Metal Hawk has a solid strategy to increase shareholder value through early-stage exploration success, leveraging a strong gold market and driven by a highly experienced team with a track record of successful discoveries.
Metal Hawk Limited (ASX:MHK) is an Australian exploration company with a primary focus on gold and nickel discoveries. The company is driven by a technically proficient team with a proven track record of identifying high-potential mineral exploration projects and executing early-stage discoveries.
Founded with a strong commitment to disciplined exploration, Metal Hawk’s portfolio is primarily concentrated in the prolific Eastern Goldfields of Western Australia. The company’s exploration strategy combines traditional geological methods with innovative technologies to unlock the full potential of its tenements.
The main focus of Metal Hawk’s current exploration activities is its Leinster South project, which has shown significant promise following the discovery of high-grade gold at the Siberian Tiger prospect. Metal Hawk is advancing towards securing the necessary permits for further exploration and a maiden drilling program at Leinster South. Metal Hawk is finalising heritage negotiations and intends to undertake a heritage clearance survey as soon as possible, which will allow for the commencement of a maiden reverse circulation (RC) drilling program at Siberian Tiger. This drilling campaign will test the depth extent and continuity of the high-grade gold mineralization identified at surface.
The company also maintains a diversified exploration portfolio with other projects such as Berehaven, Yarmany and Kanowna East, all of which hold strong potential for gold and nickel mineralisation.
Leinster South, Metal Hawk’s flagship project, is located 30 kilometers south of Leinster in Western Australia’s Eastern Goldfields region. Covering approximately 127 square kilometers of granted tenure, this project is highly prospective for gold and nickel mineralization. Its proximity to the Agnew-Lawlers mining center, which has produced over 5 million ounces of gold at an average grade of 5 grams per ton (g/t), further enhances its significance. The project sits within the Agnew-Wiluna greenstone belt and along the eastern limb of the Lawlers Anticline, a key structural feature associated with major gold discoveries in the region.
The Siberian Tiger prospect within Leinster South is the focal point of Metal Hawk’s exploration efforts. Recent rock chip sampling from quartz veins has returned high-grade gold results, with assays reaching up to 20.2 g/t. This high-grade discovery has accelerated the company’s exploration activities, with further sampling and mapping identifying additional gold anomalies along strike from the Siberian Tiger prospect.
The prospect has also been the subject of geophysical surveys by Metal Hawk, including a UAV magnetic survey, which has provided detailed data on the geology and helped identify several drill targets. These findings confirm the presence of prospective stratigraphy along the eastern limb of the Lawlers Anticline, setting the stage for a maiden RC drilling program. Heritage negotiations with traditional owners are progressing, and once complete, the company will begin drilling to test the depth and continuity of the mineralization.
Metal Hawk’s exploration strategy at Leinster South combines geophysical surveys, geochemical sampling, and geological mapping to systematically assess the project’s potential. While the focus is on drill testing surface gold mineralization at Siberian Tiger, the company is also exploring other areas of the tenement for additional targets. The broader project area contains a variety of mafic and ultramafic rocks, which are known to host both gold and nickel mineralization.
The Berehaven project is located in a well-established mining region, known for its gold and nickel potential. Metal Hawk’s exploration efforts here have focused on identifying structurally controlled gold mineralization. The project area is characterized by mafic and ultramafic rock sequences, which are highly prospective for hosting both gold and nickel deposits. While still in the early stages of exploration, Berehaven represents a valuable asset in Metal Hawk’s portfolio.
Yarmany is another key project in Metal Hawk’s portfolio, located in the Western Australian Goldfields. This project is highly prospective for gold, with several historic workings and gold anomalies identified through surface sampling. The project’s proximity to known gold deposits adds to its appeal, and Metal Hawk is planning further exploration to delineate drill targets.
The Kanowna East project is located near the world-class Kanowna Belle gold mine, which has produced millions of ounces of gold over its operational life. Metal Hawk’s tenements in this region are prospective for both gold and base metals, and the company is planning additional exploration activities to test the area’s potential.
