Mike's Content

Michael’s Oct. 19th Money Talks Show

Posted by Michael Campbell - Money Talks

on Sunday, 20 October 2013 23:48

Michael Mike Campbell image The 1st 1/2 hour begins with Michael’s Economic & Financial Commentary. 

{mp3}mtoct19leadfp{/mp3}

The second hour of Money Talks begins with Michael interviewing David Bensimon of Polar Pacific Financial Market Research

{mp3}mtoct19hourfp{/mp3}

THE COLLAPSE IN CAPITALISM

Posted by Martin Armstrong - John Rubino

on Sunday, 20 October 2013 20:43

Dollar-VortexThey are Calling it a Collapse in Capitalism – by Martin Armstrong

The view of the American budget crisis from outside the USA is one that is blaming Wall Street and the banks and calling for the next crisis to be the final meltdown of Capitalism. This view is rising around the world. The fact that it is just pushed off into January with the funding ending on February 7th is seen as this debt crisis will merely take place time and time again until capitalism collapses. It is curious that there is a rising tide against capitalism but there is no understanding exactly what that truly means other than the Wall Street bankers. Obama is too busy trying to destroy the Republicans so he can pursue unrestrained socialism/communism and cannot see that this will destroy the world economy. It is the private sector that creates national wealth – not the state as communism proved.

….read more HERE

 

Too Big To Even Name

With the announcement that JP Morgan Chase will pay a $13 billion fine for past crimes against its customers – while the bankers who actually committed the crimes will remain not only unprosecuted but unnamed – a lot of people are wondering how it is that crimes worthy of billions in restitution don’t rate a single perp-walk. Earlier this year a senator wondered the same thing in a hearing and got some illuminating answers. From Harper’s Magazine:

Too Big To Jail
From the transcript of a March 7 Senate Banking Committee hearing on enforcement of the Bank Secrecy Act of 1970, which requires U.S. financial institutions to help the federal government prevent money laundering. Elizabeth Warren is a Democratic senator from Massachusetts; David Cohen is the Treasury’s undersecretary for terrorism and financial intelligence; Jerome Powell is a governor of the Federal Reserve.

ELIZABETH WARREN: In December, HSBC admitted to laundering $881 million for Mexican and Colombian drug cartels, and also admitted to violating our sanctions against Iran, Libya, Cuba, Burma, the Sudan. They didn’t do it just one time. It wasn’t like a mistake. They did it over and over and over again over a period of years. And they were caught doing it. Warned not to do it. And kept right on doing it. And evidently making profits doing it. Now, HSBC paid a fine, but no one individual went to trial. No one individual was banned from banking. And there was no hearing to consider shutting down HSBC’s activities here in the United States. So what I’d like is — you’re the experts on money laundering. I’d like your opinion. What does it take? How many billions of dollars do you have to launder for drug lords and how many economic sanctions do you have to violate before someone will consider shutting down a financial institution like this? Mr. Cohen, can we start with you?

DAVID COHEN: Certainly, Senator. No question, the activity that was the subject of the enforcement action against HSBC was egregious. For our part, we imposed on HSBC the largest penalties that we had ever imposed on any financial institution. We looked at the facts and determined that the appropriate response there was a very, very significant penalty.

WARREN: But let me just move you along here, Mr. Cohen. What does it take to get you to move toward even a hearing? Even considering shutting down banking operations for money laundering?

COHEN: Senator, we at the Treasury Department don’t have the authority to shut down a financial institution.

WARREN: I understand that. I’m asking, in your opinion, you are the ones who are supposed to be the experts on money laundering. You work with everyone else, including the Department of Justice. In your opinion, how many billions of dollars do you have to launder for drug lords before somebody says, “We’re shutting you down”?

