Ted Butler: Busting the Perfect Crime

Obviously I do not know if the CFTC is going a good job of regulating the metals markets or not.

And that is a big part of the problem. I have little confidence that they are doing a good job of maintaining honest and efficient markets based on what I am seeing in the futures markets almost every day.

For an agency to have an ongoing investigation of manipulation in a global market like silver, with NO offical report having been issued after almost five years, is not up to the expectations that the American people have for its government.

Indeed the silence of the Agency borders on arrogant disregard, given the many, many complaints of the appearance of irregularities it has received.

This is especially true in light of the several recent revelations of egregious market manipulation by the Banks in LIBOR, energy, and derivatives markets. And these are some of the same actors in the alleged silver manipulation.

Here is what Ted Butler has to say about it. And it makes sense to have the GAO review the Agency to reassure people that they are doing their jobs properly, and if there is a problem with oversight from within the Administration itself, whether through aloof indifference, or the undue influence of outside parties.

And if there is some manner of funding problems and manpower, I am sure that the CFTC would like to take its priorities from the people whom it serves and whose confidence is its highest mission, and not the Banks and Exchanges whom they are expected to regulate.

Busting the Perfect Crime
Theodore Butler
May 24, 2013 - 12:23pm

A subscriber recently commented that the Oligarchs who rule Russia only wish they got to run things as efficiently as how JPMorgan and the big banks control our financial markets, particularly in the trading of precious metals. Based upon the last few days, it’s hard to argue with that. On Sunday evening shortly after 6 PM, the price of silver was taken down 10% within a few minutes on an insignificant number of contracts (1600), evoking memories of the infamous 13% ($6) decline on the May 1 Sunday evening of 2011. If the Russian criminals oversaw silver trading and not the CME Group and the CFTC they could not possibly have rigged prices more corruptly.

What makes the silver (and gold) manipulation the perfect crime are a number of elements; short term price control through High Frequency Trading, compliant regulators and the fact that most victims don’t even realize they are being had, as the sellers are mostly just reacting to the deliberately-set lower prices. It’s hard to end an ongoing crime in progress when so many don’t realize it is in progress. Worse, there are still some who profess that there is no manipulation underway. And for the few who do realize what’s really going on, what can you do about it when the regulators are in bed with the manipulators? Perhaps the options are limited, but that’s not the same as non-existent.

In the last paragraph of the January 5 Weekly Review; I made reference to something I was working on that I preferred not to disclose at that time. I’d like to do so now and ask for your assistance. A little over a year ago, a subscriber sent me a constructive suggestion for how to force the CFTC to do their job and end the silver manipulation. Since I had promised myself that I would never leave any stone unturned in the attempt to end the manipulation, I followed Jeff’s suggestion, although I admit to doing so with as close to zero expectation for success as was possible. The suggestion was to complain to the Government Accountability Office (GAO) about the CFTC. I filed a complaint on their web site hotline www.gao.gov and promptly forgot about the matter. After all, over the years I had complained to every government agency possible and never heard back from anyone.

In December, I got a follow up call from the GAO that caught me so much by surprise that I didn’t know why they were calling me at first. They requested additional information (which I provided) and I have had several conference calls with the agency concerning my allegations of malfeasance by the CFTC in matters related to the silver manipulation. It was only after the first phone call from the agency that I took the time to find out what this agency was all about and I suggest you do the same.

I thought I knew it as the General Accounting Office, but the name was changed in 2004. What I also learned was that this was a unique government agency, separate and distinct from all the other federal agencies, including the CFTC. The GAO reports only to Congress and exists to ensure that all the other federal agencies stay on the up and up. In a practical sense, the GAO is the Inspector General of all the federal agencies. As such (and you can verify this on your own), this agency seems tailor-made to investigate why the CFTC won’t do its job when it comes to the silver manipulation...

Read the entire piece, including what you can do today to support the effort to encourage the GAO
in its Congressional oversight of the CFTC here.

Gold Daily and Silver Weekly Charts - Sequester Will Harm Effectiveness of the CFTC

CFTC Chairman Gensler noted on financial television that the sequester will make the enforcement efforts of his agency to police the markets harder, and it will be more difficult to 'stop the bad guys on Wall Street.'

Isn't he the one that just went to court and filed a brief in support of market manipulators to overturn the Federal Energy Commission's successful $30 million fine against an Amaranth natural gas trader because the FERC was doing 'his job?'

Chairman Gensler also noted today that LIBOR is useless for ensuring the integrity of commercial business interest rates.   Can't dispute that testimony.

Not to put too fine a point on the irony, but speaking of concocted numbers without genuine merit, and of little value in setting prices for the real economy, has the Chairman looked at the silver futures markets lately?  

Have a pleasant weekend. 



'Oh lawdy, this is grim.  My Grand Slam breakfast!'

Gold and Silver Smackdown: Same Time Last Year

The takedown in gold and silver is fairly obvious, so much so that all but a career bureaucrat might have trouble not noticing it.

So how does one explain it away.

Who is selling this time? Soros? Paulson? And for what reason? Liquidation, redemptions, profit taking, tax selling?

Tax selling is fruitless unless you see a big change in the position coming anyway and are going to sell in the short term, because you sell and then have to buy back in.

Its possible to do it for pure capital gains considerations, but you have to be able to time/set the market price to suit yourself to allow a buy back in without losing on the price. Or you could shift assets from one market to another more adeptly without incurring the wash rule, that is, derivatives and stocks, playing the same fundamental direction if the regulators are asleep at the switch and don't have a look across your positions.

I have been hit several times in the past three weeks by people who claim to have talked to a insider friend who heard from 'high level money managers' in NYC, London, or Tel Aviv, that say that Paulson is facing redemptions and is selling off his GLD position. Everyone wants to be 'in the know.'

Well, I should like to think that these fellows are not cretins, just dumping positions carefully timed in ways to maximize the downside price movements. Unless of course it is purposeful, which there is almost no doubt in my mind that this is. There could be a squeeze on, and front running of forced sales, but the timing makes this a little problematic in my mind.

More likely this is the same thing which we saw last year. The bottom two charts are for gold and silver from last year.

There are any number of ways to explain this.

The one which I favor is that if a certain party is carrying a enormous, and losing, short position, one of the ways to manage the end of year mark to market would be to smack the price down as much as possible, and cover at least part of the short position going into year end, ending around Dec 26 or 27 given the "Buy to Close" rules.

This also provides a method of gaming that long term short position. Not only do you get to mark it at a lower price, but you can 'trade around it,' picking up metal on the cheap as weaker longs capitulate and toss it at the bottom. And the momentum wise guys get in on the action, the trading desks start spreading their rumours and deploy their useful idiot analysts and talking heads, and we have a major price bottom in the making.

For this and some other reasons, I think we see the usual rally in January, as the market starts to correct back to something roughly reflecting physical reality.

The complicating factor is that this time we have the 'fiscal cliff' to consider, and the potential for a liquidation event. That is a littler harder to play.

But Jesse, wouldn't other players in the market see this obvious manipulation and buy against the artificial price declines?

Yes in a theoretical model of independent players in an efficient market with transparent information and the rule of law this would happen. And how many moons orbit your planet, if you think this is reality given all that we have seen in the past five years?

How many scandals do you have to see and try to ignore before you 'get it.' The financial system is broken and corrupted.

As for now, there may be more downside, but most of it is over. Currency manipulation tends to overshoot. And this looks like a manipulation given the way in which all the usual correlations were pitched, and the downward movements were played in dull markets with concentrated selling. 

And I suspect we will be seeing the same thing next December, if the 'big shorts' in the metals are still on and being held by two or three of the big banks. As I recall HSBC is one of the big shorts.  A bank of their size and reputation could not possibly be involved in anything dodgy, with the officials turning a blind eye, could they?

