Gold fell 3.7% to US$4,162 an ounce in the week that ended as October opened. It was the second down week in a row. The large-miner fund, GDX, fell 5.5%. The junior fund, GDXJ, fell 6.2%. The S&P 500 did not move. A mixed jobs report did not hand the market a clear Federal Reserve story. Ben McGregor, in the October 5 Canadian Mining Report weekly, put the drop on what was left standing: real bond yields that are still high.
This piece has one idea. A down week in gold is a yield event until proven otherwise, and a forecast that cannot survive the calendar is not a map for a miner. Australia’s Office of the Chief Economist just cut its 2026 average gold price to US$3,813. The metal has already averaged above US$4,500 this year. Those two numbers do not fit in the same year without a collapse. Gold mining stocks do not resolve the clash. They amplify the week.
Nothing here is advice to buy or sell a miner, a fund, or the metal. Gold can fall further. A wide gap between cost and price can close. A junior that raised money this month can still go to zero. Past rallies do not repeat on a schedule.
The week, without a slogan
Start with the scoreboard McGregor printed. Gold, down 3.7%, to US$4,162. GDX, down 5.5%. GDXJ, down 6.2%. The S&P 500, unchanged. The Russell 2000, up 0.2%. The Nasdaq, up 0.9%. Equities were dull. Tech was a little firm. Gold and the shares that live off gold were not dull. They were the part of the tape that flinched.
The jobs report was the candidate explanation, and it failed the test of clarity. The published payroll count for September was 29,000, against hopes near 90,000. Unemployment rose to 4.2%. August was revised down. A headline that weak can cut the odds of another hike, and by Monday those odds had in fact fallen into the high teens. McGregor still called the set mixed. He did not see a clean signal that the Fed would hike, or that it would stop. Other labor readings have looked steadier than the payroll headline. A mixed set is a bad tool for a one-way gold trade. The metal fell anyway.
That is why the yield line carries the week. Gold pays no coupon. A bond does. When the real yield on the bond stays high, the bar has to justify itself with fear, or with a buyer who does not care about carry. McGregor does not print the real-yield level in the note. He prints the judgment that it stayed high enough to lean on the price after a jobs report that did not settle the Fed. Same-day market notes had the 10-year Treasury near 5.28%. Nominal is not real. Real is nominal minus inflation. You do not need the subtraction done on this page to see the shape. Policy rates are already at 3.75% to 4.00% after a September hike, the first since 2023. A jobs miss can nibble at the next meeting. It does not retire the yield that is already in the market.
The gear in the stocks is the second fact, and it is arithmetic. A 3.7% drop in the metal lined up with a 5.5% drop in GDX and a 6.2% drop in GDXJ. That is roughly one and a half times the metal for the seniors’ fund, and closer to one and seven-tenths for the juniors. Gearing is not a gift. It is the reason a dull week in the S&P 500 can still be a hard week in a gold sleeve. Anyone who owns the shares for “upside to the rally” owns the downside in the same ratio, more or less. This week paid the downside.
What the official forecast just did
The other document of the week is not a price. It is a revision. Australia’s Office of the Chief Economist updates metals prices and market balances on a quarterly rhythm. That is rarer than it should be. The World Bank’s public price set comes about twice a year, and the last full pass McGregor cites is April 2026. April is a long time in a year that opened with gold near a record and then gave a large piece of it back. The Australian office is the set you can watch bend in public.
It bent. The June 2026 estimate for the 2026 average gold price was US$4,792. The September update cuts that average to US$3,813. That is a cut of nearly US$1,000 an ounce on the year you are standing in. The 2027 figure goes from US$4,839 to US$4,012. The 2028 figure goes from US$4,463 to US$4,040. The 2029 figure comes down only about US$150. The 2030 and 2031 figures barely move, and they sit around US$4,000.
Read the shape, not the single cell. The office did not abandon gold. It abandoned the idea that the late-2025 and early-2026 spike would fade slowly. McGregor’s reading is the right one. They had thought the boom would subside over a couple of years. It subsided faster. So they marked down the near years and left the medium term near US$4,000, close to where the metal is trading now. A gold price outlook that quotes only the cut, or only the US$4,000 destination, is half the page.
The World Bank, on the April sheet, still shows about US$4,700 for 2026. McGregor expects that number to come down in a release likely this month. Until it does, the Bank’s figure is a stale high. Do not average it with Australia’s US$3,813 and call the blend a forecast. One of them has not looked at the last five months. The other has, and may have looked too hard.