Mike Edwards is a geologist and economist with over 25 years’ experience in senior management roles within both the public and private sectors. Edwards worked for Barclays Australia in the commercial and corporate finance department, before returning to university to complete a Bachelor of Science in geology. Edwards then spent eight years as an exploration and mine geologist, principally working in Australia with a focus on Archaean gold and base metals. Over the past 10 years, Edwards has held numerous executive and non-executive director roles, predominantly with ASX-listed companies. Most recently, he was the non-executive chairman of Firefly Resources (ASX:FFR), which successfully merged with Gascoyne Resources (ASX:GCY). Edwards holds a Bachelor of Business (economics and finance) from Curtin University of Technology, and a Bachelor of Science (geology) from the University of Western Australia.
Will Belbin has over 20 years’ experience working in gold and base metals exploration, with extensive experience in project generation and evaluation. He was an integral part of the Fisher East nickel sulphide discoveries as exploration manager for Rox Resources. Previously, Belbin worked with Newexco as a senior geologist at Western Areas’ Forrestania nickel project. He holds a geology degree from the University of Western Australia and a Master of Mineral Economics from Curtin University's Graduate School of Business.
David Pennock is a corporate geologist from the WA School of Mines, with over 15 years of experience in the resources sector and has strong business development skills.
Scott Glasson is an experienced CFO and qualified chartered accountant with a strong knowledge of financial markets, corporate governance and accounting practices.
All amounts expressed in US dollars
Barrick Gold Corporation (NYSE:GOLD)(TSX:ABX) ("Barrick" or the "Company") today reported preliminary Q3 production of 943 thousand ounces of gold and 48 thousand tonnes of copper, as well as preliminary Q3 sales of 967 thousand ounces of gold and 42 thousand tonnes of copper. The Company continues to expect a materially stronger Q4 to deliver 2024 production within the range of its full year gold and copper guidance.
The average market price for gold in Q3 was $2,474 per ounce while the average market price for copper in Q3 was $4.18 per pound.
Preliminary Q3 gold production was in line with Q2. Pueblo Viejo delivered a 23% sequential improvement on continued plant optimization, whilst North Mara had a stronger quarter driven by higher grades. At Carlin, the Gold Quarry roaster expansion, completed during a Q3 shutdown, is expected to underpin higher throughput and recoveries in Q4. Turquoise Ridge improved versus Q2, with a stronger underground mining performance more than offsetting a planned shutdown of the Sage autoclave in Q3. At Kibali, underground development during Q3 opened up access to more high-grade underground headings, which are expected to be further supplemented by higher open pit grades and volumes to drive a stronger performance in Q4. Compared to Q2, Q3 gold cost of sales per ounce 1 is expected to be 1% to 3% higher, total cash costs per ounce 2 is expected to be 3% to 5% higher and all-in sustaining costs per ounce 2 are expected to be 0% to 2% higher, in part reflecting higher royalties from the higher gold price received.
As expected, preliminary Q3 copper production was higher than Q2, driven primarily by higher grades and recoveries at Lumwana following improved ore access driven by the ramp up in stripping activities in Q2, with further improvements expected in Q4. Compared to Q2, Q3 copper cost of sales per pound 1 is expected to be 5% to 7% higher, C1 cash costs per pound 2 are expected to be 13% to 15% higher, while all-in sustaining costs per pound 2 are expected to be 2% to 4% lower, primarily due to a decrease in capitalized waste stripping at Lumwana.
Barrick will provide additional discussion and analysis regarding its third quarter 2024 production and sales when the Company reports its quarterly results before North American markets open on November 7, 2024.
The following table includes preliminary gold and copper production and sales results from Barrick's operations:
| Three months ended September 30, 2024 | Nine months ended September 30, 2024 | |||
| Production | Sales | Production | Sales | |
| Gold (attributable ounces (000)) | ||||
| Carlin (61.5%) | 182 | 183 | 589 | 592 |
| Cortez (61.5%) | 98 | 99 | 319 | 321 |
| Turquoise Ridge (61.5%) | 76 | 77 | 210 | 209 |
| Phoenix (61.5%) | 29 | 28 | 88 | 89 |
| Nevada Gold Mines (61.5%) | 385 | 387 | 1,206 | 1,211 |
| Loulo-Gounkoto (80%) | 144 | 135 | 422 | 412 |
| Pueblo Viejo (60%) | 98 | 96 | 259 | 257 |
| North Mara (84%) | 75 | 78 | 175 | 174 |
| Kibali (45%) | 71 | 77 | 229 | 230 |
| Veladero (50%) | 57 | 78 | 170 | 179 |
| Bulyanhulu (84%) | 37 | 37 | 124 | 121 |
| Hemlo | 30 | 28 | 104 | 105 |
| Tongon (89.7%) | 28 | 32 | 109 | 113 |
| Porgera (24.5%) | 18 | 19 | 33 | 31 |
| Total Gold | 943 | 967 | 2,831 | 2,833 |
| Copper (attributable tonnes (000)) | ||||
| Lumwana | 30 | 26 | 77 | 73 |
| Zaldívar (50%) | 10 | 10 | 29 | 28 |
| Jabal Sayid (50%) | 8 | 6 | 25 | 22 |
| Total Copper | 48 | 42 | 131 | 123 |
Third Quarter 2024 Results
Barrick will release its Q3 2024 results before market open on November 7, 2024. President and CEO Mark Bristow will host a live presentation of the results that day in London, UK at 11:00 EST/16:00 UTC, with an interactive webinar linked to a conference call. Participants will be able to ask questions.