So as always, the message is one of reform. Until there is justice and transparency and the rule of law, you may as well get used to this sort of thing, affecting an increasing portion of your daily lives. Not just precious metals, but the price of gasoline, electricity, natural gas, food, water, other staples, and your children's education.

And they will use their media to turn your anger against---  regulation and the rule of law.

This is not the abuse of 'big government' but the partnership of the monied interests and a corrupted government that is also known as corporatism, or deep capture. And where their interests align, the people should beware. They are becoming ever more open in their actions. And if you wake up and object they say, 'So what? How are you going to stop us?' It is an audacious oligarchy.

There will be no sustainable recovery until the financial system is reformed and the grip of big money on the politicians and bureaucrats is removed.

"It is the neo-liberal idea that has given us deregulation and de-supervision; that has given us the notion that markets can function on their own without breaking down or blowing up..

This is the great illusion of the last generation, and it fostered a form of economic growth that was intrinsically unstable and unsustainable. Why?...

To put it in simple terms, it was based upon financial fraud, on the most massive wave of financial fraud that the world has ever seen."

Jamie Galbraith, IG Metall Conference, Berlin, 6 Dec 2012

Comex Open Saw 24 Tonnes of Paper Gold Dumped at Market - Sharks, with Laser Beams

 

I am open to more data and other possibilities, but it certainly looks like the infamous Dr. Evil strategy being employed for the Comex post-option expiration in which a large number of call options are turned into active December futures contracts, and then hit hard with a manipulative price effort the next day. I suggested that this might happen given the way in which the option market closed on Tuesday.  Such phenomena are like old friends now in these markets.

Funny too how roughly the same thing happened in the Silver futures about the same time. Silver is also post option expiration today. 

As you know I used to track the big price drops around key option expiration dates on the precious metal charts.

That is not the only possibility. It could also be some 'tape painting' as the big shorts knock the price down before they close the books on their losing positions for the month. But I am inclined to think it was a special post-expiration event.

And it *could have been* just an unfortunate accident that happened in two different and important global markets simultaneously.  Maybe it just 'vaporized.'

Not to worry, I am sure Bart Chilton and the stalwarts at the CFTC, who are closely watching the gold and silver markets, have already identified the seller(s), and examined their selling motivations, and the size and placement of their 'fat finger.' I am sure they will let us know about it, four or five years from now.

"Gold saw a massive 24 tonne sell order (7,800 contracts) at 08:20 a.m. New York time - bang on the opening of the world's largest gold exchange - which [saw] a fall of 2.25% in the market price.

If the selling was year-end profit-taking then it was inept. Dealers try and finesse big sell orders into the market to get the best (highest) price for the biggest volume they can and thereby optimize profit - that requires stealth. If on the other hand it was a "fat finger" episode as has been suggested with a broker said to be looking to roll his December gold futures contract then it was even more inept.

More likely this could be a short play, with the seller looking to trigger stops below the market at $1730 and thus extend the move significantly lower and thus increase his profits. If so, he certainly caught the market on the hop as the move is counter-intuitive with everything else that is going on in the economy.

Rising concerns about whether Democrats and Republicans can find common ground between tax increases and entitlement spend reduction remains to be seen. More importantly, the US reaches its law-enshrined debt ceiling of $16.4 trillion early to mid February 2012. That promises fireworks again as it did in August 2011 when gold hit an all time high of $1922 as the market stares into the abyss of a possible US debt default.

Against the current economic backdrop, a short seller would have to be quite brave. In short, we will not know the identity or the reason for the sale for a while. Longer term gold investors should not however be deterred - the rationale for buying gold is as favorable as ever and a degree of patience required.

Ross Norman, CEO, Sharps Pixley, London, Flash Crash in Gold - Whodunnit?

All Wall Street Knows Is...

CFTC Said to "Drop" Four Year Investigation Into Silver Just Before Promised Release

CFTC To Investing Public: 'Drop Dead.'

This leak to the FT *could* just be a 'trial balloon' by Mr. Gensler and his crew to see if they can get away with it. But that seems more like the plot of a novel.

This could be one of the best examples of the credibility trap in action. The government regulators can say nothing because of their government's long complicity.

If the CFTC in fact does 'drop' the investigation without presenting findings, one could consider that a slap in the face of the American public which on the whole asked for the investigation to be done in the first place, by the regulators who purportedly are hired and paid to serve their interests.

Given the recent admissions about widespread manipulation in LIBOR, the timing of this outcome to the CFTC invesigation could hardly be more arrogant and high-handed, and designed to put the investing public in their places.  It will certainly not inspire any confidence in the integrity of the markets and their regulation.

It would probably be unwise for the investing public to accept this outcome without presenting some consequences.

I suggest that a mass cancelling of futures trading accounts and the withdrawal of all funds deposited there might be a step in the right direction.

Given the serial criminality that has been exhibited in the US futures markets, that action might be long overdue on the basis of common sense.

Financial Times
Four-year silver probe set to be dropped
By Jack Farchy in London and Gregory Meyer in New York
August 5, 2012 10:00 pm

A four-year investigation into the possible manipulation of the the silver market looks increasingly likely to be dropped after US regulators failed to find enough evidence to support a legal case, according to three people familiar with the situation.

The Commodity Futures Trading Commission first announced that it was investigating “complaints of misconduct in the silver market” in September 2008, following a barrage of allegations of manipulation from a group of precious metals investors.

In 2010, Bart Chilton, a CFTC commissioner, said that he believed there had been “fraudulent efforts” to “deviously control” the silver price.

But after taking advice from two external consultancies, the first of which found irregularities on certain trading dates that it believed deserved more analysis, CFTC staff do not have sufficient evidence to bring a case, according to the people familiar with the situation...

Read the rest here.

MF Global's Edith O'Brien Comments on the Safeguards of Customer Segregated Accounts

This is from a transcript of the CFTC Roundtable Discussion of Individual Customer Collateral Protection on Oct. 22, 2010.

As you may recall, Edith O'Brien is the Assistant Treasurer of MF Global whom Jon Corzine identified in his own Congressional testimony as the key manager over fund transfers of monies, and who has been recently subpoenaed to appear before the House.

In talking down to the 'myopic' particpants, Edith O'Brien makes the point that there are interconnected layers of protections for customer accounts, making the misuse or misappropriation of customer assets highly unlikely.

This transcript is followed by brief excerpts of the Nov 2011 and Fed 2012 testimony of the CFTC to the Congress about MF Global.

Ms. Edith O'Brien: "That's okay. Thank you all for participating today.

I think that a number of individuals from this table don't have the benefit of the extensive experience of the FCM structure, and I've heard two hours of dialogue about seg customer movements between the clearinghouses and the exchanges, and as the conversations continued, it appears that this is an extraordinarily myopic view of the current safeguard structure that operates in America and has effectively worked, to the best of my knowledge, for years.

This safeguard structure in this financial framework is not just about customer seg money moving from FCMs to exchanges, it is based on layers of partners and components across banking institutions who are approved to be exchange settlement banks, exchanges approved participating FCMs. FCMs do credit reviews of clients.  It's layered. Everybody has a role, some of the roles cross over. There's segregation rules, there's segregation calculation. There's now capital rules. There's now capital calculations. There's rule of 15(c)(3) about what can be done of the firm while FCMs are holding them.

So, as we continue the conversation this afternoon, I want everyone to consider the fact that there's a greater framework at hand here, one that has actually worked extremely well. One of the comments that I've heard over the last couple of weeks is how do we prevent a Lehman from happening here? We did. Lehman happened in the U.K.; it did not happen in America.

So, I think that Bob does want to explore the risk components this afternoon, and I want everyone to consider the wider framework that does effectively work at this time, always looking at ways to enhance this to protect customer funds. There's no question about that. But an enhancement is different than the entire change to an infrastructure."

