Debunking the Post-CFTC Precious Metals Fear Mongering Campaign

59 posts / 0 new
Last post
Erik T.'s picture
Erik T.
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 5 2008
Posts: 1233
Re: Debunking the Post-CFTC Precious Metals Fear Mongering ...

FinancialSense hosted a debate between Jeff Christian and Bill Murphy of GATA on this weekend's show. Here's the link: http://www.financialsensenewshour.com/broadcast/fsn2010-0515-2.mp3

I am proud to have been a catalyst in bringing this about. I felt a very one-sided story was being told, and now both arguments are clearly on the table so that investors can make their own informed decisions about who's making sense and who isn't.

Who "won" the debate is very clear to me, but your mileage may vary.

Erik

Morpheus's picture
Morpheus
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Dec 27 2008
Posts: 1200
Re: Debunking the Post-CFTC Precious Metals Fear Mongering ...
Erik T. wrote:

FinancialSense hosted a debate between Jeff Christian and Bill Murphy of GATA on this weekend's show. Here's the link: http://www.financialsensenewshour.com/broadcast/fsn2010-0515-2.mp3

I am proud to have been a catalyst in bringing this about. I felt a very one-sided story was being told, and now both arguments are clearly on the table so that investors can make their own informed decisions about who's making sense and who isn't.

Who "won" the debate is very clear to me, but your mileage may vary.

Erik

This site release drips of whining. 

Financial Sense aims to rehabilitate Christian in debate with GATA chairman

Submitted by cpowell on Sat, 2010-05-15 03:46. Section: Daily Dispatches

11:42p ET Friday, May 14, 2010

Dear Friend of GATA and Gold:

Jim Puplava's FinancialSense.com this week invited GATA Chairman Bill Murphy to debate CPM Group executive Jeff Christian about gold market manipulation. But today's Kitco News announcement of the debate has Puplava promoting it as Christian's opportunity to clarify supposed misinterpretation of his testimony at the March 25 hearing of the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission.

Kitco further quotes Puplava as saying, "Just because the gold market is down doesn't mean there is a conspiracy behind it."

So much for impartiality. For GATA has been around for 11 years and not once has said that any decline in the gold price is evidence of "conspiracy."

Rather GATA has collected and published much official documentation of both open and surreptitious Western central bank intervention in the gold market to suppress the metal's price, along with much evidence of the disproportionate and suppressive influence in the market of the major investment houses that have registered as central bank agents. This is all ordinary public record, not "conspiracy," and it can be found here:

http://www.gata.org/taxonomy/term/21

 

 

Morpheus's picture
Morpheus
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Dec 27 2008
Posts: 1200
Re: Debunking the Post-CFTC Precious Metals Fear Mongering ...

2/3's of the way through the interview now. 

Let me summarize it. By reasonable standards of formal logic, rhetoric, and debate skill,, Jeff Christian mopped the floor with Bill Murphy's face. 

I think a charlatan has been completely and thoroughly exposed. 

 

compinthegroove's picture
compinthegroove
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: Nov 8 2009
Posts: 113
Re: Debunking the Post-CFTC Precious Metals Fear Mongering ...

Thank you Erik for posting this article. 

Bill Murphy may have screwed up, but what I take away from the article is something I deem vastly more important. As Erik made abundently clear, the futures markets are one gigantic paper shuffle with very few contracts held to delivery.  When thinking about gold and silver, I come to the conclusion that spot prices are irrelevant.  The price you pay for the physical bullion in the real market outside the exchanges is the real price.  Let's consider what happened in Europe this week.  We are hearing of gold and silver shortages throughout Europe, yet we saw a steep drop in gold and silver on Friday.  How does this square up when physical demand is clearly increasing?  What good are spot prices when you can't buy real metal at any price?  When the bullion dealers in Europe do get some more metal to sell again, what do you think will happen to the premiums? 

At some point, I believe the market will come to the same realization that I have- spot prices are irrelevant.

rapidtrends's picture
rapidtrends
Status: Member (Offline)
Joined: Jul 27 2008
Posts: 7
Re: Debunking the Post-CFTC Precious Metals Fear Mongering ...

