Obama Proposes to Restrain the Banks from Speculation

A good first move, but almost a year late.

It still remains to be seen if it can pass with any teeth in it through a deeply conflicted and compromised Congress. The devil is in the details, loopholes, and exceptions.

Allowing the banks to speculate for their own accounts in the markets inexorably intermingles their risks with those of the broader financial system. It is also a tilt to the playing field to allow these market makers with access to proprietary information, very favorable positioning with the exchanges, and the Fed discount window and special programs to sit at the same table with other investors and funds.

This is so basic a move that one has to wonder why Obama waited so long to propose it. Or rather to listen to Paul Volcker who has been advising it, and largely unheeded.

Goldman and perhaps Morgan Stanley will give up the charade of commercial banking to become a full time investment bank, aka hedge fund, again. One positive outcome is that the next time they get into trouble they are on their own. And given their blind greed it won't be all that long before they do.

It is nice to see Paul Volcker gaining a voice in an administration dominated by Wall Street sychophants.

Let the threats, whining, tales of doom, financial media spin, and an army of lobbyists now go forth from Wall Street to try and stop this very basic reform.

It's a beginning. Barney Frank is already talking about putting a five year transition period on the change. Ludicrous really considering the banks that just grabbed their charters. Barney is part of the problem. A bigger part than most people probably suspect.

A good next step would be fire Larry Summers and Tim Geithner, and to permit Bernanke to gracefully step aside and go back to grading term papers. Obama needs to nominate someone with a stronger practical experience profile in that job. Volcker could do quite well.

National Post
Wall Street reels over plan to ban prop trading
Jeff Mason and Kevin Drawbaugh, Reuters
January 21, 2010

WASHINGTON -- President Barack Obama proposed stricter limits on financial institutions' risk-taking Thursday in a new populist-tinged move that sent bank shares tumbling and aimed to shore up the president's political base.

Mr. Obama, a Democrat who is just starting his second year in office, laid out rules to prevent banks or financial institutions that own banks from investing in, owning or sponsoring a hedge fund or private equity fund.

He also called for a new cap on the size of banks in relation to the overall financial sector that would take into account not only bank deposits, which are already capped, but also liabilities and other non-deposit funding sources.

"We should no longer allow banks to stray too far from their central mission of serving their customers," Mr. Obama told reporters, flanked by his top economic advisors and lawmakers.

"Too many financial firms have put taxpayer money at risk by operating hedge funds and private equity funds and making riskier investments to reap a quick reward."

The rules, which must be agreed by Congress, would also bar institutions from proprietary trading operations, unrelated to serving customers, for their own profit.

Proprietary trading involves a firm making bets on financial markets with its own money, rather than executing a trade for a client. These expert trading operations, which can bet on stocks and other financial instruments to rise or fall, have been enormously profitable for the banks but also increase market volatility.

The White House blames the practice for helping to nearly bring down the U.S. financial system in 2008.

Mr. Obama's move is the latest in a series to crack down on banks and comes as he reels from a devastating political loss for his Democratic Party in Massachusetts on Tuesday, when a Republican captured a U.S. senate seat formerly held by the late Democratic senator Edward Kennedy.

Bank shares slid and the dollar fell against other currencies after Mr. Obama's announcement.

JPMorgan Chase & Co fell 5.8%, helping push the Dow Jones Industrial average lower.

Citigroup Inc fell 6.36% and Bank of America Corp fell 7% while Goldman was down 5.5% despite posting strong earnings Thursday.

"This is going to have a tremendous impact on big-name brokerage firms like Goldman Sachs and JPMorgan," said Ralph Fogel, investment strategist at Fogel Neale Partners in New York.

"If they stop prop trading, it will not only dry up liquidity in the market, but it will change the whole structure of Wall Street, of the whole trading community."

Mr. Obama targeted banks for taking big risks while assuming taxpayers would bail them out if they failed.

"When banks benefit from the safety net that taxpayers provide, which includes lower-cost capital, it is not appropriate for them to turn around and use that cheap money to trade for profit," Mr. Obama said.

"That is especially true when this kind of trading often puts banks in direct conflict with their customers' interests," he said.

Before the announcement, Mr. Obama met with Paul Volcker, the former Federal Reserve chairman who heads his economic recovery advisory board and who favors putting curbs on big financial firms to limit their ability to do harm.

The House approved a sweeping financial regulation reform bill on Dec. 11.

The House bill contains a provision that empowers regulators to restrict proprietary trading by financial firms subjected to stricter oversight because they are judged to pose a risk to the stability of the financial system.

