poison pillAs a long term t.g holder, the following comes to mind. I do not want to see this nonhedger taken over by anyone, even though I estimate it could add a 50% premium to the stock price. The only candidates to take t.g over would be ABX (megahedger), PDG (hedger), Anglogold (SouthAfrican risk and hedger), Goldfields (SouthAfrican risk), and perhaps outside the gold area, base metals producers looking for diversification such as Billiton, Rio Tinto, Teck, etc. Newmont is still absorbing Normandy and is not included in my list. If any of these were to take t.g over, I would sell my holding. With this as background, I would like to address the ongoing debate over the wisdom of buying physical gold by t.g at a slightly higher price. Taking as logical, the CEO statements that it makes sense to invest in a prospectively better yield (through price) than the meager percent presently provided by standard bank yields, I would add the following. Has anyone considered that although many companies spend great sums of money to create "poison pills" against takeovers, t.g has accomplished the same result for (relatively) little risk exposure, by means of the physical gold purchase? The higher the gold price, the more attractive a takeover target t.g becomes. However, the higher the gold price (and particularly with fast price movement), the more difficult any takeover offer would have to remain valid, because, regardless of an offer of stock or money, or both, the total value would radically change. IMHO, this physical gold purchase is the best "poison pill" the CEO could have purchased, and for (relatively) cheap. EOM. Goldsoldat