COHEN: We take these issues extraordinarily seriously. We aggressively prosecute and impose penalties against the institutions to the full extent of our authority. And one of the issues that we’re looking at —

WARREN: I’m sorry, I don’t mean to interrupt. I just need to move this along. I’m not hearing your opinion on this. Treasury is supposed to be one of the leaders in how we understand and work together to stop money laundering. I’m asking, what does it take, even to say, “We’re going to draw a line here, and if you cross that line, you’re at risk for having your bank closed”?

COHEN: We will, and have, and will continue to exercise our authority to the full extent of the law. The question of pulling a bank’s license is a question for the regulators.

WARREN: So you have no opinion on that? You tell me how vigorously you want to enforce these laws, but you have no opinion on when it is that a bank should be shut down for money laundering? Not even an opinion?

COHEN: Of course we have views on —

WARREN: That’s what I asked you for. Your views.

COHEN: I’m not going to get into some hypothetical line-drawing exercise.

WARREN: Well, it’s somewhere beyond $881 million of drug money.

COHEN: Well, Senator, the actions that we took in the HSBC case we thought were appropriate in that instance.

WARREN: Governor Powell, perhaps you can help me out here?

JEROME POWELL: Sure. So the authority to shut down an institution or hold a hearing about it, I believe, is triggered by a criminal conviction. And we don’t do criminal investigation. In the case of HSBC, we gave essentially the statutory maximum civil money penalties. We gave very stringent cease-and-desist orders. And we did what we have the legal authority to do.

WARREN: I appreciate that, Mr. Powell. So you’re saying you have no advice to the Justice Department on whether or not this was an appropriate case for a criminal action?

POWELL: It’s not our jurisdiction. They don’t do monetary policy. We collaborate with them, and we did on HSBC. They ask us specific questions. We answer those questions. That’s what we do.

WARREN: So you are responsible for these banks, but you have no view on when it’s appropriate to consider even a hearing to raise the question of whether or not these banks should have to close their operations when they engage in money laundering for drug cartels?

POWELL: I’ll tell you exactly when it’s appropriate. It’s appropriate where there’s a criminal conviction.

WARREN: I’ll just say here, if you’re caught with an ounce of cocaine, the chances are good you’re going to go to jail. If it happens repeatedly, you may go to jail for the rest of your life. But evidently if you launder nearly a billion dollars for drug cartels and violate our international sanctions, your company pays a fine and you go home and sleep in your own bed at night. I think that’s fundamentally wrong.

Some thoughts
When the Savings & Loan industry gorged on junk bonds and self-dealing and imploded in 1990, the Justice Department sent hundreds of industry insiders to jail and fined hundreds more. This time around, has anyone gone to jail? Apparently not. A cynic might say that Treasury, Justice and the Fed now operate more like in-house council for Wall Street, cleaning up messes and negotiating settlements that keep the deals flowing without touching the deal makers.

This isn’t hyperbole. It is now generally accepted that a stint in congress or a regulatory agency is an extended job interview, giving the lobbying firms and big banks a chance to look you over and see if you’re a team player. So negotiating a fig-leaf settlement is a sign of initiative, while going after individual bankers upsets your future bosses and dramatically lowers your long-term earning potential. Hence the unwillingness of Powell and Cohen to state obvious truths.

On the other hand, the increasing size of the fines seems to indicate that something has changed. Maybe, having won re-election, the president is thinking more about his legacy and less about ad spending, and is willing to forego some of Wall Street’s millions in order to seem tough on the banking aristocracy. Wonder what the democrats who do have to run for election think of this sudden change?

But if legacy is the motivating factor here, the strategy is failing, because the size of the fines only serves to illustrate the magnitude of the crimes – and the outrageousness of letting the actual people who committed the crimes go untouched and unshamed. – by John Rubino DollarCollapse.com

Fracking Becomes SUPER-FRACKING

Posted by Josh Grasmick - Tomorrow in Review

on Saturday, 19 October 2013 12:05

Unknown-1Unless you’ve been living under a rock, you must know at least something about hydro-fracking in the U.S…. Come to think of it… if any person in the U.S. actually does fancy living under rocks, I’m sure they know about it too.