History is replete with examples of large financial houses indicating one thing, and then taking the complete opposite of the trade.

Let me pose a theoretical scenario for you:

You are a large financial institution, lets say for sake of this example a bullion bank.

You have the ability to sell paper contracts which DO impact the market price of a commodity, and on the other hand accumulate physical.

Is it possible that the biggest benefactors of an ultimately increased gold price will be the bullion banks themselves?

Just a thought.

compinthegroove's picture
compinthegroove
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: Nov 8 2009
Posts: 113
Re: Debunking the Post-CFTC Precious Metals Fear Mongering ...
rapidtrends wrote:

History is replete with examples of large financial houses indicating one thing, and then taking the complete opposite of the trade.

Let me pose a theoretical scenario for you:

You are a large financial institution, lets say for sake of this example a bullion bank.

You have the ability to sell paper contracts which DO impact the market price of a commodity, and on the other hand accumulate physical.

Is it possible that the biggest benefactors of an ultimately increased gold price will be the bullion banks themselves?

Just a thought.

 

Actually, I have thought of that.  My belief is that the bullion bankers are probably the biggest gold bugs of them all and have been hoarding more than they are selling.  In a currency crisis, do you really think they will sell their gold?  They will do what they are doing now at the LBMA- settle delivery in cash instead of gold.  The big banks don't need to fleece the people with artificially high priced gold, they're already doing that in the paper markets.

If the world demands a gold backed currency, who do you think will hold the power? 

SteveW's picture
SteveW
Status: Gold Member (Offline)
Joined: Jan 21 2010
Posts: 490
Sovereign Immunity

In the case of Blanchard and Company versus Barrick Gold Corporation filed in New Orleans in 2003, alleging  conspiracy to depress the gold price, Barrick filed a memo in support of it's motion to dismiss.

Jeff Christian's copy is displayed at: http://www.cpmgroup.com/free_library1/COUNTER-ARGUMENTS_TO_GOLD_CONSPIRACY_THEORIES/Barrick_MTD_Rule_12_February_2003.pdf

Jim Puplava asks: "about Barrick's claim to share the sovereign immunity of Central Banks against lawsuit insofar as Barrick was their agent in shorting gold to control it's price?" Jeff replies that he's posted the above document and two others "the 3 legal documents on the free portion of his website and nowhere in those three legal documents will you find Barrick claiming to share sovereign immunity of Central Banks against the lawsuit, they simply don't claim that"

Bill Murphy claims that they do but then goes on to talk about losses from hedging. Bill was simply poorly prepared, but the documents are available and an interesting read even though I don't claim to follow all the legal details.

However page 20 of the above document has the argument entitled: "PLANTIFF'S CLAIMS ARE BARRED BY ACT OF STATE DOCTRINE". So Jim is being disingenuous when he said "they simply don't claim that" since  "act of state" is sovereign and "doctrine" is immunity.

So on this one point alone Jim "won" the argument but Bill was correct in his interpretation, while Jim relied upon slimily weaseling around the exact words that were used. Is he a lawyer by any chance?

As I interpret the legalities Barrick does not claim sovereign immunity for itself but argues that it cannot defend itself unless other parties (including Cental Banks) are part of the suit and that these other parties can claim sovereign immunity.

SteveW's picture
SteveW
Status: Gold Member (Offline)
Joined: Jan 21 2010
Posts: 490
Re: Debunking the Post-CFTC Precious Metals Fear Mongering ...
Morpheus wrote:

Let me summarize it. By reasonable standards of formal logic, rhetoric, and debate skill,, Jeff Christian mopped the floor with Bill Murphy's face. 

I agree.

Morpheus wrote:

I think a charlatan has been completely and thoroughly exposed. 

I disagree. I heard a clearly knowledgeable and skilled debater who is extremely careful with his choice of words win a debate against a less skilled debater who is less careful with his choice of words, less prepared or knowledgeable and inclined to become angry and argumentative.