The Senate has not yet acted on the matter, but the Senate Banking Committee continues to seek bipartisan agreement on financial regulation reform.

Gold Hit With a Bear Raid Yesterday - Memories of Citi's Eurobond Price Manipulation

If the longs had been exiting the market, the open interest would have declined more significantly.

These big plunges in price look to be driven by short selling, with weak hands being driven out, and then short covering or determined buyers stepping back in to maintain the overall number of contracts at a relatively steady level, but with some good profits from covering their short positions at cheaper prices.  There is also a lucrative cross trade to be had in other markets like the mining stocks.  An operation in bullion is often preceded by some noticeable movements in the miners.

Recall the case in the Euro bond market, wherein Citi came in and sold an enormous volume precipitously, running the stops and driving the price down sharply. The Citi trader came back in and covered his shorts, pocketing the difference in his market disruption based on size. This trading strategy was known as 'the Dr. Evil' trade at Citi, but has deep roots in speculative market manipulation, with its counterpart being the bull pool.

Citi Fined for Euro Bond Trades By British Regulator; Italy Indicts Citi Traders; Citi Haunted by Dr. Evil Trades in Europe; Citi Agrees to Pay 14m in Bond Scandal

I recall reading at the time how the Citi traders were incredulous at being outed by the regulators, because that is how they would do things in the States, running the stops and using outsized positions to perform short term price manipulation. In the states 'price management' has become quite notorious around key market events, such as option expiration. It is so prevalent that it has its own momentum among traders. The only time that it is remarked by the exchanges in the states, however, is when other prop trading desks are caught by it unawares and complain. The public is fair game.

Even the Treasury recently got into the act, with young Tim's Treasury granting a $38 Billion tax break to Citi in order to enhance their financials and the price of their stock.

Citi had quite a record of bad behaviour around the world a few years ago. Citi Never Sleeps The power of money corrupts, and under-regulated banks that have the power to create and confer wealth can corrupt all that they touch, absolutely: regulators, media, exchanges, economists, politicians.

Has Citi cleaned up its act? Well, it was one of the banks at the heart of the debt securitization scandal that almost brought the US financial system to its knees last year, and is still a major source of global instability. The US seems unable to do anything to keeps its house in order. But in fairness, all the big US banks were caught up in the scandals, most notoriously in those exposed by Eliot Spitzer, who was later 'taken out' in a scandal exposed by a special federal investigation ordered by the Bank's good friends in government.

This may give you some idea of how the US markets continue to operate these days, with the banks loaded with cash and regulators turning a blind eye to their antics and outrageously non-productive economy related trading positions. The large hedge funds do the same things, but do not have the clout that the banks have, especially with the commingling of guaranteed deposits and subsidized liquidity from the Fed. These banks do not lend; they gamble while rigging the game. The most outrageous example is Goldman Sachs, the upstart which bought the lordly title of Bank from the Fed, and all the privileges of seignorage therein. Droit du seigneur with the public money, at the heart of its creation.

It was not all that long ago that speculative manipulation by the predators at Enron in the energy markets caused widespread disruption in the State of California. And little has been done by the US regulators to prevent this happening again and again. All is hushed up to maintin the facade of freedom and public confidence. Reform is continually weakened and placed on hold for "the good of the financial system" and its global competitiveness.

Barrick Gold filed a motion to dismiss the 2003 price manipulation lawsuit against it and J. P. Morgan on the basis that some foreign central banks (England, Germany?) and other bullion banks were involved, but were not named as defendants. These foreign central banks were immune from litigation. Naturally the scandal kicked up by this caused the defendants to regroup their strategy and the motion was withdrawn. Barricks February, 2003 Motion to Dismiss

The claim that J. P. Morgan was engaged in fulfilling government policy in its price manipulation was intriguing indeed. It is too bad that it was not granted and sent to discovery and disclosure. But it does highlight one potential reason why a government might not wish to downsize its 'too big to fail' banks, who can become instruments of financial engineering and policy, both foreign and domestic. Who can say what is truth, because unfortunately despite the many abuses, cases are normally settled with no admission of guilt, wristslap fines, and genuine reform is push aside for the sake of temporary expediency.

In closure, the opaque short position in the silver market held by J. P. Morgan and a few other banks is a potential scandal and a disgrace for a 'reform' administration. They do not deserve the benefit of the doubt any longer. Innocent until proven guilty is correct procedure for the courts, but 'where there is smoke there is fire' and 'once bitten twice shy' has its own place in the court of public opinion where trust is a necessary component of good judgement.

