Newsletter writer pledges help to GATA, and latest Midas excerpts

11:05p ET Sunday, February 25, 2001

Dear Friend of GATA and Gold:

An Australian with an interest in gold who follows
GATA's work and dispatches, Sid Reynolds, recently
wrote to AngloGold's marketing director, Kelvin
Williams, for elaboration about Williams' criticism of
GATA at the Indaba 2001 gold conference in Cape Town,
South Africa. (You may recall that, during the
conference, I posted to you the full text of Williams'
speech.)

Reynolds received a response from Williams as well as
permission to share it with GATA, and he asks if GATA
has anything to say about it. Since Williams' statement
does seem to be of such interest, I append it here with a
reply, in the hope of mobilizing the biggest gold company
in the world in support of the gold cause.

CHRIS POWELL, Secretary/Treasurer
Gold Anti-Trust Action Committee Inc.

-------------------

From Kelvin Williams, Anglogold director
of marketing, to Sid Reynolds in Australia:

Wednesday, February 21, 2001

The quote from your e-mail is interesting, referring to
my quot;lashing outquot; against GATA.

Far from quot;lashing out,quot; I referred to the conspiracy
theory about gold only in passing, and as a preface to
the comments I was to make about the physical market for
the metal, and our concerns for the ongoing health of
that market. I might add that this is the first time I
have made any reference to anything connected with GATA,
whereas I have observed repeated accusations made by
GATA against AngloGold....

As you observed, GATA's claims are extraordinary and we
would not disagree. Our problem with the argument for the
existence of a conspiracy is that the evidence for us does
remain circumstantial, and at critical points is susceptible
to more than one interpretation.

A very immediate example of this for us is obviously
the claim made that AngloGold has quot;material non-public
knowledge of the gold price-fixing scheme, which they've
used to their advantage.quot; Since we know this to be untrue
in any shape or form, it presents for us a real question
mark over all other assumptions and judgments made in
this broad area of a gold price conspiracy.

To lump our company with GATA's quot;opponentsquot; as your
outline does also seems to us to be difficult to
grasp, given that we have made barely any reference to
GATA at all in the public conduct of our business
compared to numerous and repeated attacks by GATA on
our company and others. It would seem that the role of
opponent is hardly defined by our public behaviour.

One final observation I would make on the issue of your
profile of those whom you assume to be opponents of
GATA is the inference that AngloGold would have a
vested interest in a lower gold price. I cannot stress
sufficiently how much we would welcome a higher and
sustained gold price for any reason at all, including
the eventuality that a conspiracy was shown to exist
and was broken. Our company would be delighted with
such a development.

The volume of gold we will produce in the years ahead
for which no price hedge has been entered into exceeds
by far the total of gold hedged by AngloGold, and our
company and our shareholders would benefit enormously.

Regards,

Kelvin Williams
Director of Marketing, AngloGold

* * *

A reply from Chris Powell, secretary/treasurer
of the Gold Anti-Trust Action Committee Inc.:

Sunday, February 25, 2001

I'm not privy to everything known or suspected in
general about GATA's lawsuit with Reginald H. Howe,
nor everything known or suspected in the lawsuit about
AngloGold in particular, and I suppose we could be wrong.
Of course we are proceeding conscientiously and in good
faith. I hope that we get into discovery and deposition so
that everything can be made clear.

But if AngloGold ever really wanted to help dispose of
concerns that the price of gold is being manipulated, and
to persuade gold investors of the company's desire for an
increase in the gold price, Williams could disclose whether
he has ever asked AngloGold board member Frank Arisman, an
officer of J.P. Morgan Inc., about the explosive growth in
gold derivatives on Morgan's books in the last couple of
years.

Certainly a Morgan officer's serving on Anglogold's board
while Morgan is speculating so heavily on the gold price,
apparently betting billions that the gold price will stay
low or decline, raises the possibility of a profound conflict
of interest -- IF Anglogold's interest indeed IS in favor of a
higher gold price. Of course if Anglogold does NOT want a
higher gold price, there may be no conflict of interest at all.

My interpretation of all this is that the cabal against gold
consists of governments and their central banks, the private
investment houses that also function as bullion banks and
that have shorted gold massively, and the most hedged gold
producers, which have underwritten that shorting. Through
massive hedging, those producers get the benefits of a higher
gold price for themselves while choking off the livelihood of
the rest of the industry, driving the gold price down, putting
their competitors out of business or making them available for
acquisition at distress prices, and, once those competitors
with unhedged reserves have been acquired by the hedgers,
positioning the hedgers to profit again when the gold price
turns up, incidentally monopolizing the industry.

This seems exactly what AngloGold has been doing, based on
the company's connections and observable conduct.

GATA would welcome an explanation from AngloGold as to what
there is on the public record, apart from the company's
simple denial of collusion against the gold price, that might
make anyone think otherwise. Certainly AngloGold, the World
Gold Council, and others in esteemed positions in the gold
business have displayed an astonishing lack of curiosity about
the many specifics GATA has raised, particularly the huge
growth and concentration of gold derivatives at Morgan, which
has a long and intimate connection with the U.S. government,
and at Deutsche Bank, agent of record in Europe for the
secretive U.S. Exchange Stabilization Fund, whose charter is
frankly to manipulate the currency markets.

Maybe these things are mere coincidences. But if, as
Williams says, they are quot;susceptible to more than one
interpretation,quot; what would be the harm in AngloGold's
providing a contrary interpretation? Gold investors would
be very interested to know how, if AngloGold and Morgan are
on the same side, AngloGold can really want a higher price
for gold any more than it wants a higher price for Gold
Fields, the big unhedged producer AngloGold and the other
big hedged producer, Barrick, are said to be trying to
acquire.