SP Futures Daily Chart - Nasdaq 100 Futures Daily

Still reaching for that high note. Looks like 1200 may just be out of reach, and a big inhale is coming soon, maybe short of resistance at 1190.

The Fed still seems to be following the policy of blowing an asset bubble, and then using monetary policy to clean up afterwards. I had hoped they would have learned their lesson after the housing bubble, but that is apparently not the case.

The Fed is doing the same thing over and over, and each time they run through a cycle of bubble and collapse, more wealth is transferred from the real economy to a few oligarchs, and the result of the collapse is more debilitating on real production and jobs.

I don't think the Fed can stop, because they are fearful of the results. And their owners like the status quo. Obviously I cannot know how far the bubble can go this time, and it may just be an 'echo bubble' since the real economy seems incapable of responding to it. The next leg down will shake things up.

I am thinking they will do a 'wash and rinse' with short term reversals in stocks and bonds to churn up the specs and generate some fees and some food for the trading desks. But it will probably not break key support unless 'something happens.'

The Wall Street demimonde in the financial media is drooling all over themselves for Dow 11,000 which is an essentially meaningless number, but important as a lure to bring mom and pop back in for another shearing. Wall Street is the very definition of 'useless eaters,' but what they consume is the vitality of the nation.



Addendum at 3 PM EDT

The NDX is failing to surmount resistance.

I just put some shorts back on the US stock indices to balance my metals longs.

Is the Fed Likely to Act If There Is Another Stock Market Bubble?

That title is a bit of a rhetorical question, because I think the stock market bubble has already arrived, and the Fed is pumping the bellows. But let us not allow that detail to impede the progress of our discussion. Let's assume that only the next leg up in this monetary experiment will be breaching the limits of the bubblesphere.

Mark Thoma has 'reblogged' a review of Dean Baker's book False Profits from Brad DeLong Site at his own, The Economist's View.

Brad, the blogging professor from Berkley, takes issue with Dean Baker's book, concluding:

"But let me start by saying how I disagree with the book. I think that its story of the linkages between our current crisis and Federal Reserve policy is significantly overstated. Its argument about how excessively-low interest rates caused the housing bubble is exaggerated. I think that its belief that the Federal Reserve could have taken much more action to curb the housing bubble while is underway is also exaggerated..."

Well, at least he is consistent. In censuring my criticisms of Mr. Greenspan's monetary policy back in 2004 which I made as comments on his blog, Mr. DeLong said that Greenspan "never made a policy decision with which I disagreed." Although I was incredulous, I took him at his word.

Not even Greenspan apparently is willing to say that anymore. Although he is very willing to forget the activist role he took in promoting banking deregulation and the expansion of leverage and derivatives, and the rough treatment measured out to those who dared to disagree with the powerful bureaucrats at the Treasury and the Fed. Reich Levels Broadside at Greenspan, Rubin, Summers and Phony Financial Reform

But the comments to this blog were quite interesting and led me to another review of Dean Baker's book by 'Daniel' over a Crooked Timber.

I found the first comment after Daniel's review to be particularly interesting.

kevincure: 04.03.10 at 6:21 PM

"I was at the Fed in 2006. Everybody at the Fed was aware that there was a housing bubble. The fact that rents and house prices had diverged was known to all of the policymakers I interacted with.

The question was not, is there a bubble, but rather, can monetary policy improve welfare by popping that bubble. The general opinion was no. First, monetary policy is an economy-wide hammer, and housing in only one sector. Second, housing bubbles were prevalent worldwide, and in fact were stronger in many other countries than the US, so it was difficult to imagine that non-extreme changes in policy would affect the bubble. Third, “use policy to clean up the mess after the bubble pops” was, I think, absolutely the right policy in 1987 and 2000, so a model of housing bubbles would have needed to explain what was different this time – even now, lost wealth from housing price declines are not, as far as I know, greater than the wealth decline of the dot-com bubble. That is, the housing bubble in and of itself required no different monetary policy, even with perfect hindsight.

The difference was in the financial markets, where for a variety of reasons (high leverage ratios, principal-agent problems, etc.), the decline in house prices led to what was functionally a bank run. The Fed was not the primary regulator of investment banks in the US, and is one of at least five regulators of local banks (OCC, FDIC, OTS, and state regulators among the others). This isn’t to excuse the Fed – they should have had an office looking at systemic risk! – but merely to point out that very few people saw systemic risk as a major problem in 2006, primarily because of a belief that shareholders and managers were capable of taking better care of their own firms and jobs. This was wrong, but the common criticisms of Baker and Shiller and others about Fed policy and housing bubbles completely abstract away from the real cause of the crisis, which was financial.

In any case, a housing bubble – by itself – would have been straightforward to deal with ex post with policy. That was not the problem."