MR. WASSERMAN: I would just make one note in response.

Certainly, Lehman was an example of how well things worked in the future seg world, (in protecting customer funds in futures accounts) and I am very gratified, one might even say personally gratified at how that happened such that futures customers, I think, things worked well with barely a hiccup. But understand that Lehman was an issue outside of the customer account. This was not due to a fellow customer, this was due to a problem essentially on the prop level and at the parent level.

What we're dealing with here is what happens if there is a problem at the customer level, and while that has been happily very rare in the future space, and very happily so, and that's in large part due to the excellent work that's done by a lot of people over here both at the clearinghouse and at the firms, we're bringing in a new environment here on the OTC, where it would be, I feel, a little bit premature to assume just how well things are going to work.

Obviously, we hope that we are developing a system where things will work as
7 well, but there's some different risks that we're going to be confronting, and, so, there's some different issues out there. With that, I think it's important to talk about what the costs are on the risk level because this absolutely changes the risk environment..."

CFTC Roundtable Discussion: Individual Customer Collateral Protection, Oct 22, 2010, transcript.

The November 2011 testimony of the CFTC's Gary Gensler on the taking of customer money at MF Global.



Testimony of CFTC's Gary Gensler on February 29, 2012

CFTC Commissioner O'Malia Warns of 'Rash Reforms' - "Isolated Incident" - Opposes Position Limits

The CFTC must make haste to prove to the public that MF Global was an isolated incident. It should not become involved in the issues of returning customer funds.

Oh, such wiles are hidden in the voice of reason and 'free market' ideology. Let's not be hasty. After all, it is only customer money, and we are just the regulators responsible for making sure it didn't happen in the first place.

Commissioner O'Malia has also actively opposed 'position limits' on silver and other reforms in commodity trading designed to curtail manipulation.

"O'Malia said the agency had overreached its mandate and echoed the industry's argument that there was no "empirical evidence" to substantiate the rule."

In his opening statement on position limits he said:

"...in addition to failing to detail costs, the two final rulemakings fail to articulate a convincing rationale for eliminating our current regime of principles-based regulation and substituting in its stead a prescriptive “government-knows-best” regime."

Principles based regulation. Unfortunately the principles are being written and administered by the brokerage firm of Dewey, Cheatum and Howe & Assoc.

Let's make haste to show this is an 'isolated incident.' How about making some haste to get the customers' money back, and telling us who took the money and what they are charged with?

How can this possibly be an 'isolated incident?' There's a fine line between an isolated incident and just another episode in a multi-year financial gang bang of the American public by Wall Street's monied interests.

Commissioner O'Malia was appointed by Barack Obama in 2009 according to Huffington Post: Scott O'Malia: Obama Appoints Ex-Lobbyist For Enron-Like Company To Top Regulator Position

Obama's failure to fulfill his electoral mandate, for whatever reasons, is one of the greatest flops since Plan 9 From Outer Space.

Credibility trap. Regulatory capture. Corporate "News." Judas goat reformers.

I fear the truth, and financial reform, will be led down a blind alley, and strangled. The best I can hope for is that the customers' money will be returned out of shame and fear, if not justice and wisdom.

CFTC Chairman Gensler is apparently asking for a December 5 vote to restrict the manner in which brokerages can use customer funds. Hence Commissioner O'Malia's warning on making changes to the status quo, and the new threat from the Congress to pass deep cuts in CFTC funding.

And next year the American public will be given Morton's fork opportunity to choose between two flavors of corporate extrusion, Tweedleflip and Tweedleflop. And so they will hold their noses, and most likely cast their joyless votes.

CFTC official warns about rash reforms post-MF Global
By Christopher Doering
Wed Nov 16, 2011 10:46am EST

WASHINGTON, Nov 16 (Reuters) - A U.S. futures regulator on Wednesday pushed for immediate action in the wake of collapsed brokerage MF Global, including a requirement that all intermediaries should hire an independent party to make sure customers funds are kept separate from the firm's own money.

Scott O'Malia, a Republican commissioner at the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission, said in order to show the public that segregation works and that MF Global was an isolated incident, it must act quickly.

However, he warned about going too far with reforms without full knowledge of what happened at the failed brokerage.

"Many have said that the failure of MF Global was not systemic and that we are lucky. I don't view it in the same light," O' Malia said in a statement laying out the "next
steps" in dealing with the mess MF Global left behind.

MF Global filed for bankruptcy on Oct. 31 after investors and counterparties balked at revelations about the firm's bets on risky European sovereign debt.

Roughly $600 million is missing in customer accounts of the company's brokerage, and the CFTC is among the authorities investigating whether MF Global may have improperly mixed that money with its own funds.

O'Malia said the CFTC must ensure that all intermediaries are in compliance with segregation requirements. The agency also must reconsider rules it is crafting to implement the Dodd-Frank financial reform law.

In the three-page statement, O'Malia said it's too early to hail a proposal that would limit investments of segregated customer funds "as the solution to the MF Global problem."

He also warned against a plan that would have the CFTC intervene in insolvency proceedings to facilitate transfer of customer positions and collateral in the face of a shortfall.  "The Commission has not actively intervened in such a manner in MF Global, and so it is questionable whether the Commission would so intervene in the future," O'Malia said.

In light of MF Global's demise, O'Malia said the CFTC should ensure that clearing organizations are able to diversify their membership without introducing risk.

Curiouser and Curiouser: Missing MF Global Customer Funds May Be 'Massive Ploy'

And it appears that investor outrage is prompting a reaction amongst the regulators, as well it should. It is good to see that the CFTC is taking this seriously, and it is always good to hear from the 'can-do commissioner' Bart Chilton of the CFTC.

And it probably doesn't hurt to have SIPC on the hook for the funds as well.

Jon Corzine is a prominent Democrat who was said to be a candidate to replace Tim Geithner as Treasury Secretary.

Massive hide and seek ploy. This is getting interesting.

Bloomberg
MF Global’s Missing Funds May Be ‘Massive’ Ploy: CFTC’s Chilton
By Silla Brush
Nov 10, 2011 5:31 PM ET

The $593 million shortfall in client money at MF Global Holdings Ltd., the broker that filed for bankruptcy on Oct. 31, appears to result from a “massive hide- and-seek ploy,” Bart Chilton, a commissioner at the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission, said today.

The agency took the rare step of publicly announcing its investigation, which began on Oct. 31, saying it was in the public interest to confirm the enforcement action. Jill E. Sommers was named as the senior commissioner during the probe, after Gary Gensler, the agency’s chairman, recused himself.

“This isn’t just a lost and found inquiry; it’s a full-on effort to get to the bottom of what appears to be a massive hide-and-seek ploy,” Chilton, a Democrat, said in an e-mail.

“It’s a distinct possibility, some would say probability, that somebody has done something with the money, and that it’s not going to be ‘all of a sudden discovered’ with an innocent explanation,” Chilton said. “If that’s the case, it’s patently illegal. I don’t know yet. Our investigation will uncover that, and we’re aggressively pursuing this.”

Gensler recused himself from the investigation because of his history with Jon S. Corzine, the former head of MF Global. Gensler worked with Corzine at Goldman Sachs Group Inc. and during his time as a Senate aide, while Corzine represented New Jersey as a U.S. senator.

‘Get to the Bottom’

“I have complete confidence in the dedicated men and women in enforcement to carry out the necessary investigation to get to the bottom of what happened,” Sommers, a Republican, said in a statement.

The probe of MF Global’s cash movements is being conducted by the U.S. Justice Department, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, the Securities and Exchange Commission and the bankruptcy trustee’s staff in cooperation with the Securities Investor Protection Corp., James W. Giddens, the trustee, said on his website.