The calendar already broke the 2026 average
Here is the sentence in the weekly that has to be checked, not chanted. The gold price has already averaged above US$4,500 so far this year. To land a full-year average of US$3,813, the rest of the year would have to be brutally cheap. McGregor illustrates that with a slump toward US$3,000 in the fourth quarter. The direction is right. The arithmetic is harsher than the illustration.
Take nine months at US$4,500 and three months at US$3,000. The year averages about US$4,125. That is still more than US$300 above US$3,813. To actually print a US$3,813 year after three quarters at US$4,500, the fourth quarter has to average near US$1,750. Not US$3,000. Near US$1,750. Even if “so far” means a bit less than nine months, or a bit more than US$4,500, the gap does not close politely. A year that has already lived above US$4,500 cannot be talked down to US$3,813 by a normal correction. It can be talked down only by a crash.
That does not make Australia foolish. It makes the 2026 cell a residue. The cell was cut to admit that the spike faded. It was cut so far that the year, as already lived, will miss it on the high side unless something breaks. A forecast you cannot reach without a crash is not a base case. It is a scar from the last revision. The scar matters because people will quote US$3,813 as “what the official sector thinks gold is worth this year.” Worth and average are not the same word. An average is a path. This path has already been walked, at a higher altitude.
Put today’s price on that scar. US$4,162 is below the year-to-date average, which is how an average above US$4,500 and a spot price near US$4,160 can both be true. The early year did the lifting. January’s record, reported near US$5,608, is the peak of that lift. From that high to US$4,162 is a drop of about a quarter. The metal is not cheap against the medium-term official numbers, which cluster near US$4,000. It is expensive against a 2026 average that the calendar has likely already made obsolete. Both statements fit. A gold price rally is what the first part of the year was. This week was the other thing.
Why the medium term was left alone
The office cut 2026, 2027, and 2028 by large amounts and then stopped. From 2029 on, the changes are small, and the level is about US$4,000. That is a view about speculation versus a floor. The boom, in this telling, was the extra thousand dollars, not the four thousand. Once the extra is judged to have left, the remaining price is allowed to sit.
A holder can use that split without believing it. If you think the medium term is the real call, then a spot price of US$4,162 is not a sale against the official sheet. It is roughly the sheet. The drama is the 2026 average, and the drama is internal to the revision. If you think the medium term is the part they did not bother to rethink, then US$4,000 in 2030 is a placeholder, not a research result. Placeholders feel calm. Calm is not evidence.
Either way, the week in the market was not a vote on 2030. It was a vote on carry. Real yields do not care that a Canberra spreadsheet kept the outer years. They care that a bar earns nothing this quarter. Gold investing that skips from a weekly yield move to a 2031 average is skipping the only horizon the week actually traded.
The same office raised copper
The gold cut is easier to misread if you ignore the rest of the book. In the same September pass, the office raised copper. The 2026 estimate went to US$6.11 a pound, from US$5.76 in June. The years out to 2031 were lifted as well, into a band around US$6, from a band around US$5.50. The World Bank, back in April, had already moved its 2026 copper figure to US$5.44 a pound from US$4.45. The direction, across two public sources, has been up. Gold’s direction, in the newer source, has been down for the near years. One office. Two metals. Opposite pens.
The copper balance explains the pen, and it is not a gold story. A surplus of about 651,000 tonnes in 2025 is expected to shrink to about 249,000 tonnes in 2026. The 2026 surplus itself is a revision the other way from earlier sheets: December 2025 and June 2026 had a deficit for 2026, and September has a surplus. That flip is then partly offset, in McGregor’s reading, by 2027. The 2027 surplus falls from about 173,000 tonnes to about 12,000, close to flat. From 2027 through 2031 the office sketches a market that is roughly balanced.
The disruptions named are specific. Flood damage at Grasberg in Indonesia. Flood damage at Kamoa-Kakula in the Democratic Republic of Congo. Damage at El Teniente in Chile. The political shutdown of Cobre Panamá. Those hits are expected to reach into next year. They are reasons a copper model can rise while a gold model falls. They are not reasons a gold share should inherit the copper upgrade. A company that mines both will show you the split in its own revenue. A company that mines only gold will not.
The point for this piece is narrower. A forecaster who cuts gold and lifts copper in the same quarter is not “bearish on mining.” The forecaster is differentiating. Investors who buy “the metals” as one mood will mix a yield-driven gold week with a disruption-driven copper revision and call it a view. It is two views stapled together. Take the staple out.
