal jaune.

Et si Francis Berthelin était le roi Midas de la gestion collective ? "Il y a quatre ans, lorsque je parlais du grand retour de l’or comme valeur refuge personne ne me prenait au sérieux. Aujourd’hui, tout le monde suit..." Indéniable ! Au fil des mois, l’or, ringardisé au moment de l'éclosion de la bulle Internet, est redevenu la coqueluche d’investisseurs omnubilés par les risques de récession mondiale et de poussée inflationniste.

En 2007, le cours du métal jaune s’est apprécié de 32 % en dollars, de 16 % en euros et cette marche en avant devrait continuer.

Selon le gérant, le marché de l’or a connu plusieurs phases : entre 1999 et 2003, l’once d’or tournait autour de 350 USD. Son prix a fini par monter à près de 500 dollars voici 2 ans. Aujourd’hui, elle cote plus de 1.000 dollar. Et, une nouvelle phase est en train de s’ouvrir, assure Francis Berthelin : la psychologie du marché est favorable et les fondamentaux, solides. "Aussi, je pense que l’once peut aller jusqu’à 2.000 dollars ", assure–t-il en se gardant toutefois d’indiquer si ce cap sera atteint dans 3 mois ou dans quelques années.

Pour profiter de cette tendance haussière, le fonds, dont l’indicateur de référence est le Ftse Gold mines converti en euros, est massivement investi dans l’or, mais il compte également un peu de valeurs pétrolières et d’uranium, minerai rare et de plus en plus recherché en cette période où le nucléaire redevient une alternative gagnante par rapport au pétrole cher.

Le portefeuille est composé d'or physique, de trackers et d'actions de sociétés minières dont la valorisation est, selon Francis Berthelin, sous-estimée même si les coûts d’exploitation sont lourds avec environ 2 grammes d’or extraits pour une tonne de cailloux traitée.

"Je n’aime pas le risque et je ne mise jamais sur des petites mines", souligne Francis Berthelin en précisant que chacune des lignes en portefeuille pèse, en moyenne, entre 2 et 4 % de l’actif du fonds.

Parmi les valeurs favorites du gérant on trouve évidemment le canadien Barrick Gold, numéro un, avec 8 % des parts de marché mondiales et 250 tonnes d’or produites à l’année. Selon Francis Berthelin, dans l’hypothèse d’une once à 2.000 dollars, le cours de la société pourrait passer à plus de 100 dollars contre environ 55 USD actuellement.

Autre valeur vedette du gérant, Agnico Eagle Mine, autre société canadienne qui, outre sa production anuelle de 60 tonnes, présente un intérêt spéculatif puisqu’elle pourrait être rapidement absorbée par un des majors du secteur comme Barrick ou Newmont Mining corporation.

http://www.boursorama.com/opcvm/detail-actualite-opcvm.phtml?&news=5290787

barrick n'ose plus parler d'or haedgé, mais utilise désormais le terme "project gold contrats "

chiffrage du hedge book..on notera qu'en plus d'hedger la prod de pascua lama.. qui ne verra probablement jamais le jour, barrick hedge 2 ans de production cuivre .. à 3.75$ /lb..