Go to the webinar
US and Canada (toll-free), 1 844 763 8274
UK (toll), +44 20 3795 9972
International (toll), +1 647 484 8814
The Q3 2024 presentation materials will be available on Barrick's website at www.barrick.com .
The webinar will remain on the website for later viewing, and the conference call will be available for replay by telephone at 1 855 669 9658 (US and Canada toll-free) and +1 412 317 0088 (international toll), replay access code 8607451.
Enquiries:
Kathy du Plessis
Investor and Media Relations
+44 20 7557 7738
barrick@dpapr.com
Website : www.barrick.com
Technical Information
The scientific and technical information contained in this news release has been reviewed and approved by: Craig Fiddes, SME-RM, Lead, Resource Modeling, Nevada Gold Mines; Simon Bottoms, CGeol, MGeol, FGS, FAusIMM, Mineral Resource Management and Evaluation Executive (in this capacity, Mr. Bottoms is responsible on an interim basis for scientific and technical information relating to the Latin America and Asia Pacific region); and Richard Peattie, MPhil, FAusIMM, Mineral Resources Manager: Africa and Middle East—each a "Qualified Person" as defined in National Instrument 43-101 - Standards of Disclosure for Mineral Projects .
Endnote 1
Gold cost of sales per ounce is calculated as cost of sales across our gold operations (excluding sites in care and maintenance) divided by ounces sold (both on an attributable basis, based on Barrick's ownership share). Copper cost of sales per pound is calculated as cost of sales across our copper operations divided by pounds sold (both on an attributable basis, based on Barrick's ownership share).
References to attributable basis means our 100% share of Hemlo and Lumwana, our 89.7% share of Tongon, our 84% share of North Mara and Bulyanhulu, our 80% share of Loulo-Gounkoto, our 61.5% share of Nevada Gold Mines, our 60% share of Pueblo Viejo, our 50% share of Veladero, Zaldívar and Jabal Sayid, our 24.5% share of Porgera and our 45% share of Kibali.
Endnote 2
"Total cash costs per ounce" and "all-in sustaining costs per ounce" are non-GAAP financial measures which are calculated based on the definition published by the World Gold Council ("WGC") (a market development organization for the gold industry comprised of and funded by gold mining companies from around the world, including Barrick). The WGC is not a regulatory organization. Management uses these measures to monitor the performance of our gold mining operations and its ability to generate positive cash flow, both on an individual site basis and an overall company basis.
Total cash costs start with our cost of sales related to gold production and removes depreciation, the non-controlling interest of cost of sales and includes by-product credits. All-in sustaining costs start with total cash costs and include sustaining capital expenditures, sustaining leases, general and administrative costs, minesite exploration and evaluation costs and reclamation cost accretion and amortization. These additional costs reflect the expenditures made to maintain current production levels.
We believe that our use of total cash costs and all-in sustaining costs will assist analysts, investors and other stakeholders of Barrick in understanding the costs associated with producing gold, understanding the economics of gold mining, assessing our operating performance and also our ability to generate free cash flow from current operations and to generate free cash flow on an overall company basis. Due to the capital-intensive nature of the industry and the long useful lives over which these items are depreciated, there can be a significant timing difference between net earnings calculated in accordance with IFRS and the amount of free cash flow that is being generated by a mine and therefore we believe these measures are useful non-GAAP operating metrics and supplement our IFRS disclosures. These measures are not representative of all of our cash expenditures as they do not include income tax payments, interest costs or dividend payments. These measures do not include depreciation or amortization.