Iron, aluminum, nickel, zinc, briefly
The rest of the book is there so the gold cut is not lonely, and so it is not universal. Iron ore is the long decline. Aside from a small 2026 upgrade, the office cut the years from 2028 to 2031. Simandou in Guinea, which started late in 2025, is expected to be about 5% of global supply within a few years. Demand is mostly steel. China is about half of world steel use, and its property and infrastructure markets have been sluggish. India, the second market, has grown and has not filled the hole. A new mine plus a soft buyer is a price path that points down. It has nothing to do with real yields on a U.S. bond, except that both can be true in one October.
Aluminum is the war metal that already had its shock priced. The World Bank in April lifted its 2026 figure to US$3,200 a tonne from US$2,600, with the Middle East near a tenth of supply and some capacity hit. By June the Australian office had absorbed that. September changed little. The path they print now slopes from a peak near US$3,387 a tonne this year to about US$3,076 by 2030. The deficit they expect shrinks from about 1.3 million tonnes in 2026, itself cut from about 2.7 million tonnes in the June estimate, to about 680,000 tonnes in 2027 and to a few hundred thousand tonnes later. A smaller deficit and a drifting price are a cooling, not a crash.
Nickel is the reversal. The World Bank’s 2026 figure is US$17,000 a tonne, up from a 2025 price near US$15,162 and from an older forecast near US$15,500. The Australian office is at about US$17,508 for 2026, with a small step back in 2027 and a rise after that, and with the whole path marked up in September. The balance swings from a surplus near 178,000 tonnes in 2025 to a deficit near 77,000 tonnes in 2026. A 2027 surplus near 83,000 tonnes is far below estimates, from the middle of last year, that ran above 400,000 tonnes. Indonesia, the biggest producer, has been limiting further capacity after years of flooding the market. A policy choice in one country rewrote a surplus. That is a supply story. Gold’s week was not.
Zinc is a spike they expect to fade. The World Bank took 2026 to US$3,000 a tonne in April, from US$2,750, on tighter supply and lower stocks. Both the Bank and the Australian office think this year is the peak and 2027 steps down. The September Australian number for 2026 is about US$3,452, up from US$3,291 in June, and the next few years were nudged up too. The slope after the peak is still down. A higher forecast and a falling path can share a page. Readers who see only the word “boosted” will miss the slope.
None of these four is the subject. They are the control. In one quarterly book, iron is a long fade, aluminum is a cooling deficit, nickel is a deficit born of an Indonesian cap, zinc is a peak, copper is a raised price on a thinner surplus, and gold is a near-term average cut toward a medium term the metal has already reached. If your gold mining companies are down because “the complex is weak,” the book disagrees. The complex is not one temperature.
Why are gold mining stocks going up
Why are gold mining stocks going up? This week, they were not. The question arrives as a habit. People ask it in a rising tape and keep asking it in a falling one, because the search bar does not check the sign. The honest answer for this week is the gear. The metal fell 3.7%. The funds fell more. Major producers and most of the TSX Venture gold names fell with them, on the weekly’s own tally. A stock goes up, when it goes up, because the metal did, or because its own news beat the metal. This week the metal set the sign. Company news did not flip it.
There is a version of the question that survives a down week, and it is about the year, not the week. From a January high near US$5,608 to US$4,162, the metal is down about a quarter and still far above the levels of a few years ago. Some gold mining stocks are up on that longer window and down on this one. Both can be true. A buyer who cites the year and ignores the week is averaging away the yield. A buyer who cites the week and ignores the year is treating a 3.7% move as a regime. The regime, if the Australian medium term is even roughly right, is a price near US$4,000, not a return to the January high and not a slide to US$1,750. The week does not prove the regime. It is compatible with it.
Gearing explains the size, not the cause. Miners have costs that do not fall 3.7% in a week. A mine with an all-in cost near US$1,900, against a price near US$4,160, still has a wide spread. The spread narrowed by roughly the whole 3.7%, because costs are sticky inside a week. Profit narrows by more than 3.7% when the price falls and the cost does not. That is why GDX can drop 5.5% on a 3.7% metal move without anyone discovering a new scandal. The scandal, if you need one, is expecting the share to move like the S&P 500. It does not. The S&P was flat because the jobs news was mixed and the yield story was already known. Gold was the asset that lives on the yield. The miners were gold, plus a cost that did not get the memo.
