Glattstellung für Quartalsberichte - 500 Beiträge pro Seite

[Basic]

Hallo zusammen,
eine Ursache für den Anstieg scheint in einer neuen Spielrel zu liegen: SFAS 133
Danach dürfen Derivate nicht mehr als Fussnote im Bericht erscheinen sondern in die Gewinn Verlustrechnung aufgenemen werde. Dies gilt für alle Gesellschaften, besonders aber für Mienen, da hier besonders viel "gehedgt "wurde! Der Termin ist der 15.06.

Im Bord "Gold Fields" hatte ich schon mal dei Deutsche Bank Security zitiert, die beabsichtigt Optionen für Gold Fields bis zum 15.06 glattzustellen. Auch hier der Termin!

Hier scheint sich erhebliches Potential aufgetan zu haben. Gesellschaften die nicht als Buhmann darstehen wollen stellen erst mal ihre Positionen glatt.

Gruß Basic

Market Report 6/5/00): Gold carried a strong uptrend through the weekend to add another $2 to the price in today`s early going.

When most analysts are asked, they respond to gold`s surprising breakout Friday with comments about the weaker dollar and prospects that the Fed might be tempted to cool its heals this summer with respect to interest rates, but the real reason for gold`s lustrous showing late last week might have to do with a little known change in accounting rules for public corporations scheduled to go into effect June 15, 2000. Called by Salomon Smith Barney`s resident gold expert, Leanne Baker, an "Accounting Nightmare", SFAS 133 will force derivative players to mark their derivative positions to market. That could lead in some cases to the posting of huge losses by some mining companies.

Currently, derivatives` positions are shown as footnotes to financial statements because the profit or loss has technically not been claimed in most cases. The "book" losses do not flow to the profit and loss statement or balance sheet. Obviously, if you have a losing position and you don`t want it to cloud the financial picture for your employer, the tendency would be to roll it and hope for the best. It is a much less complicated world for traders if they do not have to recognize their losses, but instead continually build a short position leading to the critical mass potentiality we have talked about here so many times before.

Ms. Baker says that the negative mark to market losses for some mining concerns are "spectacular." With the implementation of SFAS 133 on the fifteenth, all books will become open books and stockholders of the mining companies will be able to see exactly where they stand, and what might happen should the gold price rise and jeopardies these positions. I might add that this new "Derivatives` Effect" will apply to all markets across the boards. Its implementation could change the way Wall Street does business when investors, regulators, accountants, and stockholders have been clued in on what`s been going on in the shadow of the previous standards.

Says Baker:

"Important departures from current practice will be marking- to-market of the time value of options through the income statement-rather than straight-line amortization of the premium paid or received. Forward contracts will be treated more favorably--with mark-to-market fluctuation flowing through equity on the balance sheet. However, this will introduce equity volatility and has the real potential to throw off credit ratios-- complicating the lives of analysts, bankers, and shareholders. Under SFAS 133, the recent gold rally and plunge in mark-to-market value of mining companies` hedge books would result in huge hits to net income from call options sold and to equity from sub-market forward contracts. Current rules allow these effects to be disclosed as a simple footnote to the financial statements, but if the gold price stays in the $320 per ounce range--or trades higher as we expect--the SFAS 133 derivatives -related damage to company income statements and balance sheets will be staggering."

The bottom line here is that mining companies are not going to want to be exposed as the primary enemy of the very product on which they depend for a profit and the implications that eat-your-young strategy might have on future stock values-- not if most gold stockholders have their way. Secondly, no management team will have wanted to show that the company balance sheet has suffered a serious hit because they gambled against gold, instead of acting to bolster its value. They could very well be attempting to clean up their positions before the SFAS 133 standards are imposed apparently for the second quarter reporting period, which could mean more big jumps in the gold price between now and D-Day (Derivatives` Day). Keep in mind that many mine company presidents went out of their way to assure their stockholders after the first quarter reporting period that they were not among those with huge hedge books geared in terms of net effect to driving the gold price lower. Most made the case that there hedge books were prudently run, etc. The time has come to turn over that hole card for the whole table to see, and it could get interesting. At the very least, we are going to see some deeper analysis of these hedge book positions. Questions will be asked;answers made part of the public record.