The CFTC also began a review of futures brokers to determine if client funds are properly segregated. The initial review will include between 10 and 12 futures brokers and the CFTC hasn’t set a deadline for the review, a person familiar with the review said.

Diana DeSocio, a spokeswoman for MF Global, didn’t respond to requests for comment. Steven Goldberg, a spokesman for Corzine in New York, said he had no immediate comment."

It's Official: Wall Street Firms May Legally Steal From Their Customers - Rationalizations to Follow

...and they may not have to pay them back, even when they are caught. The customers will be expected to 'take one for the team,' and for the good of the system. Confidence and all that.

“This means they can take segregated funds and leverage them to kingdom come. It means nothing is safe.”

Andy Abraham

If you have a commodity account with Wall Street, they may gamble with your money, with your assets, the rule on segregated accounts be damned. If they lose the money you might be reimbursed, or not. The losses may have to be 'socialized' and haircuts received.

This is most likely a distortion of the principle known as 'rehypothecation' in which a broker can use customer positions and holdings as collateral pledged for a margin loan for the purpose of securing funding from a third party to service that loan.

The principle at play here may be closer to a type of droit du seigneur, in which any assets you have posted at a futures brokerage may be used at will by the broker for their own purposes without regard to any customer obligations. It depends on the extent to which MF took customer assets and leveraged them.

In a way it is just making the unbalanced relationship between Wall Street and its customers official.

It means that customers are bearing hidden counterparty risks on assets to which they thought they had a clear title, such as Treasuries, and foreign currencies, and warehouse receipts for precious metals.  

It means that brokers can go beyond the mere provision of funding for loss, and use customer accounts to fund their own leveraged speculation under exemptions duly granted by their 'regulators.' 

This sort of systemic abuse is typically exposed when there is a market dislocation. It is what finally exposed Madoff, for example, despite the many years that the regulators were turning a blind eye to his scheme.

This sort of arbitrary distribution of gains and losses occurs more frequently than you might imagine on Wall Street, at least from what I have seen and heard, and not just with commodity brokers. I have even heard of specially privileged customers who can make $100,000 in a few trading days without even having any knowledge of the markets in which they have 'traded.'

I stopped trading on the futures exchanges a few years ago when I experienced enough one-sided 'rule changes' to persuade myself at least that it was becoming an insiders' game with slim odds of success for the 'outsider.' Or perhaps I was just becoming aware of it had already become, or had always been.

Unfortunately it is hard to escape inefficiency in markets, because despite all that has happened, these fellows still set the prices for much of the world's food, energy, and basic materials, at least on the official exchanges.

The CFTC has been disgracefully negligent, and given to cronyism, but in the spirit of modern American management practice it may just hide behind a claim of incompetence. They granted some exemptions to influential insiders, and the markets proved that the exceptions were loopholes for fraudulent abuse of the public trust.

The Justice Department is investigating the case of MF Global for any violation of the laws. I suggest they pay special attention to the laws regarding 'fraudulent conveyance' in the posting of the customer assets as collateral with MF's creditors, even as the firm was paying its employees bonuses, knowing that it was insolvent.

Actual fraud typically involves a debtor who as part of an asset protection scheme donates his assets, usually to an "insider", and leaves himself nothing to pay his creditors. Constructive fraud does not relate to fraudulent intent, but rather to the underlying economics of the transaction, if it took place for less than reasonably equivalent value at a time when the debtor was in a distressed financial condition.

For example, where the debtor has simply been more generous than they should have or, in business transactions, the business should have ceased trading earlier to avoid giving certain business creditors an unfair preference (see generally, wrongful trading).

Obama should bring meaningful reforms to the regulatory agencies and the financial markets after the shocking abuses of the past twenty years. But I doubt he will bite the hand that feeds him. He will likely hide behind committees and a building of 'consensus' with the unabashed servants of the monied interests. It's in the nature of a credibility trap that reform will not come until the system finally seizes, and crashes, and there is an opportunity to hide their crimes in the rubble.

Forbes
MF Global May Have Used Customer Funds In The Losing $6.3 Billion Trade Without Informing Clients
By Robert Lenzner

After an intense day of investigation, I have just discovered that a CFTC rule (1.29) allowed Jon Corzine’s MF Global to use the margin and cash in customers heretofore segregated accounts to amass a risky $6.3 billion investment in European sovereign debt that backfired. Nor did Corzine have the obligation to inform any of these customers he was gambling with their money. Or that he was intending to keep all the profits for himself and his troubled firm. Nothing for the customers.

The language of Rule 1.29 allows “The investment of customer funds in instruments described in 1.29 shall not prevent the futures commission merchant (MF Global) or clearing organization so investing such funds and retaining as its own any increment or interest resulting therefrom.” Increment refers to any trading profits or gains.

The criminal division of the Justice Department in New York — as well as the SEC and the CFTC and members of Congress– are investigating whether any laws were violated and if so, whether any criminal charges can be brought. As of 3 pm today, there has been no sign of the missing $633 million. My sources believe it was probably grabbed by the institutions that made the margin calls on MF Global as the European bonds sank in value.

This shocking loophole, which is available to all commodity traders, whether giant ones like Goldman Sachs or members of commodity exchanges, means that huge risks are being taken with money that does not belong to the trading firms– without the customers having any idea of the danger they are in. As Andy Abraham, a futures trader in Israel put it to me today; “this means they can take segregated funds and leverage them to kingdom come. It means nothing is safe.”

This rule, which has been in effect since 1974, is shocking and highly irregular since it allows any futures dealer to use customers money for its own selfish purposes– and never inform its customers it is doing so. What’s even more unfair is that the dealer (MF Global) gets to keep all the income and the trading profits, if any from a transaction that uses other people’s money– not its own house capital. That is unless some prior arrangement about sharing profits was made privately beforehand with the client. None of the MF Global clients I’ve spoken to today had the foggiest notion about this arrangement– which at minimum is outrageously unfair to the rule that the customer comes first. All losses must be made up by the dealer, which in this case may be totally impossible..."

Read the rest here.


I wonder if they will even disclose the name of the firm that took the $600+ million in customer assets as collateral.

That will speak volumes in itself.

Here is some additional information from Lenzner at Forbes: Some MF Global Customers Want Corzine "Led Away In Cuffs"

My most well-informed source, who won’t identify himself tells me my original story was “partially correct in the usage of customer funds.” IE MF Global was allowed under Rule 1.29 of the CFTC, to use segregated customers accounts to invest in “high quality, liquid investments.”

He insists that , “The segregated funds rule prevents the firm from answering margin calls with Seg (segregated) funds for house bets. Lots of people in other trading firms are taking bets on when Corzine will be led away in cuffs.”My source also insists that Corzine was NOT allowed to use these funds for directional bets- and that “customer funds can only generate interest for MFG while they are held separately from house money.”

Lots of excuses will be made for what happened. The status quo has a huge vested interest in covering this up, for their personal benefit and 'the sake of the system.'

For example, the analogy in the above piece by Lenzner about customer banks deposits, and the actions of banks in lending them out to other people. Yes, and you are paid interest for that usage, and you know that they are doing it, and you know that their loan operations and deposits are (at least theoretically) regulated and insured by the government.

But overall Lenzner is one of the best financial reporters, and he shows remarkable journalistic integrity. Most mainstream reporters won't even touch this one because they are afraid to say something that might involve the sacrosanct monied interests and TBTF.
Wall Street has a wonderful way of rationalizing their slimier behaviour. After all, when the tech bubble of fraudulent representations crashed, the financial news anchor said that 'no one had MADE people buy those stocks.' Its not Wall Street's fault that people are uninformed and gullible, right?

"There will always be apologists for the powerful and politically connected who commit crimes."

