Friday, February 6, 2009

A few quick comments

1) I like the steady $900 - $915 US gold price range. It's good that we are building a base, and not moving up too quickly. Sudden (significant) moves are not usually sustainable (unless they are moves of recovery). The gold price is strong despite jewellery demand falling off substantially in India (due to the Indian economy being hit especially hard). It is heavy investment demand that is the current strength in the gold price - money managers that have traditionally stayed away from gold are now moving some money into gold. Also, rich people are now looking to protect some of their wealth through gold. In addition, at times (not all the time though) gold has been decoupling from a lot of key influences, i.e. US dollar, oil, interest rate changes, various economic data.... There was one very positive (and new) decoupling event that took place this week. The Bank of England decreased their interest rate this week and that shot the gold price upwards. That would normally kill the gold price as it would weaken the pound, thus given strength to the US dollar index, and ultimately to the benefit of the US dollar (and the fall of gold). The fact that gold jump up is an indication that gold (for the moment anyway) is acting like a true global option in a time of major global problems. Gold didn't act this way a few months ago (with all that panic back then) because money managers were just trying to get out of the market as fast as they could (everything was sold, including gold). Now that the forced liquidation has stabilized, gold can be used as a true protector of wealth.

2) Clive of B2Gold (the former Bema guy) says that B2Gold is looking to do more mergers with companies with producing/near-producing gold assets (even after the recent merger with Central Sun Mining. He says he is looking to build B2Gold into a mid-tier gold producer soon. There are many other companies (with the abilibities to raise cash) that are looking for producing assets in this type of gold price evirnoment (and with where people think the gold price is going over the next several years). Their is certainly a merger market out there for Lamaque/Century, but there appears to be more attractive opportunities (for shareholders) to explore first, before going in that direction. With a $.065 share price now (and virtually no demand since the gold-based financing annoucement) it's obvious that not enough people think that anything positive will come about with this particular financing initiative. Given no buying demand at all since the annoucement, people have said no without even giving it a chance. As such, market sentiments is likely based on historical difficulties with closing off financings. It is likely not based on what info Octagon and Peggy possess, and what game plan they are using in attempting to achieve success. I would like to think that Octagon and Peggy chose this finaning option because they were comfortable of success. At $.065, it seems like Century is trading like this is our only option, even though the gold price is currently $914 US and many companies out there are looking to merge with or acquire a company with production or near-producing gold assets. In addition, the finance market has really opened for to gold companies with producing/near-producing/very advanced staged assets. I guess nothing should really surprise us anymore. Afterall, it was just recently that people were selling (giving away) millions and millions of Century shares for 1 cent.

3) As mentioned, the market to finance gold companies has really started to open up. Even some exploration companies (albeit high profile and high potential ones) are getting bought deals. Exeter just announced a $25.2M Cdn (+ over-allotments)bought deal today.

2 comments:

Anonymous said...

The market is basically saying show me that you can pull oo this financing. Based on all the previous experiences I am not surprised about this. This stock needs a "trigger" and the successful closing of the financing may be just whats is needed.

Anonymous said...

Which "anonymous" don't you like?