I would refer you to Ms. Baker`s longer (and prescient) treatment of the issue in our Gilded Opinion section and leave you with this final quote from the study she wrote titled: "A New Millennium Gold Rush" published in October, 1999:

"We have long argued that derivatives positions in gold were lopsidedly short and disproportionately large for the underlying market. At its core,our positive view on gold in 1999 has been based on a belief that gold market liquidity was less than participants blithely assumed--and that when speculator and producer shorts were inevitably forced to cover, the results could be spectacular....

The carnage in the gold derivatives market resulting from a 25% jump in prices is astounding to us, especially against a backdrop of double- and triple-digit percentage gains in oil, copper, aluminum, and nickel; resurgent inflation signals; dollar weakening; and looming Y2K concerns. Stress testing of portfolios and "Value at Risk" (VAR) measurements captured only normal market and trading variability and failed to provide a meaningful assessment of comprehensive risk in the event of an "exogenous" shock--such as the European central banks` announcement.

Particularly nettlesome were complex structured derivatives-- forward contracts with embedded contingent options--and leveraged option strategies that could not be unwound quickly. The practice of selling out-of-the-money call options to finance put purchases backfired as well. Even basic spot deferred contracts were tarnished as gold breached reference prices and climbing lease rates eroded forward premiums. We question whether managements understood their exposures and conclude that any positions put on this summer in a $250- per-ounce gold price environment were misguided at best, and disastrous at worst."

Food for thought.

That`s it for today, fellow goldmeisters

[howling wolf]

Wow, Basic, das ist der Hammer - anscheinend beginnen die Amis mit dem Aufräumen - ganz schnell nach oben mit diesem thread. howling wolf.

[just_do_it_de]

Hallo goldbugs

wenn das Gesetz wirklich die Investmenthäuser dazu verpflichtet
Gewinne u. Verluste aus z.B. Gold-Derivaten-Geschäften zu
veröffentlichen so würde ich gern mal die Zahlen von
Goldman-Sachs sehen.
Denn dann kann endlich mal Golman-Sachs zeigen wie hoch
die short-Positionen wirklich sind.
Angeglich soll Goldman-Sachs 1000 to Gold short sein
aber vielleicht sind es auch ein paar 1000 Gramm weniger
was aber nur einem Kilo entspricht.

[DBrix]

Danke Basic, die Nachricht habe ich mir Freude zur Kenntnis genommen.

Der Termin gefällt mir ausgesprochen gut. Am 15.06. habe ich nämlich Geburtstag!

Ich hoffe, dass ab Morgen auch die Minen entsprechend anziehen werden.

[smiling]

Hallo Basic! Ist ja ein Topartikel!

Eine Frage aber dazu:

Bezieht sich die neue Regel auf alle ab diesem Zeitpunkt 15.06.2000 getätigten Derivatgeschäfte?

oder müssen rückwirkend alle Short und Derivatpositionen offengelegt werden?

...SFAS 133 will force derivative players to mark their derivative positions to market...

Ich kann das eben so oder so lesen oder was meinst Du?

Good trades

[Basic]

So wie ich es verstanden hab gilt das for diese Quartalsberichte

[smiling]

Hallo, wollte nur den Thread wieder nach oben stellen.

Der 15. 06. 2000 ist morgen!

Der POG will im Moment wieder die 290 nehmen, kann das mit den Quartalsberichten zusammenhängen?

Ich tippe auf einen Schlußkurs heute von über 290!!

Good trades

[Basic]

Hallo smiling,
inzwischen ist die Katze aus dem Sack. Gold Fields und Franco Nevade beides ungehedgte Unternehmen gehen zusammen. Die anderen Mienen werden auch aus diesem Grund weitere Glattstellungen vornehmen. Nach dem Motto wer zuerst kommt... oder frei nach Gorbi wer zu spät kommt..
Gruß Basic

[smiling]

Hallo Basic!

291.60 $ ist ein interessanter Schlußkurs in NY.

Eigentlich bin ich ein mutiger Feigling.

Hab 30% an der Nasdaq, 20% Optionen auf Nasdaq Werte, 30% OTC securities - LOL - (die besten gains aber eigentlich damit),
10% DROOY und 10% Gold Calls.

So kann ich immer etwas rausnehmen und füttern.

Besser wärs natürlich gewesen alles im Herbst auf Morphosys zu setzen und zwar bei 12 Euro und raus bei 200 oder so...........(in zwei Monaten)

Ich hab mit Gold Calls schon einige Male verloren, ausgebucht mit 0.-so werd ich immer so 10-20% meines Kapitals "verlieren" um dann doch einmal 1000% zu machen, wie September/Oktober 1999...

Good trades