I don't think either man is a charlatan, but am uncertain whether there is any more clarity regarding the truth. I made the above post about the Barrick charges since that seems to be the clearest indication of gold market manipulation, which was unfortunately settled out of court.

Overall Erik is correct with his assessment that the GATA folks don't make the best use of the information they have to support their claims. As a voluntary type organization they are facing formidable opponents. I hope they have engaged the best lawyers for their suit against the FED, but having seen recent court judgements that seem to favour the corporate status quo I don't hold any great expectations. 

Doug's picture
Doug
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 1 2008
Posts: 3097
Re: Debunking the Post-CFTC Precious Metals Fear Mongering ...
Quote:

I disagree. I heard a clearly knowledgeable and skilled debater who is extremely careful with his choice of words win a debate against a less skilled debater who is less careful with his choice of words, less prepared or knowledgeable and inclined to become angry and argumentative

I disagree with your interpretation.  Christian was clearly more knowledgeable and skilled, but he also had command of the facts.  Murphy made a lot of apparently baseless allegations that Christian shot down with facts, not rhetorical flourishes.  I suppose Christian may have been lying, but I will have to be convinced.

Doug

SteveW's picture
SteveW
Status: Gold Member (Offline)
Joined: Jan 21 2010
Posts: 490
Re: Debunking the Post-CFTC Precious Metals Fear Mongering ...
Doug wrote:
Quote:

I disagree. I heard a clearly knowledgeable and skilled debater who is extremely careful with his choice of words win a debate against a less skilled debater who is less careful with his choice of words, less prepared or knowledgeable and inclined to become angry and argumentative

I disagree with your interpretation.  Christian was clearly more knowledgeable and skilled, but he also had command of the facts.  Murphy made a lot of apparently baseless allegations that Christian shot down with facts, not rhetorical flourishes.  I suppose Christian may have been lying, but I will have to be convinced.

Doug

Sorry Doug, I guess I wasn't clear in defining Christian as the clearly knowledgeable and skilled debater. So we agree.

I  suspect Christian of fudging the truth by omission in the Barrick lawsuit.

SteveW's picture
SteveW
Status: Gold Member (Offline)
Joined: Jan 21 2010
Posts: 490
A comment on Christian's debating style.

At the CFTC hearing Christian said that JP Morgan were selling silver "hand over fist" and then went to the futures market to hedge by selling short. This is the "I mispoke" that Christian made when pulled up by Gary Gensler.

However when Bill Murphy said that Christian reported JP selling as the price went up but did not use the hand over fist quote he was accused by Christian of lying. Whether the price was going up or not I do not know but Christian certainly did not report the selling as occuring as the price went up.

Obviously if you do not precisely quote this guy he will deny ever saying something and accuse you of deceit. I know which is the greater deceit. 

 

MetalsFacts's picture
MetalsFacts
Status: Member (Offline)
Joined: May 17 2010
Posts: 12
Re: Debunking the Post-CFTC Precious Metals Fear Mongering ...

 

 

Hello. This is Jeff Christian.

I do not normally participate in these commentaries, but saw a couple of inappropriate references to my personal ethics, so I thought I would clear things up.

First, I did not fudge anything related to the Barrick court filings. I was responding to a Gata lie about Barrick. Gata said, explicitly, that Barrick had argued in court that it was immune in this matter due to the fact that it was acting as an agent of central banks. I said, correctly and accurately, that Barrick had not made that argument. You are right: Barrick argued that since the suit did not include all of the alleged participants in the alleged scheme, it could not proceed as a matter of law. It also argued that even if Blanchard had named all of the alleged participants, some of them, the central banks, had immunity from the case, and therefore the case could not proceed as a point of law. Both of these are correct.

What I said was that Gata had lied about what Barrick had argued in its court filings. I was 100% correct and fudged nothing.

Further on this matter, Blanchard was a client of CPM Group's, until shortly after it filed the case against Barrick. It ended the relationship. I knew and worked closely with Don Doyle, the owner of Blanchard. I will not say anything about Don here, since he has demonstrated a willingness to sue people at the drop of a hat regardless of any merit to his grievances.