Total cash costs per ounce and all-in sustaining costs per ounce are intended to provide additional information only and do not have standardized definitions under IFRS and should not be considered in isolation or as a substitute for measures of performance prepared in accordance with IFRS. These measures are not equivalent to net income or cash flow from operations as determined under IFRS. Although the WGC has published a standardized definition, other companies may calculate these measures differently.
"C1 cash costs per pound" and "all-in sustaining costs per pound" are non-GAAP financial measures related to our copper mine operations. We believe that C1 cash costs per pound enables investors to better understand the performance of our copper operations in comparison to other copper producers who present results on a similar basis. C1 cash costs per pound excludes royalties and production taxes and non-routine charges as they are not direct production costs. All-in sustaining costs per pound is similar to the gold all-in sustaining costs metric and management uses this to better evaluate the costs of copper production. We believe this measure enables investors to better understand the operating performance of our copper mines as this measure reflects all of the sustaining expenditures incurred in order to produce copper. All-in sustaining costs per pound includes C1 cash costs, sustaining capital expenditures, sustaining leases, general and administrative costs, minesite exploration and evaluation costs, royalties and production taxes, reclamation cost accretion and amortization and write-downs taken on inventory to net realizable value.
Barrick will provide a full reconciliation of these non-GAAP financial measures when the Company reports its quarterly results on November 7, 2024.
Cautionary Statements Regarding Preliminary Third Quarter Production, Sales and Costs for 2024, and Forward-Looking Information
Barrick cautions that, whether or not expressly stated, all third quarter figures contained in this press release including, without limitation, production levels, sales and associated costs are preliminary, and reflect our expected third quarter results as of the date of this press release. Actual reported third quarter production levels, sales and associated costs are subject to management's final review, as well as review by the Company's independent accounting firm, and may vary significantly from those expectations because of a number of factors, including, without limitation, additional or revised information, and changes in accounting standards or policies, or in how those standards are applied. Barrick will provide additional discussion and analysis and other important information about its third quarter production levels, sales and associated costs when it reports actual results on November 7, 2024. For a complete picture of the Company's financial performance, it will be necessary to review all of the information in the Company's third quarter financial report and related MD&A. Accordingly, readers are cautioned not to rely solely on the information contained herein.
Finally, Barrick cautions that this press release contains forward-looking statements with respect to: (i) Barrick's expected fourth quarter production and ability to deliver within the range of its full year gold and copper guidance; and (ii) costs per ounce for gold and per pound for copper.
Forward-looking statements are necessarily based upon a number of estimates and assumptions including material estimates and assumptions related to the factors set forth below that, while considered reasonable by the Company as at the date of this press release in light of management's experience and perception of current conditions and expected developments, are inherently subject to significant business, economic, and competitive uncertainties and contingencies. Known or unknown factors could cause actual results to differ materially from those projected in the forward-looking statements, and undue reliance should not be placed on such statements and information.
Such factors include, but are not limited to: fluctuations in the spot and forward price of gold, copper, or certain other commodities (such as silver, diesel fuel, natural gas, and electricity); the speculative nature of mineral exploration and development; changes in mineral production performance, exploitation, and exploration successes; the resumption of operations at the Porgera mine and expected ramp up of mining and processing in 2024; risks associated with projects in the early stages of evaluation, and for which additional engineering and other analysis is required; disruption of supply routes which may cause delays in construction and mining activities, including disruptions in the supply of key mining inputs due to the invasion of Ukraine by Russia and conflicts in the Middle East; whether benefits expected from recent transactions are realized; quantities or grades of reserves will be diminished, and that resources may not be converted to reserves; increased costs, delays, suspensions and technical challenges associated with the construction of capital projects; operating or technical difficulties in connection with mining or development activities, including geotechnical challenges, tailings dam and storage facilities failures, and disruptions in the maintenance or provision of required infrastructure and information technology systems; risks that exploration data may be incomplete and considerable additional work may be required to complete further evaluation, including but not limited to drilling, engineering and socioeconomic studies and investment; failure to comply with environmental and health and safety laws and regulations; increased costs and physical risks, including extreme weather events and resource shortages, related to climate change; timing of, receipt of, or failure to comply with, necessary permits and approvals; non-renewal of key licenses by governmental authorities; uncertainty whether some or all of targeted investments and projects will