Eliot Spitzer

My expectations for reform are remarkably low. I just hope that the customers get their money back, and more people become aware of what is going on. If anything is done about this except to make excuses for it, I will be pleasantly surprised to say the least. When Simon Johnson said that the US had suffered a "financial coup d'etat" he was not waxing poetic.

In the short term, I think the avoidance of the worst neighborhoods in the financial system is a likely reaction by investors. And those seem to be the forex, stock options, and futures markets, with a few of the slimier ETFs that are designed to lose as well. Such de facto boycotts have happened before and will happen again. What else can one do?

Wall Street is trying to organize a boycott of Mario Batali for remarks he made about #OWS and Wall Street.  I think they are showing what they fear the most - a boycott by their own retail customers.

A credibility trap is not a pretty thing. It smothers goodness and justice with a dark cloak of complicity.  This will not be resolved quickly or easily.

CFTC Update on the Investigation Into Manipulation of the Silver Market In Progress Since 2008

The CFTC released a long awaited update on their investigation into the manipulation of the silver market, thereby meeting a key deadline to the public.

November 4, 2011

CFTC Statement Regarding Enforcement Investigation of the Silver Markets

Washington, DC – The Commodity Futures Trading Commission today issued the following statement:

“In September of 2008, the Commission announced the existence of an enforcement investigation into the possibility of unlawful acts in silver markets. Since that time, the staff has analyzed over 100,000 documents and interviewed dozens of witnesses and obtained expert advice. It has been a long, detailed, and thorough investigation, and it continues in an appropriate and considered manner.”

You can read the entire statement here.  Except that WAS the entire statement.

For questions or comments, call 1-800-EAT-CAKE.

Independent Interview with King World News by Bart Chilton, CFTC Commissioner

The Anglo-American Precious Metals Derivatives Duopoly: Quarterly OCC Report

The US Office of the Currency Comptroller (OCC) issues a Quarterly Report on the Derivatives exposure of US Banks and Trust. The report, including historical archives, can be found here.

The report includes "all insured U.S. commercial banks and trust companies as well as other published financial data." So obviously it is not comprehensive of private funds, and banks without a US subsidiary presence.

The archives go back to 1998, but it is quite clear that the report is not so interesting prior to the repeal of Glass-Steagall and the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, also known as the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000.

The report shows that JPM has about 80 percent of the gold derivatives in the world on its book, with HSBC holding the other 20 percent.    And in other commodities, JPM holds a similar position as well as part of their overall $78 trillion derivatives book which is heavily dominated by interest rate and credit derivatives.  But hey, that's without netting, right?  Oh yeah, counter-party risk.

JPM is not just Too Big to Fail.  It IS the market.  And 95% of their transactions are still OTC.

Just for the sake of perspective I did include a chart from the 2Q 2000 report here which shows both the total derivatives exposure, leverage and concentrations, and the gold market in particular. 

Notice that some of the players are no longer with us, and of course there is the big combination of CMB and JPM, when the houses of Morgan and Rockefeller combined after this report was issued to become the leviathan of international banking. 

At that time Chase Manhattan Bank was the biggest player with about $14 Trillion in nominal derivatives with a leverage to total assets of about 43.  The gold market was a three way split amongst Chase, Morgan and Citi, with Fleet grabbing some scraps.

This is for the derivatives gold market among commercial banks.  At that time the silver market was dominated by a non-bank, the now almost infamous AIG. 

As Ted Butler relates in December, 2003:

"Here's how AIG got to be the biggest trader in the silver market. When Drexel Burnham Lambert went bankrupt in 1989, the DBL Trading Group was purchased by AIG, and became the AIG Trading subsidiary, which currently operates out of offices in Greenwich, Conn. You may recall DBL Trading was the subsidiary involved in the temporary gold loan default with the central bank of Portugal at that time.

Before moving over to AIG, the DBL Trading Group worked at Goldman Sachs (J. Aron) in the early 1980's, and before that began at ACLI (A.C. Leon Israel). For the sake of full disclosure, and in an interesting coincidence, I worked at Drexel Burnham Lambert in Miami, for 10 years until 1986, but had no involvement, whatsoever, with DBL Trading."

I include this not only for historical interest, but also to remind you that the derivatives market is only one facet of the markets overall, albeit a growing one that is still about 95% Over The Counter and unregulated. It also still does not include the futures markets in this data.

Here is an overall chart from the June 2011 Report. One thing that immediately jumps out is that JPM now has a total nominal derivatives position of about $78 Trillion. That's a lot of nuts.

The other unmistakable point is that besides the increased concentration, the nominal leverage of Goldman Sachs at 537:1 is that of a hedge fund and not a commercial bank or trust. Even Morgan Stanley is running at a modest 26:1.

By the way,  in a bit of non-metals related gossip, I hear that Mackie Messer is strolling the downtown area, and might be looking to put a blade between the ribs of Meier Schmul with the objective of having one less investment bank in the market, in addition to the fine pickings from the collateral corpses.

Who can really know such things? Not so many as think they do perhaps. But it is good to know who and where your friends are, and with whom they are associating. Just ask Herr Fuld.  Oops, Mistah Kurtz, he dead. John Paulson?

The leviathan JPM, uber bank of Rockefeller and Morgan, holds 80% of the gold derivatives in the world, with HSBC having the rest. HSBC was founded in the British colony of Hong Kong and is now headquartered at Canary Wharf London.

At this sort of concentration you do not have a size advantage, you ARE the market, with all that it implies in terms of knowledge of positions et cetera, at least concerning derivatives. In the non-gold precious metals JPM's derivatives are a more modest 69%.

How important are derivatives to gold and the metals? Not so much, unless you consider it important to know who is hedging what positions and future supply. And it also helps to manage some of the largest non-derivatives positions such as large ETFs for example.

But some might conclude that between them the Anglo-Americans have the gold market in hand.

JPM holds quite a derivatives position in 'other commodities' as well, presumably non-precious metal. Inconsequential thinkgs like food and energy. That makes the commodities boss at JPM, Blythe Masters, Der große Macher in anyone's book.

As general rule of thumb, if you are the House in any game, you should not be able to also sit at the table as a player, internal confidentiality agreements notwithstanding. It really is just that simple.

You should be taking money on a transactional service basis and net zero exposed. And if you can't do that and make enough money, then you need a new business model.

And the notion of commingling this sort of business with insured bank deposits and Federal Reserve subsidies is insane.

Any major commodities player needs to be compact enough to wrap up in a carpet and get rolled out the door, sans bailouts, should conditions require. Even a big player like Enron or Refco.

One cannot help but wonder if some of these mega banks have not become so interwined with government as to be in a virtual partnership in their implementers of fiscal and financial policy, which is a dangerous development indeed.

"Oh the shark has pretty teeth dear,
And he bears them dripping red,
A sharp knife has Macheath dear
And when he flicks it you are dead."

An Interesting Theory on Silver for Volatile Times in Desperate Economic Conditions

Here is an interesting theory on the recent silver run up and correction which someone pointed out to me this evening from a chatboard.

I do not know if his theory is valid of course, and the author allows as much, as more data is required.  I doubt even the COT report this Friday will be of use.  I like to follow Harvey Organ and Dan Norcini on these matters and will look forward to their weekend commentary.

But what this person is saying is essentially the 'gut read' I had while watching the tape, off and on in recent days.

If the market was correcting because longs were selling out and walking away, why did the CME have to do a 4th and 5th margin increase to make it more difficult to hold long positions?   If something is burning of its own accord, why keep pouring gasoline on it, over and over?

Well one explanation is that they want people to cut their losses and not be overwhelmed if the prices continue lower. That is legitimate and I would be very grateful if they were to begin doing that. Too bad that US regulators never seem to do this when it really counts, like with equities and home mortgages and banking leverage for example.

But there was no denying that the parabolic increase was just dodgy. As you may recall I expressed wonder at it, and took my trading profits off the table, to much private criticism in the emails I might add.