Second, there seems to be great confusion about what I said, meant to say, and how I corrected myself when asked for clarification by Chairman Genssler, in the CFTC hearings. Given that these were comments off the top of my head from a remote televised place in South Africa on a subject that the CFTC had not asked me to prepare myself for, I think I should be allowed to stumble on my words at times in describing what seems to be incredibly complex financial transactions in the minds of many gold market observers. Given that you seem to respect my speaking skills, I guess I have let you down by buggling my words once.

What I said, or meant to say, was that the bullion banks (I do not believe I mentioned JPMorgan or any other bank by name) were buying silver and gold hand over fist in the dealer market, as investors that had purchased these metals, either leveraged or unleveraged, unloaded their metal as their credit lines were withdrawn during the great credit freeze of September and October 2008. The banks, as market makers, stood to buy back gold and silver as their clients sold. The banks in turn hedged these purchases by selling short on the Comex. Because the Comex has a clearinghouse backing up its trades, it was one of the most liquid places in the precious metals market at that time in which the banks could lay off the price exposure they were taking on. Remember, some investors were selling massive amounts of metal, even as smaller investors were buying. Prices were plunging. The bullion banks stood as buyers, as they should have as market makers, even in the face of the cascading lower prices. They protected themselves in the paper market. That should not be any big deal for anyone to understand or accept. That is how markets have worked for centuries.

It is interesting because around 2001 or 2002 there was a time when market makers in the municipal bond market stopped picking up their trading phones. That was a much larger abbrogation of the market makers' responsibilities to the markets. It stands in contrast to the execution of buy-backs.

I hope these comments clarify these two points. I hate to have people misrepresent what I say, almost as much as I hate people who misrepresent what I say question my integrity without knowing the facts about which they are speaking. Yes, I try to be careful with my words. As I said to Bill Murphy once, Words and facts matter.

Cheers.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Erik T.'s picture
Erik T.
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 5 2008
Posts: 1233
Re: Debunking the Post-CFTC Precious Metals Fear Mongering ...

Jeff!

It's an honor to have you here participating in this conversation! I hope my esteemed colleages here on the site will join me in welcoming you to these discussion forums, as it's a rare and fortunate privilege for us to be joined by high-visibility industry professionals like yourself. I really hope you'll find our discussions interesting and consider participating in some of them.

Unfortunately, some of my colleagues here have been exposed to GATA propaganda for a very long time, and as you know, they have been exposed to a campaign that makes you out to be a representative of an evil bullion bank establishment. I hope that nobody will have the bad taste to say anything insulting toward you here, as that is not permitted by the site's posting guidelines. But in case that should occur, I hope you'll know that many of us really appreciate your participation and welcome your views with an open mind.

Best regards,

Erik

 

Erik T.'s picture
Erik T.
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 5 2008
Posts: 1233
Re: Debunking the Post-CFTC Precious Metals Fear Mongering ...

The only issue that even appears to have the potential of legitimacy here is the question of JP Morgan's large short position in the silver market. As described in the article, the allegations about 100:1 and LBMA were just plain nonsense. But I did write the following in the original article:

Erik Townsend wrote:

Ted Butler’s research alleges the presence of a very large concentrated short position in the COMEX futures market, held by J.P. Morgan. I’m inclined to believe that this much is true. Is it really being used to manipulate the market? Based on Ted Butler’s research alone, I would say maybe. Ted’s argument is, essentially, what other purpose could there be for a short position larger than the annual global production of silver? I can’t think of any plausible alternatives, but this argument still lacks certainty. The fact that neither Ted Butler nor I can think of such a reason certainly speaks toward the possibility that JP Morgan is manipulating the market, but doesn’t prove anything conclusively.