What the juniors actually did
The weekly’s company lines are easy to misread as a shopping list. They are not. They are evidence that, in a down week, a few firms still closed money, filed paper, or amended a loan. Financing is not a gold price rally. It is a capital event, and this month the price of that capital is part of the same yield story.
Osisko Gold Group, which the note calls Osisko Gold, completed a US$600 million offering of 9.250% senior secured notes due October 1, 2031. Net proceeds were about US$578 million. The notes are non-callable for two years. Interest is paid twice a year, starting April 1, 2027. A stated use is repayment of a credit facility with Appian, on the order of US$121 million, plus an interest reserve and work tied to the Cariboo project. On October 1, Elijah Tyshynski became chief financial officer, succeeding Alexander Dann. The weekly’s spelling of his name is off by a letter. The coupon is not off. A gold company borrowed at 9.25% in the same season McGregor says real yields are pressing the metal. That is one phenomenon at two altitudes. The metal feels the yield as an opportunity cost. The issuer feels it as a coupon. Neither fact is a recommendation. Together they say the hurdle is not theoretical.
Banyan Gold closed a $54.3 million financing. The brokered piece was 23,156,500 shares at $2.00, for about $46.3 million. A concurrent piece was 4 million shares at the same price, for $8 million. Franco-Nevada came in as a new holder. The company said the money is meant to carry AurMac and Nitra through 2028, drilling, engineering, and permits. The close was still subject to final TSX Venture approval when the release went out. A check from a royalty major is a fact about a shareholder list. It is not a feasibility study. The shares of the sector fell in the same week the check cleared. Capital arrived. The tape did not applaud.
Thesis Gold filed a detailed project description for Lawyers-Ranch with the British Columbia Environmental Assessment Office. A filing starts a clock. It does not pour gold. Asante Gold said senior lenders, its stream buyer, and its hedge counterparty agreed to waivers and amendments, including more time on deadlines. A waiver is a refusal to call a default on the old terms. It is useful. It is also a sign that the old terms and the calendar were in conflict. More time is not more ounces.
Goldgroup closed a private placement reported around US$122 million, with a separate account putting the amount near US$121.8 million at US$3.65 a unit. It agreed to put US$75 million into Luca Mining, tied to Luca’s proposed purchase of the Cozamin mine. That purchase has been described at US$290 million up front, most of it cash. Goldgroup’s shares did not have to rise for the commitment to be real. A commitment is a use of cash. In a week when the metal fell 3.7%, a junior deploying cash into another company’s mine is a concentration, not a hedge. It can work. It is not “gold stocks went up.”
What are the best gold mining stocks to buy
What are the best gold mining stocks to buy? The question assumes a ranking the week does not support. Best against what test, and for whom? A senior that falls 5% when the metal falls 4% is doing what its cost structure says it will do. A junior that sells a 9.25% note is buying time at a stated price. A company that files an assessment description is early. These are different businesses. A list that lines them up by the week’s return is a list of beta. Beta is not a mine.
The test that fits this article is short. One: what price is already in the year, and what price would the 2026 official average require? If you need US$3,813 to feel safe, you are using a figure the path has likely passed. If you need the January high back, you are using a peak the same office thinks was the speculative part. If you can live with a metal near US$4,000 to US$4,200, you are near both the spot price and the medium-term official band. That is a description. It is not a buy.
Two: what does the company sell, and what does it cost, this quarter? A 3.7% price drop hits revenue on the ounces shipped. It does not hit ounces that will not be shipped until a permit, a ramp, or a 2027 mill. Osisko’s coupon is due on a schedule whether Cariboo is pouring or not. Banyan’s drill program spends money before it spends ore. The best gold stocks, if the phrase must be used at all, would be the ones whose ounces exist in the same year as the price you are underwriting. This page will not name them as a portfolio. Naming them would pretend the yield week picked winners. It picked a direction for the metal, and the shares followed with a larger step.
Three: what is the cost of the money, not only the cost of the mine? A 9.25% note is a public answer. Many juniors do not have a note. They have a share price that is the cost of equity, and that price just fell with GDXJ. Raising equity after a 6% weekly drop in the junior fund is more dilutive than raising it after a rally. The firms that closed money just before the drop were earlier than the firms that must raise after it. Earlier is not smarter by definition. It is a different dilution. Gold stocks and ETFs that you already hold do not care about that timing. The ETF fell with the metal. Your entry price is the only timing that is yours.