As of 2010, according to the Society of Petroleum Engineers, 60% of all new oil and gas wells on the planet are being hydro-fracked. The result: an unrivaled U.S. energy boom.

[Ed. Note: If you want a brief crash course on fracking, check out this shortanimated video on our Daily Reckoning website.]

As you know, fracking injects high pressures of water, sand and chemicals to crack open saturated rock for energy. Rigs can now tap into wells, both old and new, for oil and natural gas — not to mention shale — trapped underneath the Earth. And the juice is definitely worth the squeeze.

The U.S. in particular has benefited greatly from being ahead of the game on this. Since 2012, 2.5 million fracks have occurred worldwide, with over 1 million in the U.S. And that’s a very conservative estimate. Places that are tapping into this new energy, like North Dakota, have effectively been sheltered from the Great Recession. Employment rates in these areas are the best in the country. 

But what you may not know is that this fracking revolution, along with the economic advantages it brings, is all thanks to new technology. And now this revolutionary tech is getting an upgrade.

In short, this upgrade is turning fracking into “super-fracking”…

And “super-fracking” has a brand-new way of dropping balls.

Fracking Just Grew a New Set of Billion-Dollar Balls

I’m talking about fracking balls, of course. What else?

See, right now, for companies to frack, they have to do something kind of funny…

Before real energy production can begin, rigs have to drop down these big balls into wells. They are commonly made from plastic, aluminum or various composite materials.

These frack balls usually measure 1-12 inches in diameter. Their purpose?

These things act as plugs that isolate different areas of the wells. That way, it’s easier to pressurize and extract the goodies you want from underneath the ground. They’re used a lot — in 20 to even 30 different stages throughout the entire process.

But the problem is it can take several days for a rig to go out, sit there and fish out frack balls.

If companies could find a new way to handle their frack balls, they would be able to focus more on production…

Super Fracking: Making Frack Balls Less of a Ball and Chain.

Upgrading the tech and special materials that comprise frack balls is something all companies in this sector will be forced to do. Here are a couple that have innovations in the works…

The first company that’s working on “super fracking” is Baker Hughes Inc. (BHI). They branded a tech called “DirectConnect” that is undergoing field tests by select customers, according to a Bloomberg interview.

Baker Hughes also invented their own frack balls that disintegrate in wells like an Alka-Seltzer tablet does in your stomach. The fix takes a mere 1½ days.

The result is a big cut in two very valuable things: time and money (time is money, right?)

As I said before, any company that wants to remain competitive in this field will have to go in a similar direction.

Take Halliburton (HAL). Halliburton is implementing something similar called RapidFrac. It’s all a part of a plan the company calls “frack of the future” that aims to use better tech to pump up production, faster, with less dependency on materials and labor for each well.

RapidFrac is a little different but accomplishes the same goals as high-tech frack balls. RapidFrac uses a series of sliding sleeves that slip into a horizontal well and isolate zones for fracking. According to a JPMorgan Chase & Co. investor note on Sept. 19, these sliding sleeves can cut costs in the Bakken from as much as $2.5 million per well to $750,000.

Other companies, which our researchers are on top of but haven’t yet published, really take frack balls to a whole new level. These companies make their frack balls out of strong, ultra lightweight, “reactive” materials. That means “intelligent” material that responds to its environment, such as changes in fluid, pressure, temperature, electrical or magnetic fields… and other things that could trigger a desired disintegration while it’s in the well so rigs don’t have to fish them back up.

Ultimately, as frack balls are made from these special materials through new technology, they will be able to withstand deeper and higher pressure wells of 15,000-20,000 pounds per square inch (psi). To give you a comparison, typical dissolvable frack balls made from polymers and salts are limited to 5,000 psi-range wells. There are other advantages to high-tech frack balls, such as 40% less water consumption and easier chemical distribution.

Best,

Josh Grasmick
Managing editor, Tomorrow in Review

Urgent Notice: I wanted to get your Tomorrow in Review issue to you today as early as possible so you have a bigger window to act on a very special event tonight. In short, we are hosting our first live online event in Agora Financials decade-long history, at 6:00 pm.