So, as I said in the article, I was unable to fathom a plausible reason that JP Morgan would be holding a short position so large that it rivals the annual production of silver. But I also left room for the possibility that although neither Ted Butler or I could think of such a reason, there could still be a valid reason neither of us thought of. I think Jeff just provided it:

Jeffrey Christian wrote:

...the bullion banks (I do not believe I mentioned JPMorgan or any other bank by name) were buying silver and gold hand over fist in the dealer market, as investors that had purchased these metals, either leveraged or unleveraged, unloaded their metal as their credit lines were withdrawn during the great credit freeze of September and October 2008. The banks, as market makers, stood to buy back gold and silver as their clients sold. The banks in turn hedged these purchases by selling short on the Comex. Because the Comex has a clearinghouse backing up its trades, it was one of the most liquid places in the precious metals market at that time in which the banks could lay off the price exposure they were taking on. Remember, some investors were selling massive amounts of metal, even as smaller investors were buying. Prices were plunging. The bullion banks stood as buyers, as they should have as market makers, even in the face of the cascading lower prices. They protected themselves in the paper market. That should not be any big deal for anyone to understand or accept. That is how markets have worked for centuries.

So why in the world would J.P. Morgan be short silver to the tune of something close to the annual production of the metal? Because in the 2008 crisis they had a fire-sale opportunity to buy physical metal from leveraged holderssuch as hedge funds who were being forced to unwind their positions because of the loss of repo lines and other financing during the credit crisis. That makes perfect sense.

If Bear Sterns and then J.P. Morgan came into a huge quantity of physical metal under such circumstances, they would not be able to just sit on it and be exposed to price risk. Especially not in the face of the biggest liquidity crisis in recent history. So they would have to do one of two things in order to keep their risk under control: Either sell the metal, or hedge it in the futures market.

What would I do if I were in their shoes? And in 2008 no less? I'd damn well keep the metal because after all "posession is 9 10ths of the law", and the prospect of a complete meltdown of the paper market system was looking possible. By keeping the huge inventory of metal that others were forced to sell, and hedging the position by going short in the futures market, they would be making a very, very astute trade: They would be hedged against any price fluctuation (value at risk of loss = zero) so long as the system was functioning. If the whole financial system blew up and the futures exchanges defaulted, they'd have a whole lot of precious metals in their vault while everyone else was coming to terms with the fact that their whole business was just paper and just went poof.

So now I have a perfectly plausible answer to Ted Butler's oft-repeated question, How could a concentrated short position that large be anything other than a manipulation?

To prove this explanation would require auditing JP Morgan to see whether they're still in posession of an amount of metal approximately equal to their large short on the COMEX. If they are, that answers the debate and both GATA and Butler are proven dead wrong!

Why doesn't J.P. Morgan come forward with that explanation if that's the case? Why would they? GATA is doing a fine job of filling the system with an absurd amount of rhetoric and propaganda. If I were JPM, I'd watch how that plays out and take the other side of the bets being made by naive retail speculators. Perhaps that's exactly what's been going on all along?

Very interesting indeed...

Erik

 

nickbert's picture
nickbert
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Jan 14 2009
Posts: 1203
Re: Debunking the Post-CFTC Precious Metals Fear Mongering ...

Jeff,

Welcome, and thank you for offering your time here.  I listened to the Financial Sense podcast with yourself and Mr. Murphy just last night and found it highly informative and clarifying.  Debates like that are just what is needed.  I can't honestly say that all my potential concerns regarding manipulation of gold and silver markets have been allayed, but I felt that debate did wonders for separating much of the wheat from the chaff, as it were.

- Nick

plato1965's picture
plato1965
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Feb 18 2009
Posts: 615
Re: Debunking the Post-CFTC Precious Metals Fear Mongering ...

Erik, interesting theory !

 Wouldn't that mean that JPM has done a Hunt Brothers.. and virtually cornered the physical market ?

If so,  maybe it's acting as an agent for... hmm... curiouser and curioser.

Morpheus's picture
Morpheus
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Dec 27 2008
Posts: 1200
Re: Debunking the Post-CFTC Precious Metals Fear Mongering ...

Jeff. Welcome to the site and thanks for clearing that up. I thought that you carried yourself extremely well in the "debate" (actually it was a one-sided blowout, GATA's credibility with me is dirt right now), and presented facts and chains of reasoning that were compelling. 

I use the CPM Yearbooks with regularity. Good stuff. 