And then we saw the repeated late night hits that started in conjunction with the CME's actions to increase margins, market actions that were too obvious to be accidental or coincidental.

I really believe that the core of the problem involves the deliverable ounces at CME, a big looming problem. I think the CFTC knows quite a bit more about the dynamics of this market and its associated and opaque derivatives than they admit. And I believe they are desperately concerned.

I did post a link from Ben Davies this evening in which he speculates that the high prices brought a load of scrap into the market, which is what prices do. But that scrap has not been measured, and it would have happened rather quickly, in a matter of weeks. I do not think the refiners can produce new eligible bars quickly enough even from scrap.

But regardless, it has not really shown up where we would like to see it. And as Ben points out, once this initial influx of scrap, low hanging fruit they like to call it, is exhausted, prices will begin to climb again because miners cannot even begin to adjust supply higher quickly enough. And the market action in the miners continues to be heavy handed and manipulative from my vantage point.

I suspect a lot more of what has entered the market is forward hedging by some of the bigger miners and the bullion banks, who were locking in profits, but ON PAPER.

So a lot of paper silver may have entered the market, but that is not really what is needed. So the exchange and the regulators and the big dealer who are incredibly short feel the need to dampen demand for near term bullion.   And by driving down the price they worsen a bad situation IF systemic shortages exist due to years of market underpricing and undersupply.   And if that is the case, the short term fix is a longer term poke in the eye with a sharp stick.  But few can accuse American management style of a bias to the long term solutions when a lucrative short term fix that becomes someone else's problem is available.

I am just fascinated by this, and cannot wait to see how it resolves and it develops. I am viewing this as one act in a much larger drama, the reforming of the global governance system that has been in place since the end of World War II.

Let's see what happens, and what comes floating in on the tides of change.

And please try to keep in mind what has happened over the past ten years. I am utterly amazed that the US has just passed through one of the greatest financial scandals and frauds in history, and within two or three years is willing to act as though nothing had happened, that it was just some random act of God, and that everything is back to a 'new normal' again.  Few prosecutions and shallow reforms.  Remarkable.

Well, things are not normal. There is an abscess in the body politic. And the next collapse and crisis which is coming is going to be monumental.  And some surely view it as an opportunity to feed their will to power. And perhaps Ron Paul will prove to have been prescient.

"Believe me, the next step is a currency crisis because there will be a rejection of the dollar, the rejection of the dollar is a big, big event, and then your personal liberties are going to be severely threatened." Ron Paul

Let's see what happens, and wait for some stronger indications of what the situation may be. As noted here many times, these are particularly dangerous markets, and only professionals and highly experienced traders should be actively in them.

But there is no charge for watching...

WSB
CME Margin Hike won't matter, The CRIMEX Clowns got stuffed yesterday
wrs - Wed, May 4, 2011 - 08:48 PM

I think I know what happened. I kept thinking that if OI increased on the kind of price drop we saw yesterday, then longs didn't capitulate because if they did, OI would have shrunk.

Here is what I think happened, the Commercials have been decreasing their net short in this latest run up, in other words, they helped it go up by covering short and going long. I believe they were doing that to accentuate the rise and to be able to liquidate their profits and accentuate the drop and cover short when the spec longs gave up. They wanted silver to look parabolic and then fail in order to scare everyone off.

Well it looks like the large specs have held tight, the COT report on Friday should show that the large long specs increased longs and are more net long while the commercials are more net short. Yesterday it was the commercials selling at a discount to the spec longs who just soaked up all the selling the commercials could do.

So today they raised margins again because I bet that the OI didn't drop much today if they had to raise margins again.

This is setting up for a huge snap back rally if my conjecture is close to correct.

Silver Market Hit Hard With Bear Raid - The Infamous Dr. Evil Strategy

Yesterday I said:

"Today was the option expiration on the Comex, and those options which are 'in the money' and have not been settled for cash are now converted to March futures positions.

Depending on the size and distribution of those conversions we may see some 'action' in the front month because they are sometimes notoriously weak hands and will receive at least one 'gut check.'"

And a gut check to run the stops was very obviously delivered in the afternoon trading session at the Comex and across the monthly contracts.

This is remniscent of the 'Dr. Evil' strategy that got Citi warned and fined in Europe a few years ago. Memories of Citi's Eurobond Manipulation At the time one of the defenses offered by an ex-pat trader was 'in the US everybody does it.' Has JPM taken up the trading strategy that Citi once made infamous? And why would banks be trading for themselves in markets with players they help to finance, and with public money?

Large players can come into a relatively small market and drive the price by selling in size, running the stop loss orders which they often can 'see' through probing orders and positional advantage, and essentially bomb the market, manipulating the price in the short term to their advantage. The profit is made through derivative and correlated bets that depend on the price of the metal, index, or bond such as shorts on mining stocks, currencies, bonds, etc.

This is why the 'uptick rule' in stocks served a purpose, and why regulators are in place to keep an eye on big players with deep pockets and a far reach. In a properly regulated market the CFTC would immediatly pull the trading records for today and track the big sellers, and inquire as to the reasons for their sudden selling in a quiet market.

It *could* have been a hedge fund margin call. It could even have been a margin call provoked by a bank tightening credit lines with one hand while playing the market with their other hand. There were rumours being spread all week keying in on the day after expiration.  I do not have any inside information, no special knowledge, only the advantage of experience and a watchful eye on the markets.

And so there it all is. I was ready for it. I may or may not make money from it, but at least I had flattened my positions as I had said earlier this week and did not lose from it. But it sickens me to the heart nonetheless, to see a once great government fallen so low.

Silver Bankers May Be Sitting on Big Derivatives Losses and the Fed May Be Funding Them

My question is simple. What are bankers like J.P. Morgan and HSBC doing playing in such size in this market? What is the economic and productive benefit? Perhaps there is a good answer. The taxpaying public certainly deserves to know. The CFTC says they have looked into this, but the detailed results of their findings remain less than forthcoming.

IF this is legitimate hedging for producers then all well and good, but then there is no justification for secrecy. If these are trading positions held by the bank, or by the bank as agent for speculators, then there may be a greater reason for secrecy, but the magnitude of the shorts is far out of bounds in size. Ten years of production is not a short position, but the entire market and then some.

The CFTC certainly appears to be acting poorly as the market regulator for the people. Given the regulatory failures of the past ten years that lead to the financial crisis, it would be useful if the Congress were to make very pointed inquiries regarding this situation. But given the performance of the Congress, and their affinity for the deep pockets and big contributions of the financial sector, that may be too much to hope for.

I think it is worth noting that the BIS data, which I use myself, is very good, but normally six months in arrears or more.  I tend to use it to track the float in eurodollars which the Fed stopped publishing when it also halted the production of M3 data.  But this is not Harvey's fault, but merely another sign of the opaque nature of the US markets.  There is no reason not to demand monthly disclosure.  Investors and depositors are always expected to make informed decisions, and then they are denied the information from large market participants using their positional advantage.

The comment and analysis below is from Harvey Organ's most recent commentary.

"The huge rise in silver price has caught the silver bankers totally offside on the silver banking. The BIS data released in November (www.goldexsextant.com) shows that the G 10 bankers have collectively sold forwards and swaps to the tune of 4 billion oz and short naked calls for another 3 billion oz. The total, 7 billion oz represents 10 years of production. If you just do the forwards, then it is 7 years of annual silver production.

Let us say the average cost of acquiring these derivatives and forwards equate to $15.00 for silver. Thus collectively the entire G10 bankers are feeling massive pain (losses) to the tune of:

7 billion oz of silver( 32.30-15.00) = 7 billion x $17.30 = 121.1 billion dollars of losses.

This is in a market of only 14 billion dollars. It begs the question to what economic need was this done.This is still off balance sheet.