It’s completely free. No tricks. No gimmicks. No credit cards.

We’re getting our top energy expert to take questions from you. Our customer service team is even staying here at our Baltimore office until midnight. It’s going to be quite a day for them.

The point of this event is to give you everything you need to know about a specifically designed strategy in the American energy industry that could — as history has proved — TRIPLE your money in 48 hours. It all has to do with a very important government document our Harvard-trained geologist is going to tell you about. So please…

Click here to sign up for this live event before it’s too late.

Thank you for reading Tomorrow in Review. We greatly value your questions and comments. Click here to send us feedback.

 

The US debt dollars that no one’s talking about

Posted by John Crudele NY Post

on Saturday, 19 October 2013 11:45

ceilingSo Congress says we won’t hear about the debt ceiling again until Feb. 7. Don’t count on that.

Washington is playing a shell game. Move the money here and there fast enough and nobody will be able to figure out how much cash — and, more important, debt — the US really has.

In the first place, putting the Feb. 7 date on the debt-ceiling extension instead of placing an amount on the new borrowing limits is preposterous. The numbers, I’m sure, will come out after the agreement is fully signed, sealed and — Washington hopes — forgotten.

The old debt limit was $16.7 trillion. You are probably thinking that since this was the limit, that’s where the US debt level now stands. You would be wrong.

…..read more HERE

The Article Most Read by Analysts and Fund Managers

Sprott’s Charles Oliver Sees the Shine Returning to Metals

 

Has the gold price hit bottom? Charles Oliver, senior portfolio manager with Sprott Asset Management, believes that the fundamentals are in place for gold to vault from its downturn—possibly topping $2,000/oz in the next year. In this interview with The Gold Report, Oliver talks about which small-cap miners he’s been adding to his portfolio before the market recognizes the illogical discounts.

The Gold Report: Charles, you believe that gold has bottomed and that the yellow metal will finish the year much higher than where it is now. You and others at Sprott have never wavered in your beliefs, even as others have exited the gold space en masse. Please tell our readers why you believe your faith is about to be rewarded.

Charles Oliver: We’ve seen some positive signs in the market this summer. It looks as if gold has been in the bottoming phase for some time. Valuations are incredibly cheap. There’s been continued debasement of currencies, which has been a driver all along. There’s talk of cutting back on quantitative easing, yet the government continues to print aggressive amounts of money.

During the recent downturn in the gold market, there was significant buying from places like Asia. The Chinese and its counterparts continue to buy gold and silver when the price comes off, as we saw this past spring, and also as stocks rise.

Fundamentally, everything looks very good for gold. The pullback in the gold price, from the high of $1,921/ounce ($1,921/oz) to $1,180/oz, is reminiscent of 1974 to 1976. During that time, there was a big pullback of almost 50% in the gold market followed by a rise from $100/oz in 1976 to $850/oz in 1980.

TGR: You’re about to head out on a marketing tour and visit some potential projects. Do you believe those reasons we just discussed are saleable?

CO: Absolutely. One of the reasons I didn’t do much marketing last year was that it was a terrible time to market. People didn’t want to hear about gold because it was going down. It’s tough to get people to buy when they’re scared. Having said that, those times often present the best opportunities. I feel it’s good to go out and get in front of our unit holders and tell them why they should hold on if they’re having any doubts or, if they’re not in doubt, to build a position.

TGR: Do you still believe gold will get beyond $2,000/oz in the foreseeable future?

CO: I firmly believe gold will be beyond $2,000. The only question is when. There have been some predictions within the Sprott organization that gold could go beyond $2,000 within the next 12 months. There are real reasons behind why that could happen. I don’t know if it will. The timing is one of the toughest things to figure out.

Yet, the fall in the gold price in the face of massive quantitative easing did not make sense. It’s only a matter of time.