 

Erik T. wrote:

Unfortunately, some of my colleagues here have been exposed to GATA propaganda for a very long time, and as you know, they have been exposed to a campaign that makes you out to be a representative of an evil bullion bank establishment. I hope that nobody will have the bad taste to say anything insulting toward you here, as that is not permitted by the site's posting guidelines. But in case that should occur, I hope you'll know that many of us really appreciate your participation and welcome your views with an open mind.

I'll second that but I think that there are shenanigans in all the commodities and equities markets, but GATA does a disservice to exposing them with this nonsense.

GATA exposed itself as uncredible in the debate. Conjecture, strawmen, red herrings, I don't think that there wasn't a single logical fallacy that Bill Murphy didn't use. In fact, he sounded hysterical. 

Now, as far as the shenanigans. That doesn't mean that you have anything to do with them. Bill's facts are wrong, and he's barking up the wrong tree. What angers me is the damage they do to the cause of rooting out corruption where it really is. 

Doug's picture
Doug
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 1 2008
Posts: 3097
Re: Debunking the Post-CFTC Precious Metals Fear Mongering ...

Jeff, welcome.

I followed GATA for a while as another naive investor.  I read Erik's article with great interest, listened to the so-called debate and read your post above.  I agree with Morpheus, the debate was a blow-out and I've lost all respect for and interest in GATA.  You and Erik have provided a tremendous service to this site and I, for one, thank you both.

Doug

MetalsFacts's picture
MetalsFacts
Status: Member (Offline)
Joined: May 17 2010
Posts: 12
Re: Debunking the Post-CFTC Precious Metals Fear Mongering ...

Gents,

Thanks for all of your warm welcomes. I feel like a LURP walking into a base camp.

Let's continue this discussion.

 

 

SteveW's picture
SteveW
Status: Gold Member (Offline)
Joined: Jan 21 2010
Posts: 490
Re: Debunking the Post-CFTC Precious Metals Fear Mongering ...
MetalsFacts wrote:

Hello. This is Jeff Christian.

I do not normally participate in these commentaries, but saw a couple of inappropriate references to my personal ethics, so I thought I would clear things up.

Jeff,

Thanks for replying to this thread and for making your clarification. I certainly appreciate you using your valuable time to do so. 

The debate was so one-sided that I looked at a couple of things that are in the public domain and are readily available to me and so raised the questions I posted above. The reason I did this is that the overwhelming winners of debates, at least among politicians, sometimes use questionable tactics.

The CFTC incident that you clarified was garbled, OK since you are usually extremely careful with language you're allowed a rare error.

The memo Barrick filed in their defence was, at the time, erroneously reported as a claim of sovereign immunity in several places. As we both say this was untrue but related to a claim of sovereign immunity that would have existed for one of the alleged parties to the alleged price manipulation. You said that GATA had lied. I'm not sure whether this was a deliberate lie or gross incompetence.

Please accept my apologies for questioning your integrity and ethics, but please note I never said anything that was not true. I agree with you that words are important

 

Erik T.'s picture
Erik T.
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 5 2008
Posts: 1233
Re: Debunking the Post-CFTC Precious Metals Fear Mongering ...
MetalsFacts wrote:

Gents,

Thanks for all of your warm welcomes. I feel like a LURP walking into a base camp.

Let's continue this discussion.

Jeff,

Since you've so graciously offered to join our discussion here, I'd love to hear your views on the JPM allegations. Not so much whether or not the e-mail was bogus or not (although that's interesting too), but more specifically Ted Butler's rhetorical allegation "How could a concentrated short position nearly as big as the annual production of silver be anything other than a manipulation?"

This community includes some very smart people, but most are not finance professionals so we have to take the information available to us and try to sort the facts from the BS. I think that most of us here have come to realize that the "100:1 leverage" business falls in the BS category. GATA BS to be specific. But many of us are still questioning whether or not Ted Butler is raising a legitimate concern relative to JPM.

Specific questions:

   1.  Does my most recent previous post above correctly summarize your position on the matter, i.e. that you believe the reason JPM has this big short is that some combination of JPM and their customers are in posession of that much metal and are hedging it?