Friday, December 18, 2009

The CME Final, just posted, indicates that open interest yesterday rose 475 lots (1.48 tonnes) to 502,930 contracts. Volume remained as reported in the Preliminary at 258,576 lots, 15% above the estimate. See CME Daily Bulletin.

For a $28.80 down day (indeed down $46 intraday) this result is astonishing. Considerable stop losses must have been triggered, but apparently fresh short selling predominated.

Of course, the CME reported a similar event following gold’s $48.80 drop on Friday Dec 4th – only to apparently slip a 21,000 lot fall into the following Monday’s data

But then they did have the excuse of huge volume –almost 400,000 lots that day. And presumably they do not actually want to make these errors.

So on its face the gold market has seen the entry of a large volume of new Shorts, who will have to contend with reviving Eastern physical appetite. If commercially motivated, this is likely to be an alarming experience.

Is the Price of World Silver the Result of Legitimate Market Discovery?

"...one US bank, JPMorgan, now holds 200 million ounces net short in COMEX silver futures, fully 40% of the entire net short position on the COMEX (minus spreads). As I have previously written, JPMorgan accounted for 100% of all new short selling in COMEX silver futures for September and October, some 50 million additional ounces. As extreme as JPMorgan’s position is, there is a total true net short position of 500 million ounces (100,000 contracts) in COMEX silver futures. Try to put that 500 million ounce short position in perspective. It equals 75% of world annual mine production, much higher than seen in any other commodity.

This makes claims that the COMEX short position represents a legitimate hedge of mine production a lie. The total short position represents almost 100% of the total visible and recorded silver bullion in the world, and 50% of the total one billion ounces thought to exist."

One cannot tell what is truth here easily, because of the still much too opaque nature of the US markets. But I do have a bias here, and I must disclose it up front. I have little confidence in the ability of the US regulators to do their jobs competently, and now approach anything that is said by the Obama administration regarding the financial markets with great skepticism.

In a fair market with transparent and symmetric distribution of key price information the identity of any holders of positions of over 5% of the market would be made known, so that people might understand the character of the market.

Further, any justification for these outsized positions and the 'backing' for them should also be made known publicly, and not just to a few insiders or regulators who expect to be trusted when past history shows that US regulators cannot be trusted to manage their markets reliably.

If this information about the silver market is indeed true, if J.P. Morgan is this short the silver market and unable to deliver even under duress, then perhaps the US should close down the Comex, because it has shown itself unable to be the price setter for the rest of the world in a metal with such broad industrial usage.

If it is not true, then the CFTC should publish its findings from its latest study of the silver market, and give the public the assurance that there is no manipulation in the silver market, and most importantly, why.

We have little confidence in the Obama Administration these days, which includes CFTC chairman, Clinton Alumni and ex-Goldman partner Gary Gensler as well, despite tough talk about position limits to quell speculation.

"The time for talk is over" should be a general theme in the Obama presidential term. They talk a good game, but never seem to deliver any meaningful reforms already promised, except those that might favor their own special interests.

This is important. It is important because in free markets producers must commit substantial amounts of capital in exploration and production to insure an adequate supply of any industrial commodity. And purchasers and other buyers and investors must be able to make their decisions with confidence.

Other parts of the world are moving towards establishing their own market clearing mechanisms in oil and key commodities outside of the sphere of the Anglo-American exchanges. If London and New York would prefer to continue to see their importance decline, then failing to regain the trust of the world through transparent reform after the enormous scandals that are still shaking world markets and financial systems would be advised, as they continue to do today.

It is not about pay. It is not about worrying that the traders might leave. It is time to show some concern for your customers, and about honest price discovery in a fair market, and making good after you have engaged in a massive fraud which the US and the Wall Street banks seem loathe to discuss when they worry about 'confidence.'

Is Mr. Butler wrong? Good, then show us why, not by belittling him personally, or picking details out of what he says and twisting them to try to undermine the whole of what he has to say. Public records show that there is an enormous short position in the silver metals market, that looks to be utterly out of bounds with physical reality and deliverability. If this is just a paper game then we need to know who is doing it and why, and why the world should accept this sort of nonsense as a basis for real production and real capital allocation.

And if this extreme speculation in silver is shown to be true, how do we know if this is the case in other US exchange based markets, like oil, and energy, and other metals, and food? Can the world afford to allow the US to set prices given the flaws which have been disclosed in their risk ratings and pricing mechanisms of late, despite the stony silence of their compliant media and the assurance of captive regulators? The pervasive fraud involved in the latest banking scandals has not yet been addressed adequately, and it is part of a pattern of misconduct going back to the 1990's at least. And even now, little or nothing has changed. The Partnership Between Wall Street and the Government Will Continue Until the System Collapses?