TGR: You’ve been even more bullish on silver than gold in the past. Has that changed?

CO: It hasn’t changed. Over the next five years, I expect the silver price will outperform the gold price. During the last 2,000 years, the silver/gold ratio was at 16:1 about 90% of the time. That means that if gold is $1,600/oz, which isn’t far away, the silver price would likely be $100/oz. The current silver price would have to increase more than fourfold to get to that historic norm. The last time that it reached the norm was in 1980 when the silver price reached $50/oz and the gold price was $850/oz, or a ratio of 17:1.

TGR: Do you think we’re going to get back there?

CO: It’s going in that direction. Whether or not we get actually to 17:1—whether or not we overshoot—depends on many different things. However, the current level is closer to 60:1.

TGR: What’s Sprott’s position on the platinum group metals?

CO: We are bullish on platinum group metals. The fundamentals are favorable. The supply side is strong. Most of the supply of platinum and palladium is in South Africa, which is undergoing a lot of strikes, strife and challenges. There’s been talk about shutdowns.

The demand side is also strong. One of the key uses for these metals is for catalytic converters in cars to reduce pollution. I was in Beijing recently and there was a huge amount of smog. The Chinese government has announced a plan to increase emission standards, which means each car sold will need more platinum or palladium.

On top of that, the growth of car ownership in China during the past 20 years is up about tenfold, from about 1 million cars a year to around 10 million cars a year, and is continuing to grow at an aggressive clip. The supply-demand side of the equation looks very positive.

TGR: You’ve made a living seeing opportunities where others see problems or too much risk. Which category do the labor issues in South Africa fall into?

CO: It’s very hard to understand what’s going to happen in South Africa. I don’t currently have any investments in platinum/palladium miners in South Africa, but I have in the past. I am fearful of events that might unfold and what kind of impact they might have on the companies. I prefer to invest in the bullion or in a limited number of companies outside of South Africa.

TGR: The Sprott Gold and Precious Minerals Fund lists Sprott’s “exceptional deal flow and numerous company relationships” as one of the reasons to own the fund. What are some financing deals you’ve worked on this year?

CO: I’ve been involved in a number of transactions. Anything you buy in the space has been beaten up, so it’s at a good price.

I added to my position in Roxgold Inc. (ROG:TSX.V), which just released its preliminary economic assessment (PEA) and has a spectacular-looking deposit in Burkina Faso.

TGR: Roxgold’s 55 Zone deposit is very high-grade. How is its Yaramoko project in West Africa shaping up?

CO: I’m very happy with it. It just came out with its PEA and it has an after-tax return at $1,300/oz gold of just less than 50%. It’s got about a 1.4-year payback. It’s a high-grade deposit.

It’s still in the early stages, but I expect it will optimize it over time and potentially improve its already high internal rate of return. At some point in time, I would not be surprised to see another company take it out. It’s a sweet little project.

TGR: And at a ridiculously low market cap right now, too. A takeover offer doesn’t seem that unlikely with numbers like these—even in a difficult financing environment. Are the risks associated with Burkina Faso overstated?

CO: There’s risk everywhere. You’ve got to quantify it and keep tabs on how it might be changing. I’ve been concerned about places in Africa for the last couple of years. There are some issues out there and one must address that. However, a lot of mining companies are in fairly isolated places where they can continue to operate even when certain events are going on within a country. I’m cognizant of the risks and I diversify my portfolio.

TGR: What other companies have you been buying?

CO: I added to my position in U.S. Silver & Gold Corp. (USA:TSX.V; USSIF:OTCQX), which is run by a couple of former Barrick Gold Corp. (ABX:TSX; ABX:NYSE) people and has a silver mine in the U.S.

I’ve also added to my position in Atna Resources Ltd. (ATN:TSX) in Nevada.

TGR: What brought you to the U.S. Silver & Gold project? Was it the Barrick personnel?