        1a. If so, what's your guess on the ratio of prop to client holdings behind this massive hedge?

   2.  For the inherently skeptical among us, is there any way to verify that JPM really has holdings of physical metal so large as to justify that big of a hedge? (Most of us here have a cursory knowledge of basic public company reporting documents but I for one have no idea whether banks are required to disclose their physical metal holdings on any regular basis)

  3.  Do you think there is any legitimacy whatsoever to the recent propaganda about this massive short being on the verge of being squeezed, or do you think JPM will sit on the hedge indefinitely because it's offset by corresponding physical inventory?

Thanks in advance for your time in replying!

Erik

cmartenson's picture
cmartenson
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Jun 7 2007
Posts: 5353
Re: Debunking the Post-CFTC Precious Metals Fear Mongering ...

Hmmmm....it's an interesting story, but the question I have about the idea that JPM was accepting back large amounts of physical silver is, "where did they do this?"

They didn't appear to do it within the COMEX system itself since the registered and eligible categories neither moved sufficiently enough to warrant the size of the 'hedges' nor is there even enough metal within the entire COMEX inventory to account for the 'hedges.'

I'll have to ass-u-me, for the moment, that the majority action was happening on the LBMA while the NYMEX/COMEX was being used as the paper hedging side of the trade.

Alternatively we'd have to speculate about vaults outside of either the COMEX or LBMA, but I am unaware of any such conduits large enough to satisfy the amount of apparent hedging.

But I simply don't know anything about any of this besides what I read.  Jeff, perhaps you can clear this up?

What exactly did you mean by stating that the bullion banks "were buying silver and gold hand over fist in the dealer market" and that the "banks, as market makers, stood to buy back gold and silver as their clients sold."  To me this sounds like physical inventory that exists somewhere and is transferred from one party to another.  If so, where are these inventories and how large are they?  Where can I access the necessary data to assess whether the amount of paper shorts held by JPM, et al., constitute a fair and legitimate hedge, or of they are outsized relative to physical and therefore a matter of speculative investing for which the charges of "concentration and manipulation" remain applicable?

I am wide open to whatever the data says, but for now all I have are various claims for which I have no solid basis for analysis and opinion, which leaves me uncomfortable.

As a commentary, I often wonder why solid data is so hard to come by for gold and silver (and other commodities) when there is infinitely more transparency into other financial markets.  This opacity int he commodities makes for fertile ground for imaginations and belief structures to run wild.

Smitho7's picture
Smitho7
Status: Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 9 2009
Posts: 1
Re: Debunking the Post-CFTC Precious Metals Fear Mongering ...

I just listened to the debate and found Bill Murphy annoying. But that doesn't make his position incorrect. Frankly, it just leaves me with unanswered questions and confused. I am a small-time gold and silver investor which I do mainly to protect what little I have. I find the price manipulation debate confusing becasue I do not have the market knowledge to understand the complexities of what Ted Butler speaks of and what large players like JPM do in the market. But what I do dream of (naively) is having an open and free market where a hard-working 'mum and dad' investor like me can be a participant without having foxes and wolves snarling at my hard earned wealth.

Right now I would like more facts of manipulation from GATA. Conspiracy theorists can get a little wrapped up in themselves and lose sight of the truth and their origianl motivation.

Bottom line, I'm holding onto my precious metals. May the Truth win.

plato1965's picture
plato1965
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Feb 18 2009
Posts: 615
Re: Debunking the Post-CFTC Precious Metals Fear Mongering ...

 

 'I expect the CFTC to say something on our silver investigation within weeks. I can't pre-judge what that will be. I can't even guarantee that the agency will speak. That said, if the agency remain silent for much longer, I intend to speak out on the matter in an appropriate fashion.' - Bart Chilton

 http://www.citywire.co.uk/money/silver-price-manipulation-public-deserves-answers/a437169?ref=citywire-money-featured-articles-list

 I see you shiver in anticip............................................. ation.