Show us the market. Show us who is holding the outsized longs and shorts, and what their motivations might be, whether it is a hedging producer, or as an agent for users and who they might be. And who the speculators are, and what limits on speculative manipulation might exist.

What sort of leverage is JPM employing? Are they hedging proven reserves for legitimate customers, or are they shoving prices around the plate using derivatives, simply because they can. It does not reassure us that in the not too distant past the London group of AIG was a major short side speculator in the silver market.

There is too much trading in insider and asymmetric information in the US markets, which is the cause of their opacity and the recent successes of con men, sometimes despite the repeated attempts by concerned market participants to bring suspected abuses to the attention of the regulators in what were later found to be obvious and outrageous frauds.

And as for reassurances that the regulators have conducted a study, with the details withheld, and have in their considered opinion found nothing amiss, don't make us laugh. After the Madoff Ponzi Scheme, the Enron energy manipulation, and the mortgage CDO scandal, US regulators have amply demonstrated their inability to manage their stewardship honestly and competently. At this stage they should be making amends and regaining confidence, and not dictating terms to a bunch of helpless domestic customers who continue to accept such shoddy and arrogant treatment by self-serving financial institutions, who dare to charge even good customers 26% credit card interest rates and outrageous fees, in the spirit of the Obama financial reform.

If the world were of a mind to it, they could buy those futures contracts, and demand physical delivery, and bring Wall Street to its knees. Except as we know it would not work, because the exchange would dictate terms, a settlement in paper, and Ben would provide it, at the buyer's ultimate expense. This is the degraded nature of the US dollar reserve currency regime as it exists today. It is become, as they say in Chicago, a 'racket.' Time for honesty again. This is the reform for which the American people elected a new government.

But yet even today, there is a lack of self-awareness, a lack of proportion and an ignorance of history, that allows many otherwise educated and responsible people to make statements like this excerpt quoted below, a neo-colonial variation of the white man's burden, and bet their future that this dependency on the Wall Street banking cartel will be sustained in perpetuity, because it is a kind of a natural law. This point of view is not an aberration, and underlies the comments of many Anglo-American financial institutions today.

"The dollar is the backbone of the world central banking system. It is the backbone of the China money system. The white cliffs of Dover are as likely to collapse."

I am not saying that Mr. Butler is right. I am saying that I no longer trust your markets and their integrity, and the honesty and competency of your agencies and regulators. And there is a groundswell of people around the world, and a quiet but growing majority in your own country, who feel the same way.


Extreme Speculation
By Ted Butler

...The main reason for my recurring thoughts that silver trading may be terminated on the COMEX someday is because that exchange is at the heart of the silver manipulation. If we are closer than ever to witnessing the end of the long-term silver manipulation, as I believe, it must mean an end the extreme concentration on the short side of COMEX silver futures. But the concentrated short position in COMEX silver futures is so extreme, that it is hard to imagine how it can be resolved in an orderly manner. The most recent data from the CFTC indicate that one US bank, JPMorgan, now holds 200 million ounces net short in COMEX silver futures, fully 40% of the entire net short position on the COMEX (minus spreads). As I have previously written, JPMorgan accounted for 100% of all new short selling in COMEX silver futures for September and October, some 50 million additional ounces. You have not seen anyone refute those findings, nor is it likely that you will.

So extreme is JPMorgan’s silver short position that it cannot be closed out in an orderly fashion. How could such a large position be closed out quickly, or otherwise, without strongly disturbing the market? If it could be closed out, it is reasonable to assume it would have already been closed out or greatly reduced to avoid the allegations of manipulation it raises. It’s not like the banks are presently universally loved and admired. The intent of anti-concentration guidelines and surveillance is to prevent the precise monopoly that JPMorgan has amassed on the short side of COMEX silver. Having erred egregiously in allowing this concentrated short position to develop, the CFTC is stuck with coming up with a solution to disband it. There is no easy solution.

Further, it is not just JPMorgan’s 200 million ounce COMEX silver short position that threatens the continued orderly functioning of COMEX silver trading. As extreme as JPMorgan’s position is, there is a total true net short position of 500 million ounces (100,000 contracts) in COMEX silver futures. Try to put that 500 million ounce short position in perspective. It equals 75% of world annual mine production, much higher than seen in any other commodity.

This makes claims that the COMEX short position represents a legitimate hedge of mine production a lie. The total short position represents almost 100% of the total visible and recorded silver bullion in the world, and 50% of the total one billion ounces thought to exist. These are truly preposterous amounts. By comparison, the net total short position in COMEX gold futures, admittedly no slouch in the short category, represents a little over 2% of the gold bullion that exists (45 million oz total net COMEX short position versus 2 billion oz). When it comes to the amount of real material, or mine production, in the world backing up the COMEX silver short position, the word “inadequate” takes on new meaning.