meet the Company's capital allocation objectives and internal hurdle rate; the impact of inflation, including global inflationary pressures driven by supply chain disruptions, global energy cost increases following the invasion of Ukraine by Russia and country-specific political and economic factors in Argentina; the impact of global liquidity and credit availability on the timing of cash flows and the values of assets and liabilities based on projected future cash flows; fluctuations in the currency markets; changes in national and local government legislation, taxation, controls or regulations and/or changes in the administration of laws, policies and practices; expropriation or nationalization of property and political or economic developments in Canada, the United States, and other jurisdictions in which the Company or its affiliates do or may carry on business in the future; lack of certainty with respect to foreign legal systems, corruption and other factors that are inconsistent with the rule of law; damage to the Company's reputation due to the actual or perceived occurrence of any number of events, including negative publicity with respect to the Company's handling of environmental matters or dealings with community groups, whether true or not; the possibility that future exploration results will not be consistent with the Company's expectations; risk of loss due to acts of war, terrorism, sabotage and civil disturbances; risks associated with artisanal and illegal mining; risks associated with diseases, epidemics and pandemics; litigation and legal and administrative proceedings; contests over title to properties, particularly title to undeveloped properties, or over access to water, power and other required infrastructure; business opportunities that may be presented to, or pursued by, the Company; our ability to successfully integrate acquisitions or complete divestitures; risks associated with working with partners in jointly controlled assets; employee relations including loss of key employees; and availability and increased costs associated with mining inputs and labor. In addition, there are risks and hazards associated with the business of mineral exploration, development and mining, including environmental hazards, industrial accidents, unusual or unexpected formations, pressures, cave-ins, flooding and gold bullion, copper cathode or gold or copper concentrate losses (and the risk of inadequate insurance, or inability to obtain insurance, to cover these risks).
Many of these uncertainties and contingencies can affect our actual results and could cause actual results to differ materially from those expressed or implied in any forward-looking statements made by, or on behalf of, us. Readers are cautioned that forward-looking statements are not guarantees of future performance. All of the forward-looking statements made in this press release are qualified by these cautionary statements. Specific reference is made to the most recent Form 40-F/Annual Information Form on file with the SEC and Canadian provincial securities regulatory authorities for a more detailed discussion of some of the factors underlying forward-looking statements and the risks that may affect Barrick's ability to achieve the expectations set forth in the forward-looking statements contained in this press release.
Barrick disclaims any intention or obligation to update or revise any forward-looking statements whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise, except as required by applicable law.
News Provided by GlobeNewswire via QuoteMedia
During their terms, both the Trump/Pence and the Biden/Harris administrations have increased domestic oil production and increased tariffs on goods from overseas.
In the only debate planned between Harris and Trump, which took place on September 10, 2024, Harris focused on her platform’s key economic policies, including increased support for first-time home buyers, families and small businesses. She was also committed to investing in diverse forms of energy, including renewables and oil and gas, to reduce dependence on foreign oil.
Meanwhile, Trump maintained a focus on the key issues of his base including policing and immigration, but also discussed his economic plan that would see him increase tariffs on goods from China.
When it came to the conflict between Russia and Ukraine, Harris pledged her support for both Ukraine and other US allies in Europe. While Trump did not say he supported Ukraine, he said he was also committed to ending the war, and planned to push Ukrainian funding to European partners while attempting to bring Russian President Vladimir Putin and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy to the negotiating table.
The gold price has climbed significantly under both administrations. It's been holding at historic levels above the US$2,600 mark, reaching an all-time high of US$2,672.51 on September 18, more than double its price when Trump took office in 2017.
Some of the recent rise in gold prices is attributed to a 50-point cut to interest rates following the Federal Open Markets Committee meeting on September 17 and 18. It is the last time the committee will come together before the November 5 election, as the next FOMC meeting is scheduled for November 6 and 7.
How does gold typically perform post-election, and how has it moved during Trump and Biden's presidencies? While the past doesn't necessarily dictate the future, reviewing gold price trends can help investors plan their election strategy.
Looking at past US elections can provide insight on how the gold price may move in the days and weeks following November 5. However, on a broad scale, changes post-election tend to normalize fairly quickly.
In an email to the Investing News Network, Lobo Tiggre, CEO of IndependentSpeculator.com, said he doesn’t see either candidate having a large effect on the price of gold post-election. “The outcome of the election will have ideological consequences, but it’ll make no difference to gold, silver, uranium or the commodities super-cycle,” he said.