source www.lemetropolecafe.com

Then, there is The Gold Cartel’s Barrick Gold, which also laughed at GATA when we mocked them for their dopey hedging and complicity in the price suppression scheme…
Bill,
Barrick’s gold hedges are reported in the Q1 report. They are using semantics to call these "hedges" by another name. they are calling them "Project Gold Sales Contracts"!!! How cute! We know what they are. Here is what they say:
QUOTE
Project Gold Sales Contracts
We have 9.5 million ounces of Project Gold Sales Contracts with expected delivery dates between 2011 and 2019. The contracts have an average future estimated realizable price of $437 per ounce, upon delivery of production from 2011-2019, the term of potential financing. This estimated value is based on current market US dollar interest rates and on an average lease rate assumption of 0.50%.
Included in the 9.5 million ounces committed under our Project Gold Sales Contracts are floating spot-price contracts under which we are committed to deliver 2.84 million ounces of gold at future spot prices less an average fixed-price adjustment of $482 per ounce.
Project Gold Sales Contracts give us the flexibility to move positions between fixed and floating contracts. When a contract is converted from a fixed rate to a floating rate, the difference between the current market price of gold and the contracted forward sales price is locked-in; i.e. the unrealized loss is fixed. Thereafter, future increases and decreases in market gold prices directly impact the final contract price. In a rising gold price environment, we have the opportunity to improve
the price of the contract (assuming the gold price appreciates at a rate more than contango) and participate in higher gold prices by resetting a fixed price
contract to a floating price contract. Conversely, a decline in gold price subsequent to the conversion would reduce the final contract price we receive. Therefore,
floating contracts increase our exposure to gold price movements, both upwards and downwards.
END
Why are they using the term "Project Gold Sales Contract"? Later in the report they talk about "Copper Hedges" for their copper production. I believe they intend never to produce the gold from Pascua Lama and so these contracts will never be delivered on.
Look what a bunch of morons they are. They have sold forward 2 years of copper production at about $3.75/lb!! Good move, Barrick!
QUOTE
We are fully hedged for our 2008 copper production and 97% hedged for 2009 while maintaining a certain amount of upside exposure to price increases through the use of option contracts. In 2008, approximately 25% of our hedge contracts (approximately 77 million pounds) are capped at $3.50 per pound, with a price floor of $3.00 per pound, through our copper denominated notes, whereas the balance (approximately 233 million pounds) has upside participation to an average price of $3.89 per pound. In 2009, approximately 47 million pounds of copper are hedged through forward sales contracts at $3.03 per pound, and 301 million pounds are covered by our copper collar contracts capped at $3.83 per pound with a price floor of $3.00 per pound.
END
Who would want to own the stock of a company like this?
Cheers
Adrian
More children stuff again. As Café members know, Barrick keeps telling Planet Wall Street they are unhedged as far as gold is concerned. Oh, I get it: See Spot Run Planet Wall Street, they have 9.5 million ounces of gold sold forward, put on when gold was not far from $350 per ounce, on a project which may never come into being, but they are not hedged because they call them Project Gold Sales Contracts.
Yet, when it comes to COPPER, they are hedged? But, not to any projects I guess. Huh again?
What a perfect tie-in to the MIDAS headline of the day: Financial Farce Of Epic Proportions. "No matter," Planet Wall Street retorts, "we bobbing head Muppets are happy because we believe Barrick that they are unhedged in gold. Everything is fine."

240.000 $, c'est ce qu'à dépensé barrick, dans des actions de lobbying en faveur de la vente des 400T or du FMI..



http://www.canadianbusiness.com/markets/headline_news/article.jsp?content=D90PL1T80

héhé , les analystes commencent à se rendre compte du loup.. énorme, qui se cache derriére le carnet de hedge de Barrick

Citation :

"the company continues to be handicapped by a hedge book that has seen the current realized value of the 9.5m ounces hedged decline from USD 374/oz to USD 364/oz in the past quarter. At a USD 1,000/oz gold price, the mark-to-market of the book is negative USD 6.0bn and changes by USD 0.95bn for every USD 100/oz move in the gold price.