 

 

SteveW's picture
SteveW
Status: Gold Member (Offline)
Joined: Jan 21 2010
Posts: 490
Re: Debunking the Post-CFTC Precious Metals Fear Mongering ...

Silver Subject to Price Manipulation, Chilton Says

 

 http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-10-26/silver-market-faced-fraudulent-efforts-to-control-price-chilton-says.html

 

 

ao's picture
ao
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Feb 4 2009
Posts: 2220
Re: Debunking the Post-CFTC Precious Metals Fear Mongering ...
SteveW wrote:

Silver Subject to Price Manipulation, Chilton Says

 

 http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-10-26/silver-market-faced-fraudulent-efforts-to-control-price-chilton-says.html

 

 

Interesting article.  For some reason or other, this fellow Chilton strikes me as a complete schlemiel.  If you read his CV, you'll find that he is in no way qualified for this position.  I thought it was particularly interesting that the article stated that it took 5 years to investigate the Hunt brothers.  For Pete's sake, the U.S. was over and done with World War 2 in less than 5 years.  Given the growth in governmental ineptitude, the investigation into the present fraud should be good for at least 10 years, especially with this (in memory of Davos) moron running things. 

SteveW's picture
SteveW
Status: Gold Member (Offline)
Joined: Jan 21 2010
Posts: 490
Re: Debunking the Post-CFTC Precious Metals Fear Mongering ...

The CFTC has until January to develop rules for position limits, a requirement that was recently imposed by the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act on financial reform,

http://cftc.gov/LawRegulation/DoddFrankAct/OTC_26_PosLimits.html

For a view from the street.

Posted: Oct 26 2010     By: Dan Norcini      Post Edited: October 26, 2010 at 2:05 pm

 

The silver market was abuzz with news today about CFTC Commissioner, Bart Chilton, concerns over price manipulation. The fact that he has come out so publicly took many, outside the camp of GATA and others, by surprise and lit a fire under that market which took it up into a resistance area near $24 on the charts. Strength in silver then worked to pull up gold which had been under pressure from the falling Euro and the subsequent bounce towards 78 in the Dollar.

You have to wonder about the many who have insulted GATA and its fine work over the years and ridiculed them in such a derogatory fashion whether they will now have the common decency to apologize for their shameless and contemptuous treatment of my friends Bill Murphy and Chris Powell and all the other dedicated members of the GATA board. The fact that Commissioner Chilton has come out so forcefully and chosen to use the words, “fraudulent” and “devious” in regards to the silver market is remarkable for its clarity and frankness. He was careful not to come to a conclusion about actual manipulation but as he pointed out, attempted manipulation is an entirely different matter. Based on his own words, it is evident that he strongly believes that attempted manipulation has been occurring regularly.

From here on, those who refer to GATA and its supporters as “the tin foil hat” crowd are only making fools out of themselves and revealing themselves to be mere hacks of the bullion bank crowd. GATA can no longer be dismissed as some sort of rogue band of disgruntled “gold bugs” but as the fine group of people that they are; people who share a genuine concern for the integrity of our financial markets and whose tireless research and efforts on the part of the precious metals markets deserves to be given the respect that is due to any organization which has produced work of the nature and quality that GATA has. I am not holding my breath however; very few are able to conquer their own pride and remain slaves to it all their lives. It takes a man of real character to admit he was wrong. Generally speaking, the most vocal opponents of GATA seem lacking in this department.

Hats off also to Commissioner Chilton for having the integrity to follow through on this even in the face of what no doubt must have been some very strong opposition. It is refreshing to see a man who actually takes what he does seriously and is working in the interests of the general public and not just a few favored special interests. If you have not done so, please take the time to send him an email encouraging him and thanking him for his efforts. So often men in his position only get emails or letters haranguing them.

 

 

SteveW's picture
SteveW
Status: Gold Member (Offline)
Joined: Jan 21 2010
Posts: 490
Silver manipulation

Interview with Jeffrey Christian and David Morgan.

http://www.bnn.ca/News/2010/10/27/Silver-market-manipulation.aspx

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Login or Register to post comments