Because of the extreme mismatch between what is held short on the COMEX and what exists or could be produced to be potentially delivered against the short position, a very dangerous market situation exists. It is this dangerous situation that haunts me and causes me to contemplate a closing of the COMEX silver market. It has to do with what I see developing in the silver physical market and by putting myself in the other guy’s shoes. The other guy, in this case, is Gary Gensler, chairman of the CFTC.

It seems to me that there may be real stress in the wholesale physical silver market. All the factors I look at, including flows into ETFs, the shorting of SLV, the decline in COMEX silver inventories, the strong retail and institutional investment demand in silver, the now growing world industrial demand, etc., suggest tightness and the potential for a silver shortage like never before. This, in essence, is the real silver story. In spite of a large and growing concentrated short position, the price of silver suggests that it is the manipulation that is under stress. At some point, a physical silver shortage will destroy any amount of paper short selling. We may be very close to that point.

When the silver shortage hits, the price will explode. On this, there is no question. Industrial users, at the very first sign of delay in silver shipments, will immediately buy or try to buy more silver than they normally buy, in order to protect against future operation-interrupting delays. This is just human nature. The world has never experienced a true silver shortage ever, so the price impact is clearly unknown. I’ll try not to overstate how high I think the price will go in a true silver shortage and how quickly it will occur, so that I don’t sound too extreme. But the price move will give new meaning to “high” and “fast.”

Please remember, I am only talking of the price impact of the industrial users scrambling to secure silver supplies for their operations. This has always been my “doomsday machine” future silver price event. I am not speaking of new investment demand or short covering. Users, anxious to keep their assembly lines running and their workers employed will care less about price and more about availability and actual delivery. The users will buy with an urgency and reckless abandon rarely witnessed. That the price explosion caused by user buying will destroy the shorts is beyond doubt. So certain and devastating will be this destruction, that you must start asking questions as to what the regulatory reaction is likely to be. This is where you must try to put yourself in the other guy’s shoes. When the industrial silver shortage hits and prices explode, what would you do if you were Chairman Gensler?...

Read the rest of Mr. Butler's essay here.

Infamia e Disgrazie: Is Sheila Bair an Unsophisticated Hick?

"Flagrant evils cure themselves by being flagrant; and we are sanguine that the time is come when so great an evil...cannot stand its ground against good feeling and common sense..." John Henry Newman

The reporter on Bloomberg television just mentioned as a snide, smirking editorial aside, that Sheila Bair feels that a million dollars is a lot of pay for one year, and that ten million is excessive for a deposit taking institution. He noted that she is obviously a Washingtonian, and not a New Yorker.

That's right. A million dollars annual pay is 'nothing.' Even ten million is not much pay for an average Wall Street banker that is taking billions in public funds and gaming the financial system.

The obvious implication is that Ms. Bair is some hick regulator who is not as sophisticated as, let's say, Larry Summers, Tim Geithner, or Ben Bernanake when it comes to rewarding their Wall Street cronies for allowing the economy to continue unimpaired.

Perhaps he was attempting to sneak a bit of irony into the propaganda that passes for news in the States these days, but it was not obvious.

But he might be right. When the monetary inflation from all this financial corruption hits, a million dollars per year might yet be a 'livable wage.'

And so goes the "downward spiral of dumbness." Keep these metrics in mind when you look at your next credit card bill, mortgage payment, and paycheck, rubes, and send your tribute to Caesar.


Bair Says U.S. Regulators Should Set Pay Standards for Banks
By Alison Vekshin and Erik Schatzker

Aug. 5 (Bloomberg) -- Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. Chairman Sheila Bair said regulators should set pay standards for U.S. banks to ensure incentives encourage long-term performance without setting specific dollar limits.

Banking agencies should “become more active” in using existing authority to set compensation standards that are “principles-based,” Bair said today in an interview with Bloomberg Television in Washington.

“We do need to revamp the system to make sure that the incentives are long-term,” Bair said. “I do wish some of these firms would exercise better restraint and common sense on what they’re paying their folks.”

Bair echoed concerns of House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank and other lawmakers who say government needs to write compensation rules that discourage excessive risk taking. Goldman Sachs Group Inc. set aside a record $11.4 billion for pay and benefits in the first half of 2009, up 33 percent from a year earlier and enough to pay each worker $386,429 for the period, the company reported last month.