CO: I’ve known Director Alex Davidson for more than a decade. I like CEO Darren Blasutti and his management team. I had been an investor in the deposit, which is next to Hecla Mining Co.’s (HL:NYSE) deposit, and always thought it was interesting. It became even more interesting when Darren and Alex got involved. These are people with big company mining experience who know how to do things right. They’ve also done a bit of exploration. No surprise—U.S. Silver & Gold is actually finding some great potential down below in the mine.

TGR: Are there some new companies that Sprott is working with that our readers should know about?

CO: I’m always looking for new companies. In fact, during the next couple of weeks, I’m going to be meeting with many new companies. Until they’re an existing position in the portfolio, I can’t talk about which ones they are, unfortunately. That’s the secret sauce!

TGR: Every mining stock portfolio has taken a few hits during the past couple of years. How would you respond when someone asks why you stay in the small-cap mining space?

CO: I’ve made my name on the long-term performance of small-cap mining. We make mistakes and learn from them. There are mining cycles. I try and adjust my weightings in certain sectors periodically when I believe one sector will be in favor or out of favor. Hopefully, next time I’ll do a better job of recognizing when the big downturn is coming in small caps. However, when the Federal Reserve increased quantitative easing from $45 billion to $85 billion a month, I believed that it was time to start investing in small-cap names. Clearly the market has gone down since then. I don’t think that was logical. Even if I were to go back in time, I’d react exactly the same way. We won’t get it perfectly, but we try to outperform on a long-term basis.

TGR: What about someone who argues with you on the basis of the lack of liquidity?

CO: Liquidity is something you’ve got to manage. I hold about a third of my portfolio in large caps and a third in mid-caps on a full-cycle basis. I do that because I need to maintain liquidity. If an investor can be locked in for five to seven years, I would suggest a larger holding in small caps. If liquidity isn’t an issue, small caps are the best place to be.

TGR: When you talked with Canada’s Business News Network in June, you said Unigold Inc. (UGD:TSX.V) was your top pick in the small-cap space. Is that still true?

CO: It’s still a big favorite of mine. I’ll actually be meeting with CEO Andrew Cheatle to get an update in the coming weeks. Once the company has an NI 43-101 for its property in the Dominican Republic, it should show a very sizeable resource. At some point, value will surface. I’ve been an investor for more than four years.

TGR: Tell us about the Neita and Candelones projects.

CO: Unigold has done a lot of drilling, but it hasn’t put down a resource on paper. When I meet with Andrew, one of the questions I’ll be asking him is about when it will come out with a resource. At one point, he was talking about coming out with one before year-end.

TGR: There’s a news cycle in this business. Things tend to get lost toward the end of the year. Do you think Unigold is waiting for the new year?

CO: It’s waiting for the right time. It is best to wait for a market that cares. We’ve been in a market for the last year or more that doesn’t care. It’s frustrating as a portfolio manager to see companies that come out with good news be sold off. It’s not a rational thing. A lot of the junior companies have been holding back some of their good news for a period when the market actually cares again about good news.

TGR: Why have you stuck with Unigold for four years?

CO: At the early stage, it was a very cheap company with a lot of historic drilling. But it got caught in the asset-backed commercial paper situation. It was holding a bunch of cash to use for exploration. It set it back. A new management team and board took the reins and helped to raise money to get drilling going. The company has been doing a lot of induced polarization and other geophysical work. It can take a long time to build and develop a mine. You have to be patient, but the rewards can be huge over the long term.

TGR: Looking back at the third quarter, what were some summer catalysts at the companies you own that the market has yet to fully value?

CO: Roxgold came out with a PEA with spectacular results that have not been factored into its value.

I visited the Brucejack deposit of Pretium Resources Inc. (PVG:TSX; PVG:NYSE). This summer it was doing a 10,000-ton bulk sample of its deposit from underground, with results expected in the next few quarters.

TGR: Is the Valley of Kings zone a kingmaker?