In 2016, when Trump ran against Hillary Clinton, the gold price climbed by about US$50 in the weeks leading up to the November 8 election, peaking at just above US$1,300 per ounce on November 4. Following Trump's win gold fell substantially, moving as low as US$1,128 in mid-December. Following that low point, the gold price began to rebound, and by the middle of January 2017 was once again above the US$1,200 level.
Gold price, November 1, 2016, to January 30, 2017.
Chart via Trading Economics.
The 2020 election was on November 3, and in the week leading up to the vote gold was trading at around US$1,900, although it fell as low as US$1,867 on October 30. After the election, the gold price performed positively, spiking from US$1,908 on the day of the vote to US$1,951 on November 6.
However, gold fell back down over the following weeks, and dipped briefly below US$1,800 as vote recounts in Georgia and several districts and legal challenges by Trump’s team dragged on.
Gold price, November 1, 2020, to January 30, 2021.
Chart via Trading Economics.
Gold began to climb again in December ahead of January 6, 2021, when the electoral college met to formalize Biden’s victory. That day, the attack on the US Capitol building, which aimed to stop this process, caused the gold price to plunge from US$1,949 on January 5 to US$1,848 by January 8. The events of January 6 were the start of a decline in the gold price that continued until March 8, when gold bottomed out at US$1,674.80.
Gold's behavior at this time went against the usual trend whereby it performs well amid crisis and turmoil; the decline may been a reaction to the successful affirmation of Biden. Stock markets also reacted opposite to expectations, seeing strong gains on January 6 and 7 as investors and Wall Street believed an economic recovery was in sight.
The gold price rose substantially during Trump's presidency, increasing from US$1,209 when he assumed office on January 20, 2017, to US$1,839 on his final day, which was January 19, 2021.
While these gains can't be directly attributed to Trump, his actions helped shape the geopolitical landscape both in the US and abroad. During his tenure, trade wars with both allies and competitors were in focus.
China was a key target for Trump. While tariffs on Chinese goods were already in place, his administration applied new restrictions to more items, including steel, electric vehicle batteries and consumer goods. Also under Trump's watch, relations with India fractured and the country lost its preferential trade status with the US. He also withdrew from the Iran nuclear treaty and imposed punishments on anyone who traded with Iran.
These and other “America First” protectionist policies and sanctions implemented by the Trump administration tarnished the image of the US as a reliable trade partner, helping to push the BRICS nations — Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa — away from the US dollar as a global reserve currency.
The BRICS have since expanded to include Iran, Egypt, Ethiopia and other emerging nations, and have increasingly turned toward gold. China and India in particular have increased purchases of gold through their central banks, leading some to speculate that they are attempting to create a new currency that is at least partially backed by gold.
One other factor that drove the gold price during Trump’s term was the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic and government policies put in place to support citizens and the economy. For example, the former president oversaw multiple stimulus efforts, including packages announced in March 2020 and December 2020. These actions led many to turn to gold as a safe haven out of concern for a weakening US dollar.
A second Trump term would likely bring more of the same protectionist policies. Indeed, his 2024 campaign has similarities to his 2016 and 2020 campaigns. He has reused his “America First'' rhetoric and promised a fresh round of tariffs if elected. Singling out China, Trump has said he would look to implement a 60 percent tariff on all goods imported into the US, a move that would likely increase tensions and the likelihood of a widening division between the countries.
Gold has also seen sizable gains during Biden's presidency. The price of gold was US$1,871 when he took over from Trump on January 20, 2021. And while Biden's term as president is not over until January 2025, as of October 15, the gold price was trading at about US$2,665. It reached a new record on September 25 of US$2,672.51.
Again, it's hard to say how many of the Biden administration's policies directly influenced these gains. Geopolitical conflict and black swan events outside of his control all affected the gold market during this time.
For example, Biden and Harris entered office one year after the start of the COVID-19 pandemic. Inflation was ballooning, which typically leads to higher gold prices. The US Federal Reserve has worked to counteract inflation and strengthen the US dollar by raising interest rates beginning in 2022, a move that tempered the gold price for a time. The anticipation of rate cuts and the 50 point cut that came in September were factors in driving gold to its record highs in recent months.