www.lemetropolecafe.com

>Gold's biggest name in the spotlight
Is Barrick, the world's biggest gold miner by value and production, preparing for a bought deal of up to USD 3bn?
Author: By Barry Sergeant
Posted: Wednesday , 25 Feb 2009
JOHANNESBURG -
Barrick, the world's biggest gold miner, by value and production, appears to be under increasing pressure to replenish its capital base, following last week's results announcement that guided for lower production and higher costs during 2009. Barrick pointed out that as of 31 December 2008, it held the gold industry's highest credit rating, a cash balance of USD 1.4bn, a USD 1.5bn undrawn credit facility and net debt of USD2.9bn, and scheduled repayments of less than USD 300m over the next four years.
Barrick currently ranks among the world's top five miners of all kinds, measured by market value. Its current market capitalisation, at USD 30bn, has more than doubled from low points less than six months ago. A number of specialist analysts have, however, again pointed out that while Barrick is apparently headed for growth in free cash flow, it also faces an ongoing hedge book handicap. Analysts at RBC Capital Markets see free cash flow growing to USD 1.1bn in 2010, from USD 0.6bn in 2009. New mine development is expected to be supported by a strong balance sheet, say the analysts, with an estimated USD 1.7bn in cash at 2009 year-end, a USD 1.5bn un-drawn line of credit, and debt to total capitalisation of 20%.
"However", state Stephen D Walker and Valerie Blume at RBC Capital Markets, "the company continues to be handicapped by a hedge book that has seen the current realized value of the 9.5m ounces hedged decline from USD 374/oz to USD 364/oz in the past quarter. At a USD 1,000/oz gold price, the mark-to-market of the book is negative USD 6.0bn and changes by USD 0.95bn for every USD 100/oz move in the gold price. While the company has the flexibility to defer delivery until future years, in the current low interest rate environment, the realized value will not increase significantly over the next few years"…
-END-
Then, from a fellow Café member…
This from a normally well informed and accurate blog I read.

I don't follow ABX, and didn't see anything in recent headlines on this, don't have time this week to research or listen to their Q call, FWIW or perhaps forward this to those few are who likely do follow ABX to see if there is something newsworthy in this?
Aaaarb
____________________

Barrick floated the prospect of a bought deal financing for $3 billion today. Some of the proceeds look to be going to close down some part of the 9 million ozs of gold they have hedged. This should ahve been front page news huh? The fed recovering a whack of its deep storage gold. I mean the fed is barricks ultimate counterparty isn’t it? Who else would set up a contract that would allow barrick to keep extending hedge closure date indefinitely…. so why would the fed be wanting some of its deep storage gold returned… to anchor the new monetary system the G 20 is in the process of formulating right now. The days of competitive currency devaluations must end so the world economy can stabilize and restore the condition where economic growth becomes possible… what better way is there then using gold as some kind of anchor for the new currency order that must be created. hence the feds recall of their deep storage gold… Munk could have bought it back at prices closer to $700 an oz not too long ago. Instead he’s looking at a $6 billion close out fee… Say removing even half of the barrick hedged gold from the market would dramatically impact the gold demand and perhaps gold pricing too huh? so why did barrick float the trial balloon on closing down some part or all of its hedge book today… They rode right into the market on the tails of the gold price hit didn’t they? Now the gold community has been inoculated in regard to a barrick closure a lot of the stupid element of the gold bulls will not join the charge when barrick officially makes its move huh? Yup I’m guessing barrick will call for delivery on a heaping whack of gold futures that are already in place.

Barrick poursuivi pour info mensongéres sur hedging



http://www.gata.org/node/7266

Excellent....

La poursuite ne date pas d'hier.
La nouveauté, c'est que Barrick à "Settled" (réglement "amiable") la poursuite contre eux.

Autre point intéressant : Les termes de l'accord (settlement) ne sont pas encore connus, car "Terms of the settlement haven't been released because Toronto-based
Barrick must conclude talks with its insurers before signing the accord"

Ah ????

Et c'est qui les "insurers" (assureurs) de Barrick ??

Ce serait-y pas AIG par hasard ?

Je parierais bien un gramme d'Or là dessus...

barrick va diluer ses actionnaires avec une ak de 3 milliard de $ pour racheter une partie de ses hedges ..

héhé, depuis le temps qu'on le dit.. que ça finirait comme ça ..

et il restera encore 2.7 milliards de $ de hedges flottants ! ( en admettant que pour une fois, ils donnent les chiffrages réels ! )

After the deal, Barrick will still hold floating hedges with a negative mark-to-market value of $2.7 billion, but the $5.6 billion charge will remove it from the balance sheet.

http://www.reuters.com/article/ousivMolt/idUSTRE58767F20090908

lol, les voilà qui augmentent leur AK sous prétexte qu'elle a du succès ..

j'adore la façon dont ils tournent ça... quand je disais que leur comm sent le rat crevé ..



