Doesn't it amount to about 80 million per year.Who do they think they are? Extravagant to say the least.If all this $ would go toward earnings and cash flow we would be at 20 now.This miner will never grow the stock price with high dividend payout.It is like old ma bell.
I think he was referring to the company hedging its own commodities to help limit their own risk.
Both hedge funds hedging + the company's own hedging fo risk in case the commodity falls...both important. Funny how they used to hedge against the commodity rising too fast in the "old days."
Now just the opposite with rapid (and daily) expansion of the money supply globally.
Wait until the ECB lowers its interest rate to prevent a Full Blown EU depression.
The reference to “hedging” was much narrower in that it referred to Market Maker hedgers engaging in naked shorting to impact share price.
Your reference gets into complexities that weren’t within the scope of the comment as it dealt, in that instance, with market manipulation by illegal naked shorting disguised by FTDs, and not strategies by miners to reduce perceived risk, which is what you are referring to.
It’s uncertain how Sprott might be representative of a general market consensus. But your inference seems to be that he sees a sea change in how the market is being manipulated by hedge funds, and instead has hedge funds switching from price suppression of miners to reducing their off-books (FTD) shorting activity of mining shares. The only proof of that will be when the long standing trading range is broken to the upside.
If you have any further proof that this might take place please do respond. It does seem, however, that AUY’s decision to increase dividends, rather than buy back shares, is a strong indication that the trading range for mining shares will continue into the foreseeable future. The ONLY thing that would break the cycle is such a strong percentage move in PM prices that profits would be viewed as obscene in comparison. Some would say that this has already taken place, but still share prices remain flat. This is not factually true because in fact the ratio has plunged over 3 months compared to gold, so obviously the ratio has to increase dramatically to reverse the trend.
The following chart is backing for the above ratio statement:
Visit StockCharts com first before accessing the link below, otherwise the link won’t work (per the advisory if you don’t-another recent hoop your must jump through).
tinyurl_com/AUYgoldRATIO3mos (replace the “_” with “.” on the address line to access)
Is it possible that somebody like Marrone knows full well that a share buyback would be great to boost the share price?
But, just like hedge fund AUY naked short sellers (And please no declarations of the low number of shorts. FTDs are undocumented.), Marrone is part of the scam to drive share price down in conjunction with going long bullion ETFs, so a share buyback is the LAST thing that Marrone would want to do. And AUY seems to be one of the primary targets of the scheme to drive down share price. After all, that IS what AUY has to offer as output, its GEOs. Any rise in price there adds to AUYs bottom line. And if the strong financials, and share price manipulation, keeps share price low it will attract a buyout, further enriching company officers, who undoubtedly have golden parachute plans in place.
As for shareholders, many of whom post here that they are hoping for a buyback, such an event might not even take the stock price to its previous all time high. So it would seem that if we are to get full value in the event of a buyout it would have to come AFTER a share buyback boosts share price. That is because at that point there would be less shares outstanding but the cost of the takeover could be about the same. However the share price on a takeover would be MUCH higher, and a big gain for shareholders.
As for electing Ron Paul, yes that would be good for the country by taking us back to Constitutional rule of law. But viewing the past it seems the public does not have the brainpower to understand his message, if they are even given the opportunity, or to realize they are being manipulated by central bank interests. Most are a bunch of couch potatoes that are brainwashed by everything that comes out of the stupid box in their living rooms.
I agree that Peter should forgo the small dividend and go for the buyback. With 744 million shares outstanding, taking this down would excite wall street. The other key factor would be earnings,we are lucky we did not get pounded bad after the last report. You can see wall street has given up on Peter.
Do away with the dividend and the shorts will run this down to levels that you would not believe.There is just too much liquidity and disappointed shareholders hang on to the point of frustration and then look for the next best exit,thereby limiting sp appreciation.We used to be at 20 and then they issued more shares.
If auy wasn't pressured to come up with 70+ million a year in petty dividends,it might have some blockbuster earnings thereby raising the share price a dollar or two.Id rather be up $10000 on my 10000 shares than be down $10000 but be (blessed) with my $1000 dividend per year.The street has to ask--Why doesn't auy have blockbuster earnings if its such a low cost high production efficient gem? Why can't it even meet analysts projections? Because it is pressured to pay $70+ million to loyal sh's like me that are losing the principal while the management increase their salaries and bonuses.If the dividend went toward share buybacks and or earnings per share we and management would make far more with a sigificant increase in share price than this petty 10+ cent dividend.