If you include only the forwards or swaps (the lending of actual metal to which nothing has come back yet) then the losses are:

4 billion x 17.30 or 69 billion dollars.

Regardless how you look at it, the bankers are in serious trouble with this huge rise in silver prices. I hope you understand the severity of the situation."

This situation merely highlights Obama's failure as a reformer, and the general failure of both parties to act in positions of trust for the American people, rather than the special interests that provide them money and sincecures after they leave office.

As I noted on my own silver chart, I am no longer will to forecast anything but intermediate targets for silver, given what appears to be widespread imbalances and crisis-inducing leverage in the market, especially given the strong demands on the bullion market from the sovereign and individual buyers in the BRIC countries.

It is never pretty when a fraud collapses, and this one in particular is difficult because it seems to encompass those stewards of the market upon whom one generally relies for information and some measure of confidence in the data.

The market will clear when it clears, and seems to be defying 50% margin requirements increases and well placed disinformation campaigns in the process.

Net Asset Values of Precious Metal Trusts and Funds in an Option Expiration Week

Although there will be plenty of commentary seeking some 'fundamental' reason for this pullback in gold and silver, I was looking for it, and noted last week that this week is the option expiration for the July contracts on the COMEX.

This is the kind of weakness I like to buy in adding to the 'long gold / short stocks' hedge I am running. It takes some guts but that is why we use charts to help take the emotion out of your decision and maintain a perspective. It also helps to ignore non-sensical forecasts and book-talking from chatboards and analysts who live in perpetual fantasies that come alive periodically when the market gives them a random nod. If you really want to see the worst in human nature, become a trader.

It really is that obvious anymore. Words like 'malfeasance' or at least 'nonfeasance' in office come to mind when considering the regulators at the CFTC and the SEC, their bosses, and the appropriate oversight in the Congress.

When there is a default on delivery, as I suspect there will be, I would hope that the usual 'non-involvement' and personal incompetency defenses will not be so easily accepted by a long-suffering public.

As a reminder, the GTU shelf offering closes on June 23.

It Doesn't Take a Whistleblower...

The most recent smackdown in Gold and Silver for the purpose of manipulating the price of metals for the COMEX option expiration was about as blatant and arrogant as I have seen. There was a big fat concentration of Calls at the 1200 strike price, and the temptation to make their expire worthless was an open invitation to the pigmen.

You do not need a whistleblower to spot these abuses. The banks and hedge funds are practically taking out billboards in their market price manipulation these days, and daring anyone to do something about it. Why are they so fearless under a 'reform administration?'

The gaming of the markets using derivatives and massed selling and buying, melt ups and flash crashes, is less a 'conspiracy theory' these days, and more like an IQ test.

And it's a damn shame. Especially when the enablers and the Wall Street demimonde ignore it and pretend it is not happening, or make up lame rationales attributing it to something else.

This sort of semi-official corruption grows like a cancer, until it subsumes all markets. And it has severe consequences in the real economy.

Shortly After the Comex Close Gold Is Allowed to Trade Above 1200

Gold traded all day below 1200, at times rising to within fifty cents of the key strike price of 1200 where a large concentration of call options were clustered.

Well, since the call options at 1200 have expired worthless, why bother using the energy to continue to suppress the price?

Blatant and arrogant price fixing is done with the cooperation of the regulators at the CFTC who are willing to turn a blind eye to repeated price manipulation by insiders in the US futures markets in precious metals, stock indices, and several key commodities including oil and foodstuffs.

Here is some commentary from the April expiration in silver. Release the Kraken.

Release the Kraken: Silver Market Price Rebounds After Sharp Price Drop for Options Expiration

"Corruption is a tree, whose branches are
of an immeasurable length: they spread
Everywhere; and the dew that drops from thence
Hath infected some chairs and stools of authority."

Beaumont and Fletcher, The Honest Man's Fortune

The silver market is rallying strongly today, after the recent dip in price below $18 with respect to the options expiration and delivery dates for the May contract earlier this week. When futures options are filled, one is not paid in cash, but instead they receive active futures contracts at the strike price.

The market game is to either get the front month price below the key strike prices before the expiry to make the options worthless, or to take the price down below the strikes the day after to run the stops of the contract holders. The market makers can see the relative levels of holdings in market in near real time, privileged information not permitted to the average investor.



Three or four banks are short more silver on the COMEX than can easily be attributed to legitimate forward sales or hedging for all the miners in the entire world, for years of production. Granted, it is hard to determine what the truth is because they are allowed to hide their actual positions and collateral, so as to be able to make their leverage and risk difficult to determine. It's the obsessive secrecy for improbable positions and returns that is the tell in most market manipulation and schemes such as Madoff's ponzi investments.

Goldman Sachs was able to obtain the exemptions of a hedger in the markets through contrivance, for the purpose of their proprietary speculation. But if Goldman is the vampire squid, then J. P. Morgan is the kraken of the derivatives markets, having less leverage than the squid as a percentage of assets, but significantly more reach and nominal size, positions which seem almost impossible to manage competently against value at risk in the event of a very modest market dislocation. And of course the risk which a miscalculation presents could shake a continent of counterparties. These oversized positions appear to be integral to the misprision of legitimate price discovery that is at the heart of derivatives frauds in other markets.

The 4Q '09 report from the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency reports that "The notional value of derivatives held by U.S. commercial banks increased $8.5 trillion in the fourth quarter, or 4.2%, to $212.8 trillion." J.P. Morgan alone has a total derivatives exposure that is larger than world GDP. Granted, by far most of these derivatives are based on interest rates, which are largely under the nominal control of Wall Street's creature, the Fed, at least for now.

Here is a description of the derivatives market by Carl Levin that seems appropriate to the current situation, but also to other market dislocations such as that of LTCM which foundered through the misapplication of risk management assumptions to enormously outsized positions.

"Ordinarily, the financial risk in a market, and hence the risk to the economy at large, is limited because the assets traded are finite. There are only so many houses, mortgages, shares of stock, bushels of corn, [bars of silver], or barrels of oil in which to invest.

But a synthetic instrument has no real assets. It is simply a bet on the performance of the assets it references. That means the number of synthetic instruments is limitless, and so is the risk they present to the economy...

Increasingly, synthetics became bets made by people who had no interest in the referenced assets. Synthetics became the chips in a giant casino, one that created no economic growth even when it thrived, and then helped throttle the economy when the casino collapsed."

These bets can be used to overwhelm the clearing price of physical bullion. Further, these bets distort markets, and those markets have an impact on the real commodity supplies and the economy, in the form of artificial oil and energy shortages for example as in the case of Enron. And given enough time these distortions can, through misallocation of resources, capital and labor, create real systemic shortages in key commodities that can take years to remedy, in addition to the short term damage and pain they inflict on countries whose economies rely on commodity exports.

Perhaps Senator Levin can reuse this quote when he questions CFTC Chairman Gary Gensler, another Goldman alumnus in government, and Sandy Weil's protege Jamie Dimon, when the Congress holds hearings on the defaults in the commodity markets and the requested bailouts of the banks who were holding enormously leveraged derivatives positions.

Unless, that is, the bailouts are conducted in secret, as Mr. Gordon Brown may have done for the bullion banks when he sold England's gold for a pittance. It is hard to know the facts of that sale because it has been hidden away by the Official Secrets Act. That type of bailout would be hard to do with silver, since the US has long since depleted its official holdings, and has trouble keeping its own mint in supply. But such a bailout might be done with the gold in Fort Knox and West Point, or the oil in the Strategic Reserve. And cash settlement is always an option, since the Fed does own a printing press.

I know this sounds a bit much at times, and there are plenty who will tell you to ignore it and move along. Tinfoil hat and all that. And it is natural to grow tired of it, to wish it would just go away. I know that I do.