Barrick Gold Corp. (ABX) the world’s largest gold producer, said it will increase the size of a share sale announced Tuesday by 17% to $3.5 billion in response to investor demand.

The Toronto-based company will sell 94.8 million common shares for $36.95 each, up from the 81.2 million shares announced Tuesday, Barrick said in a statement. Lead underwriters RBC Capital Markets, Morgan Stanley, J.P. Morgan. and Scotia Capital have an option to increase the sale to $4 billion within 30 days.

Barrick is raising funds to eliminate fixed-price contracts after eight years of successive gold-price increases.

un petit rappel bien senti de Murphy .. qui savoure, à juste titre la victoire du Gata à ce sujet .. et qui y voit une nouvelle extrememnt bull ( non, pas forcément pour demain matin , les gars )
car si barrick se décide enfin à couvrir ET à admettre ce qu'il a tjs "artistiquement" dissimulé.. c'est bien qu'il y a un GROS pb ... probablement derrière les fameuses contreparties "secrétes" de barrick qui lui avaient pourtant fait des ponts en or ( promesses intenables now ... c'est ça la vraie nouvelle ! )


www.lemetropolecafe.com

GATA began its battle with Barrick and its massive hedging program 10 years ago, accusing them of playing a vital role in the gold price suppression scheme in complicity with The Gold Cartel. I began to review some of our banter over Barrick the past decade last night and began assimilating points of interest … suddenly realizing it was 25 pages long for starters. Needless to say, this had to be severely curtailed for this MIDAS commentary.
The essence of it all is GATA soon realized that Barrick Gold was an ogre to the gold price in league with the US Government and various bullion banks (like Goldman Sachs) below $300 per ounce at the time. This was the essence of Robert Rubin’s Strong Dollar Policy as mentioned in the "GATA MEDIA SPECIAL - The Reason for Gold’s Imminent Price Moon Shot? It’s a Simple Supply/Demand Story." Barrick aided the bullion banks by adding physical supply in the form of forward sales which suppressed the price … which made little sense at the time. As Adrian and others frequently pointed out, did the oil companies hedge their product at $10 per barrel, locking out any real chance of turning decent profits?
This gets a bit complicated because due to various option premiums, contangos etc., Barrick was able to achieve prices 10 to 17% above the spot price, but it was clear even way back they were shooting themselves in the foot, as just evidenced by their STAGGERING $5.6 billion dollar latest loss on hedges they said they didn’t even have as late as 2007 (that is a whole different story).
The bottom line is GATA has taken on the rich and powerful since the get-go and that was Barrick in the gold world. Their honorary Board members included:
*George Bush, US President
*Brian Mulroney, Canadian Prime Minister
Karl Otto Pohl, president of the Bundesbank, Germany's central bank
*Vernon E. Jordan, Jr., former Democratic National Committee chairman
*Howard H. Baker, Jr., US Senator and former Reagan chief of staff
***
And, as veteran Café members know all too well, GATA has been constantly mocked/derided by the mainstream gold world pundits, the World Gold Council, the bullion dealers, and Muppet groupies for pillorying Barrick.
You might ask, "How could Barrick be with the rich and powerful and be so dumb?"
Simple…
*Barrick’s plan was to join forces with others in The Gold Cartel and drive the price down so low as to wipe out others in the industry and then pick up their valuable, way undervalued resources.
*Frank Arisman of JP Morgan, a managing director of JP Morgan Chase and a Board member of AngloGold (another key Gold Cartel player) was a key figure in these dealings. JP Morgan’s office was right above Barrick’s in Toronto.
*Barrick made a pact with The Gold Cartel devil, meaning they couldn’t lift their hedges. They were stuck, which is probably why they have stupidly carried them all these years.
*Ah, about those best laid plans. The European central banks scuttled the operation with their surprise Washington Agreement Announcement in September of 1999. The gold price went ballistic with surging option volatilities threatening the financial system, causing the Bank of England’s Eddie George to remark "We were at the abyss."
*Surprise? Oh Yes. Chase Bank talked Newmont Mining into instituting a sizeable hedge program only days or weeks before the announcement … at the bottom of the market with gold around $265 per ounce.
The Gold Cartel recovered and convinced a number of central banks to dump their gold, which kept the gold price at bay under $300 a couple more years, but the handwriting was on the wall. The best they could do from thereon in was to manage a retreat.
Now, here is the good stuff and why I constantly say that unless you know what GATA knows about the gold market, you really don’t know the key to the whole market, which means you don’t know much in the big picture sense.
The Barrick announcement is extremely bullish in my book because it strongly suggests Barrick’s bullion dealers, their counterparties, are in a twit about what is coming down the road price-wise. They know what the US government is throwing at the gold price to keep it down and they are having trouble due to the enormous physical demand and the changing dynamics in the market regarding MAJOR players … such as the Chinese, Russians, super hedge fund managers etc., and the withdrawal from the market of other sellers like the Europeans.
While The Gold Cartel is holding the fort for now, that fort has been encircled by "The Indians," and their troops are building in size. IT IS ONLY A MATTER OF TIME before the fort falls and the cabal forces are routed. Barrick’s counterparties want the damage to be limited to the staggering loss it is now. What fun! Remember when Barrick strutted their stuff about their "Evergreen Clause" in which they could roll over their hedges forever without a margin call? Bury that gimmick too.