Is gold mining stocks a good investment
Is gold mining stocks a good investment? The grammar of the question is as loose as the question. No asset is a good investment for every size and every date. Gold mining stocks are a claim on a spread. The spread this week got thinner by the amount of the price drop, because costs do not reprice on a Friday. The spread is still wide if a producer’s all-in cost sits near US$1,900 and the price sits near US$4,160. Wide is not the same as safe. A move from US$4,162 toward the US$4,000 the Australian office sketches for the later years is a few percent. A move toward the US$1,750 that would be required to force the 2026 average down to US$3,813 is a different investment entirely. You should know which move you are underwriting.
The metal and the shares are not substitutes. Gold investing in the bar or the bullion fund is a yield trade plus a fear trade. You lose carry. You do not lose a pit to a flood, a coup, or a grade. Gold investing in the shares adds those losses and adds the gear. This week the gear was about one and a half times on the way down. In a gold price rally it is often more than one times on the way up. People remember the up. The down is the same machine.
Size is the part a weekly return hides. A 4% sleeve that falls one and a half times a 3.7% metal move is a bad week inside a plan. A 40% sleeve is a different life. The S&P 500 was flat. If your whole portfolio was the S&P 500, you did not feel this week. If your whole portfolio was GDXJ, you felt 6%. The question “is it a good investment” cannot be answered until the sleeve is written down. The weekly will not write it down for you.
Horizon is the other unwritten line. The Australian medium term is a cluster around US$4,000 from 2027 out. The 2026 average they just printed is a number the year will probably miss on the upside. A holder who needs the money in November is trading the yield and the next jobs print. A holder who can sit into 2028 is closer to the part of the official sheet that did not spasm. Neither holder is “right.” They are in different contracts. Calling both of them gold investors is true and useless.
A gold price outlook that survives the week
A gold price outlook worth the name has three shelves, and this week touched all three.
The top shelf is the year already lived. An average above US$4,500, a January high near US$5,608, and a spot price of US$4,162. The rally happened. A large piece of it has been given back. What remains is still a high price against the decade before this one. Anyone who models 2026 as if it were a US$3,813 average is modeling a year that would require the fourth quarter to break. Do not let a revised cell erase three quarters.
The middle shelf is the yield. Real yields are high enough, in McGregor’s judgment, to pressure the metal even when jobs data are mixed. Hike odds for October fell after the payroll miss. The hike that already happened did not. A forecast that says “jobs were soft, so gold must rise” failed this week. The metal fell. The failure is the lesson. Carry beat the impulse to read the payroll as a pivot. Until real yields fall in a way you can see in the bond market, not only in a hope about the next meeting, the pressure McGregor names is the base of the near-term outlook. It can be overwhelmed by a shock. It was not overwhelmed by this jobs report.
The bottom shelf is the medium-term official band, near US$4,000, which the office left in place while it slashed the front. Spot is a little above that band. The band is not a promise. It is one public office’s refusal to mark the outer years down to the scar it just left on 2026. If they are right, the exciting part of the gold price rally is behind, and the remaining argument is a few hundred dollars, not a few thousand. If they are early, and the slow fade they originally expected still happens, 2027 and 2028 could look more like the old US$4,800 and US$4,500 sheets than like US$4,000. They have told you they no longer believe that. Believe them or do not. Do not quote both sheets as if September did not happen.
A fourth item is not a shelf. It is a warning about other metals. Copper’s official path was marked up. Nickel’s balance flipped toward deficit on Indonesian policy. Those facts can lift other shares. They do not lift a pure gold cost curve. If your gold stock also produces copper, separate the revenue. If it does not, do not borrow the copper story because it is in the same PDF.
What to check, if you refuse the list
Check the real yield before you check a miner. McGregor’s cause for the week is not a drill result. It is carry. If the 10-year and inflation start to give you a lower real yield, the pressure he names eases. If they do not, another mixed jobs report can produce another down week, and the miners will likely fall harder than the metal. You can watch the bond. You do not need a new theory of gold to do it.
Check the 2026 average against the year you have already banked. US$3,813 is the new Australian figure. An average above US$4,500 is the year so far. Write the fourth-quarter price that would connect them. If that price looks like a crash, stop using US$3,813 as a fair value for the ounces a mine will sell in November. Use it as a sign that the office thinks the boom ended faster than it had thought. Those are different uses of one number.