Biden came into office on a promise of restoring the US' place in the global community, and while his administration did close rifts among important trading partners like Canada and the EU, tensions with China remain. This rift is a holdover from the Trump administration's more isolationist policies, but has also been representative of a more competitive global trade landscape as the BRICS nations seek to move away from the US dollar and America’s influence on world economics.
Biden has attempted to at least partially mend the US' relationship with China, including by meeting with President Xi Jinping in the summer of 2023. However, a key sticking point in negotiations between the two has been Biden’s continued stance that the US would support Taiwan if China were to invade it; at the same time, he has said that the US does not support Taiwan’s independence. Both of these stances are in line with the US’ longtime position on the matter, but escalating tensions between China and Taiwan have brought this to the forefront.
Harris is unlikely to shift policy when it comes to Taiwan. In a September 2022 meeting with South Korean President Yoon Suk Yeol, she said the US was committed to opposing unilateral actions by China and would maintain the status quo in the South China Sea. The White House added that peace and stability across the Taiwan Strait was essential to a free Indo-Pacific region.
Harris discussed trade routes in the region again when she attended the ASEAN summit in Jakarta, Indonesia, in September of 2023. She told CBS’s Margaret Brennan that it's not about pulling out of Southeast Asia, but about de-risking the region and ensuring that American interests were protected.
On an economic level, the Biden administration has distanced itself from China with policies such as the Inflation Reduction Act and Chips Act, which support the development of western supply chains for a variety of industries, including clean energy, electric vehicles and semiconductor chips, in part by introducing subsidies for companies that don’t rely on China for their supply chain.
Meanwhile, China has accelerated its de-dollarization efforts, dumping roughly US$50 billion worth of US Treasuries and agency bonds during the first quarter of this year.
Additionally, Biden’s role in implementing a strict set of sanctions against Russia following its invasion of Ukraine in February 2022 deepened a divide between the US and Russia, as well as the other BRICS nations.
Among other sanctions, the US limited Russia's access to SWIFT, a communications network that helps facilitate the global movement of funds. The US Department of the Treasury also implemented controls that effectively cut off Russia’s central bank and key funds and personnel from accessing the US financial system. Some analysts believe the move may work to undermine the US dollar as the global reserve currency in the long term, as it sent a signal to the rest of the world that the US is willing to effectively weaponize the US dollar.
Though this year's presidential election may have a limited effect on the price of gold, a rate decision by the Fed could impact the metal's price in the days that follow the election. Decisions made by the US central bank, which is not controlled by the president, have a strong impact on the US dollar and thus often impact the gold price as well.
The Federal Open Market Committee, which is the board that ultimately decides whether to increase or decrease interest rates, is set to meet from November 6 to 7, just one day after the November 5 election.
Gold tends to rise when rates are lower and fall when they are high, but this year gold has reached all-time highs in the face of elevated rates. While strong expectations for cuts at the beginning of 2024 didn’t pan out, gold prices grew in the lead up to the September meeting of the committee, when the first cut finally came.
So what will happen to gold after the election? A post-election interest rate cut could boost gold, but it's not yet clear how the November meeting will play out.
Historically speaking, returns for gold under Democrat and Republican presidents have averaged 11.2 percent and 10.2 percent, respectively. But that might not be the data point investors should focus on.
Which party controls Congress, which is comprised of the House and Senate, has had a far stronger influence on the gold price. Under Democrat-controlled Congresses, gold has averaged a 20.9 percent gain, compared to just 3.9 percent when Congress is controlled by Republicans. In cases where neither controls Congress, gold has averaged 3.5 percent.
With that in mind, investors should consider the effects of policies enacted not only by the executive branch of the US government, but also by Congress and the Senate. Those hoping to use the immediate aftermath of the election outcome to their advantage should also proceed with caution — when it comes to gold, past elections haven't provided great investment opportunities, with losses and gains typically being short-lived.
This is an updated version of an article first published by the Investing News Network in 2020.
Don't forget to follow us @INN_Resource for real-time updates!
Securities Disclosure: I, Dean Belder, hold no direct investment interest in any company mentioned in this article.
Editorial Disclosure: The Investing News Network does not guarantee the accuracy or thoroughness of the information reported in the interviews it conducts. The opinions expressed in these interviews do not reflect the opinions of the Investing News Network and do not constitute investment advice. All readers are encouraged to perform their own due diligence.
Affiliate Disclosure: The Investing News Network may earn commission from qualifying purchases or actions made through the links or advertisements on this page.