eh oui, promesses tellement intenables ( hello JPM, l'une des contreparties sinon LA contrepartie de barrick ) que l'annonce de barrick s'apparente bel et bien à un default :
aucune livraison du gold promis .. réglement en cash ..

adrian douglas pour le midas :

Chris, Bill,
DEFAULT!!!!!!!!!!!
Angolgold has been reducing its hedges by delivering gold from production into the hedge contracts. In other words paying back the loans with gold.
It looks to me that this is the first major sign of physical market stress that I have been pounding the table about recently which was eloquently summed by Paul Walker, CEO of GFMS "large lumpy transactions in a market that has a degree of illiquidity". Barrick's deal represents a gold delivery DEFAULT. They are paying back cash. They are not paying back in gold.
QUOTE
The current negative $3.7 billion MTM position of the gloating contracts does not change with gold prices. No activity in the gold market is required to settle these floating contracts.
END
This is in my opinion is a bombshell. What will be the domino effect as the bullion banks that were meant to receive gold don’t have it to meet their obligations?
Cheers

Adrian

*********
même son de cloche chez Kirby

What the news release DOES NOT SAY is that when the "hedges" were put on – it was via mobilization of sovereign bullion that exited the vaults and was sold into the market. NOW, Barrick is going to use "futures" to immunize its balance sheet out of proceeds of an equity offering that is going to be "bought" by the same cretin bullion banks that brokered the physical bullion hedges in the first place.
But do note that there is NO WAY that amount of physical bullion will be returned to the sovereign entities that parted with it at the front end of this transaction. The physical market is way too tight for this to happen in the 12 month time frame that Barrick has stated.
Neat swindle, eh?
For the Bullion Banks it’s like, "Heads I win, Tales you lose".
Congratulations on diluting your existing share holders [82 million new shares vs. 873 million outstanding or about 10%] to the entire Barrick management team.
Amazing,
Rob Kirby

Important, en effet; le pilier central de l'édifice frauduleux était fissuré...mais pas la peinture du pilier...alors, forcément, nous passions pour des illuminés et des paranos...mais voici que la fissure, qui se transforme en crevasse est devenue évidente...même aux yeux des plus béats parmi les crédules...dès lors, en effet, désormais, et plus encore que jamais auparavant, IT IS ONLY A MATTER OF TIME...