But these things have happened, and continue to happen, and if you do not understand even now how the government and the banks are acting together in the the shadows for the benefit of the monied interests, you have not been following the news. Or perhaps you have, since the mainstream media largely ignores it, and investigates little or nothing, preferring the less expensive route of chairing phony debates between vested insiders, shameless promoters and paid position whores known as 'strategists.' The financial medai seems to have led the way on this, turning their 'news coverage' into an extended infomercial.

It is a dirty, shameful lapse in stewardship, and an overall failure in the upholding of oaths and responsibilities in public figures and officials. I have not seen anything like it since the Watergate trials which seemed to drag on interminably, and the scandalous behaviour and abuses that were exposed in the Nixon Administration. And it has only just begun to come out, but slowly. Because this time the US lacks a truly independent press that respects and investigates the evidence provided by whistle blowers, and is willing to question the sham explanations of the powerful insiders in the government and the financial sector.

And no one in power is recording anything for posterity, at least not voluntarily.

"How to Corner the Gold Market" By Janet Tavakoli

Janet Tavakoli wrote an interesting essay that was just posted over at the Huffington Post called "How to Corner the Gold Market" which can be read in its entirety from her website here. I started to comment at the HuffPost, but the system there limits comments to 250 characters, so I left a brief comment which is probably still being moderated (note: and still is five hours later - J) and will post my entire comment here while it is fresh in my mind.

First I wanted to thank Janet for dropping me a note about this piece. She knows I have an abiding interest on this topic of market imbalances and regulation in general. I find the US markets fascinating these days, in particular where they involve leverage and derivatives. And Janet is one of the most 'on the ball' and smartest people that I know who are looking at this, and making the good calls well in advance of the situation.

What struck me as odd is that I just wrote a blog piece along similar lines on the same topic today, raising many of the same issues, but that is from the opposite perspective. You can read The Case for Position Limits: What is the Spot Price and How Is It Set? here.

I think Janet and I come to the same conclusions but from a very different perspective, the other side of the table in fact, I wanted to reflect at length on her essay because I think it is important, and in some ways a good formula for manipulating a market from either the short of the long side. In the metals markets today, most of the 'gorillas' are the TBTF crowd, and they seem to be on the short side. That does not mean that they are not being sized up for a market showdown that could be destructive if there is a mispricing of risk and market imbalance.

First, and its not really a quibble, I think the Hunt Brothers attempt to corner the silver market back in the 1970's was overturned not only by a pre-emptive action by the Fed (and it was not an accident as I recall but a conscious response to inflation speculation) but also actions by the exchanges that broke the corner by altering the rules. I have not read the essay she references but I recall the situation first hand since my stock broker at Bache, Halsey Stuart was keeping close track of it, and liked to discuss it with me. Since I was not trading that market at such a tender age, it was a interesting voyeuristic experience, being in the stands watching the men in the arena. When I saw a spec silver trader in their office breaking out in hives during the trading day, being crushed and ruined lock limit down, I resolved to stay away from that sort of action.

This is important because today, having apparently learned their lesson, the exchanges are generally willing to increase the margin requirements when there appears to be undue speculation, especially on the long side of the trade by the speculators not in the in-crowd with the exchange. This is probably more common in the commodity markets, but most commodity traders are well aware these margin changes. They have to be since it requires them to put up more capital, and the specs are often thinly capitalized.

Second, I believe that the commodity exchanges already have the ability to force a cash settlement between counterparties in the event of a market imbalance. I think they even have the option to force a settlement in a commodity ETF, including some which Janet discusses as possibly being the objects of manipulation.

So think in sum that there is little evidence that anyone is willing to take on the exchanges, even the big players, and try and force a corner or even a squeeze against what they perceive as mispricing, such as Soros and so many other big players did with the British Pound , and most recently other big hedge funds did with mispriced products from the latest bubble in the debt markets, and financial stocks. They may be vilified after the fact, but they were right and served a valuable market function. Whether they did anything illegal is another matter.

The piece I wrote today and reference above is about a situation in the precious metals markets which has the potential to become another serious problem for almost the same basic reasons as the debt markets in our most recent financial crisis: excessive leverage concentrated in a few TBTF institutions, lack of transparency, regulatory laxity, and a mispricing of risk.

Janet alludes to the same thing. My prescription is position limits and accountability the collateral and any other deliverables backing the trade. If indeed there are excessively naked shorts, then not squeezing them is of course one resolution, but the other is to rein them in. I should add that the major players claim that they are not naked short, and reference hedges which I believe are undisclosed.

It was kind of odd to hear this story told in a conspiratorial way, referencing the Hunt Brothers. Anyone who would take on the government sponsored banks like JPM and HSBC at this point would have to be rather well-heeled and gutsy indeed. And what is most ironic is that a whistle-blower's testimony appeared at the recent CFTC hearing, and seemed to allege that JPM is manipulating the silver market. It was widely covered in the blogosphere, but very little of it in the mainstream media. I don't think it was covered at all at the Huffington Post, so Janet may not have seen it.

And of course there was the subsequent story about the man and his wife being struck by a hit and run driver the next day in London, and the usual fear of smears and intimidation that must accompany all those who testify against the vested interests. That story remains to unfold. I hope it turns out better than that of Harry Markopolos, who was widely ignored until the worst happened and the Madoff Ponzi scheme collapsed. As I recall he was subject to intimidation and fears for his safety, warranted or otherwise. It must be hard to come forward with this sort of knowledge.

But let's cut through the verbage. Here we are again, with TBTF institutions playing the excessive leverage games and possible naked shorting and mispricing of risk in under-regulated markets, and putting the 'global markets' stability at risk.

If Janet has any specific knowledge about a conspiracy to take advantage of this she should immediately contact the CFTC. I recommend Bart Chilton because I hear he is responsive and interested in this very topic, and just helped to sponsor hearings on this topic as I understand it. If I knew anything at all like this I would as well. So far all I see is a market relatively dominated by the usual TBTF suspects. If some longs are sizing them up there is certainly nothing wrong with that, and if they are vulnerable to a default, then we can either ban short selling (or I guess in this case it would be buying what they are short) or we can try and tighten up the market and correct any obvious imbalances that might exist now in an orderly manner.

But based on the last three years experience of financial misdeed exposed, I would hesitate to account for something by a criminal or even conspiratorial intent what can be attributed to short term greed and sheer reckless stupidity, crony capitalism and regulatory capture, and some intelligent market players seeing this and using legitimate means to confront it, and give it the market players a thrashing they may deserve. But there could be things happening well behind the scenes that I, a reasonably intelligent and trying-to-be-informed market participant cannot see. Is the squid on the hunt again? It is hard to imagine anyone big enough to take on the jokers that seem to be batting the US markets around at will these days. But therein lies the problem to my way of thinking - opaque and excessively leveraged markets that favor the big predatory trading desks.

As anyone who reads my blog knows, I do not think the contrarians are at the heart of our issues here, those who were shorting the mortgage bubble and the derivatives associated with them, although there is always that possibility. I am much more concerned about the establishment, those who are pulling the strings of power, and influencing the regulators, and I found a resonant chord in Janet's essay about this.

The markets are in need of reform. And as concerned as I was before, as shown by the blog which wrote earlier today, I am even more concerned now because Janet seems concerned, and we are coming at this from two very different perspectives: her from the possibility of an engineered short squeeze, and I from the dangerous condition I think I see in the market structure as it is today, with many of the same large institutions at the epicenter of the most recent crisis doing the same thing all over again, different day, different market. same players and modus operandi.

If there are elements trying to manipulate the markets from either side of the trade, then I agree with Janet, that I wish nothing to do with them, and want to see them exposed and prosecuted. But so far that does not seem to be happening very much, anywhere in the system except for some relative 'small fry.'

It feels like groundhog day.

Jesse