CO: The grade there is spectacular. It is going to be a mine, in my opinion. The biggest question is: What will the mining costs be and what type of mining will it try to get the most economic reserve? When I was underground I could see these veins extending a reasonable distance. Of course, you can’t always trust what you see with the eye because the engineers are going to ultimately put some parameters around the width and grades and figure out what the best mining is going to be.

I also like Tahoe Resources Inc. (THO:TSX; TAHO:NYSE), a silver company run by Kevin McArthur, who has one of the best track records for building mines over the past decade. Tahoe has a Guatemalan property, which is a high-grade, low-capex project. It is ramping up into production as we speak. It could be a spectacular mine. We’ll have to see how the ramp up goes, but it’s at that point.

TGR: When will it start generating cash flow?

CO: That’s the million-dollar question. Hopefully, it will be cash-flow positive sometime next year. Ramp-ups can be challenging, but if there is someone in the industry that can do it, I’d bet on Kevin McArthur.

TGR: What do you think of Escobal?

CO: It’s a very special deposit. Big, high-grade deposits are far and few between. Sprott used to hold shares of Palmarejo, which was eventually sold and we are current shareholders of MAG Silver Corp. (MAG:TSX; MVG:NYSE), which has nice deposits. MAG Silver should be in production around 2018.

TGR: What can you leave us with to buoy our spirits?

CO: My father always used to tell me that after the bad times, the good times come. It has been very tough out there for the last couple of years. I know a lot of investors have given up and thrown in the towel. There’s been a lot of blood in the streets. But the fundamentals all add up. It’s not going to be much longer before we get back to those good times. Hang in there. Valuations are great and the fundamentals continue to be very positive.

TGR: Some colloquial wisdom from Charles Oliver. Thank you.

CO: My pleasure.

Charles Oliver joined Sprott Asset Management in 2008. He is lead portfolio manager of the Sprott Gold and Precious Minerals Fund. Previously, he was at AGF Management Limited, where his team was awarded the Canadian Investment Awards Best Precious Metals Fund in 2004, 2006 and 2007. His accolades also include: Lipper Awards’ best five-year return in the Precious Metals category (AGF Precious Metals Fund, 2007), and the Lipper award for best one-year return in the Precious Metals category 2010.

Want to read more Gold Report interviews like this? Sign up for our free e-newsletter, and you’ll learn when new articles have been published. To see a list of recent interviews with industry analysts and commentators, visit our Streetwise Interviews page.

Related Articles

 

 

DISCLOSURE: 
1) Brian Sylvester conducted this interview for The Gold Report and provides services to The Gold Reportas an independent contractor. He or his family own shares of the following companies mentioned in this interview: None.
2) The following companies mentioned in the interview are sponsors of The Gold Report: Roxgold Inc., Unigold Inc., Pretium Resources Inc., Tahoe Resources Inc. and MAG Silver Corp. Streetwise Reports does not accept stock in exchange for its services or as sponsorship payment.
3) Charles Oliver: I or my family own shares of the following companies mentioned in this interview: None. I personally am or my family is paid by the following companies mentioned in this interview: None. My company has a financial relationship with the following companies mentioned in this interview: Sprott owns shares of all companies mentioned. Sprott is in no way financially compensated by the companies mentioned in this interview. I was not paid by Streetwise Reports for participating in this interview. Comments and opinions expressed are my own comments and opinions. I had the opportunity to review the interview for accuracy as of the date of the interview and am responsible for the content of the interview. 
4) Interviews are edited for clarity. Streetwise Reports does not make editorial comments or change experts’ statements without their consent.
5) The interview does not constitute investment advice. Each reader is encouraged to consult with his or her individual financial professional and any action a reader takes as a result of information presented here is his or her own responsibility. By opening this page, each reader accepts and agrees to Streetwise Reports’ terms of use and full legal disclosure. 
6) From time to time, Streetwise Reports LLC and its directors, officers, employees or members of their families, as well as persons interviewed for articles and interviews on the site, may have a long or short position in securities mentioned and may make purchases and/or sales of those securities in the open market or otherwise.