Check the gear. GDX at about one and a half times the metal, GDXJ at a bit more, is the week’s ratio, not a law. Ratios change when costs change and when balance sheets change. A company that just locked in a 9.25% coupon has a different gear, in the credit sense, from a company that funds itself from cash flow. The ETF will not tell you which of your holdings did which. The filing will.
Check the next World Bank pass, which McGregor thinks is close. If it comes down from US$4,700 toward something that respects a US$4,162 spot price and a year-to-date average above US$4,500, the public sheets will be less contradictory. If it does not, you will be holding two official numbers that cannot both describe this year. Contradiction is information. Averaging the contradiction is how people manufacture a target.
Check company news for what it is. A note coupon, a share sale, a project description, a waiver, a stake in another firm’s mine purchase. None of those is a reason the sector “is going up.” The sector went down. The news is about who has cash and who has time. Time is expensive when the coupon is 9.25% and the metal just fell.
The close
Gold fell 3.7% to US$4,162. The jobs report was mixed and did not give a clear Fed signal. Real yields, still high, are the cause McGregor assigns, and the rest of the tape agrees that this was not a general panic. The S&P 500 was flat. GDX fell 5.5%. GDXJ fell 6.2%. The miners did what geared claims on a non-yielding metal do when the yield wins the week.
Australia’s office cut the 2026 average from US$4,792 to US$3,813, cut 2027 and 2028 hard, and left the later years near US$4,000. The cut says the spike faded faster than they thought. The level of the cut collides with the year already lived. A year averaging above US$4,500 does not finish at US$3,813 unless the fourth quarter collapses far below the US$3,000 illustration, toward something nearer US$1,750 if three quarters really did average US$4,500. The medium-term number, near US$4,000, sits close to the price that just printed. The scar and the destination are different objects. Quote them separately.
The same book raised copper, cooled aluminum’s deficit, turned nickel on an Indonesian cap, and kept iron on a long fade. Gold mining stocks are not that book. They are a spread on gold, levered, and this week the spread took the hit. A 9.25% note, a $54 million junior raise, a project filing, a waiver, and a US$75 million commitment to another company’s mine are capital facts. They are not a gold price rally, and they are not an answer to who is best to buy.
The idea is the separation. The week was a yield. The forecast revision was a timing admission that went further than the calendar can follow without a crash. The shares were the yield, multiplied. Sort those three. Then the questions about the best gold mine stocks, and about whether the group is a good investment, shrink to a size, a horizon, and a price you are willing to see. The weekly will not choose them. A list will only pretend it did.
A note on sources and limits
The gold move of 3.7% to US$4,162, the GDX move of 5.5%, the GDXJ move of 6.2%, the S&P 500 at zero, the Russell 2000 at 0.2%, the Nasdaq at 0.9%, the judgment that jobs data were mixed, the attribution to still-high real yields, and the Australian office figures for gold, copper, iron ore, aluminum, nickel, and zinc are from Ben McGregor’s October 5, 2026 Canadian Mining Report weekly. Those metal figures include the gold average cut to US$3,813 from US$4,792, the 2027 and 2028 cuts to about US$4,012 and US$4,040, the later years near US$4,000, the year-to-date average above US$4,500, copper at US$6.11 a pound, and the balances and disruption names as he reports them from the September office update and the World Bank’s April set. The fourth-quarter arithmetic that connects a US$4,500 nine-month average to a US$3,813 year, and the contrast with a US$3,000 fourth quarter, is this page’s check on his illustration, not a figure he printed. The January high near US$5,608 is from earlier October reporting, not from this weekly. Payrolls of 29,000, unemployment of 4.2%, the September policy range of 3.75% to 4.00%, October hike odds in the high teens, and a 10-year yield near 5.28% are from contemporaneous market notes and are separate from McGregor’s “mixed” judgment. Osisko Gold Group’s US$600 million 9.250% notes due 2031, net proceeds near US$578 million, and Elijah Tyshynski’s appointment on October 1, succeeding Alexander Dann, are from company releases. The weekly shortened the name and misspelled the surname. Banyan’s $54.3 million financing, the $2.00 share price, and Franco-Nevada’s participation are from the company’s September 29 release. Thesis Gold’s filing and Asante’s waivers are as the weekly states them, without added terms. Goldgroup’s placement and the US$75 million Luca commitment, including the Cozamin price cited in reporting around that deal, are from company and trade-press accounts in late September. This page sets no price target and recommends no security.