This is not some outlier comment, but an expression of what is a very mainstream thought among a certain class of American economists, especially those who covet positions of power with the US government.

The 'collateral damage' caused by the dot.com and housing bubbles, all those ruined lives and families, is really not a problem and can be addressed by monetary policy (inflation) after the bubble runs its course. The problem in this last financial crisis is that the housing collapse caused a bank run, and the banks themselves were injured, instead of profiting, in the bubble collapse. Talk about an unintended consequence. Good God, not the Banks! This is a fast being remedied by the enormous subsidies granted by the Fed, and their man Timmy at the Treasury, to set the Banks back up again at the roulette tables, bringing home those eight figure paydays.

If you think the Fed has learned anything, that they are somehow more prudent, more aware of the greater economy and the impact of their behaviour on the American people after this latest financial crisis, you are sadly mistaken. Their hubris is boundless, and they are able to rationalize almost any damage to the republic as a minor glitch in their experiments.

The answer to our initial question about a new stock market bubble is of course is "no." The Fed will allow a stock market bubble to develop, run its course, collapse, empty even more of the savings and retirement funds of mom and pop, and go happily along on its way as long as the banking sector is maintained in the manner to which it has become accustomed.

And if you think this latest financial crisis has stilled the animal spirits of the merry pranksters on Wall Street you are sadly mistaken. The sociopaths will continue to gamble the nation's future, and the propeller heads at the Fed will stand idly by waiting to clean up the mess, only afterwards. But the clean up will be carefully targeted to the FIRE sector, and the public will likely have to fend for itself.

And the Congress would like to make the Fed the overarching regulator and the primary owner of an expanded Consumer Protection Agency? Only afer huge amounts of lobbying contributions to assuage their consciences it must be said. To the Fed, the consumer is only grist for the mill from which the bankers obtain their bones to bake their bread.

Asset bubbles are a form of fraud, in that and mispresentation and deception are employed to circumvent genuine price discovery. And like most Ponzi schemes and financial frauds, they are an effective wealth transfer mechanism from the many to the few. And the few will do quite a bit to create them, and then keep them in place.

Some are critical of people like Robert Reich who 'tell it like it is' although in softer terms than they might desire to have them speak. Let me tell you, the establishment in the US is closing ranks, and is going to try to ostracize and silence anyone who speaks out against the status quo. And the intimidation of critics and witnesses continues.

Here is some knowledge, tempered by actual experience, from William K. Black, an economist and regulator involved in the Savings and Loan Scandal.







The banks must be restrained, and the financial system reformed, and the economy brought back into balance before there can be any sustained recovery.

Reich Levels Broadside at Greenspan, Rubin, and Summers, and Phony Financial Reform

"It is impossible to calculate the moral mischief, if I may so express it, that mental lying has produced in society. When a man has so far corrupted and prostituted the chastity of his mind as to subscribe his professional belief to things he does not believe, he has prepared himself for the commission of every other crime." … Thomas Paine

In 1999 I started wondering what Robert Rubin might have said to Alan Greenspan in a private meeting in 1997 to cause him to reverse his policy bias shortly after his famous "irrational exuberance" speech. Greenspan embraced the monetary easing that led to the tech bubble, and joined the fight against regulation of derivatives, and the repeal of Glass-Steagall, in which the Fed was absolutely instrumental.

PBS Frontline - The Warning: The Roots of the Financial Crisis

This was no accident, in my opinion. This was no misplaced belief in 'the efficient market hypothesis.' This was not the culmination of the neo-liberal fascination with a mythology of human nature that would make Rousseau blush in its unthinking naiveté. And for Greenspan to say now, I am sorry, I guess I was mistaken, is more prevarication from the master dissembler.

There were plenty of enablers to this financial fraud. There always are many more people who do not act out of principle, or inside involvement and knowledge, but out of their own selfish bias and greed or craven fear that compels them to 'go with the flow.'

And there is little better example of this than the many people who are even now turning a willful eye away from the blatant government manipulation of the stock and commodity markets, in particular the silver market. They do not wish to believe it, so they ignore it, and even ridicule it depending on how deeply it affects their personal interests. But the overall body of evidence is compelling enough to provoke further investigation, and the refusal to allow audits and independent investigation starts to become an overwhelming sign of a coverup. I am not saying that it is correct, or that I know something, but I am saying to not investigate it thoroughly and to air all the details, is highly suspicious and not in the interests of the truth. I did not know, for example, that Madoff was conducting a Ponzi scheme, but the indications were all there and a simple investigation and disclosure would have revealed the truth, one way or the other.

"Fiat justitia ruat caelum." Let justice be done though the heaven's fall. This is the principle of English law that says that expediency, that appeals to a false 'national security,' that executive privilege and the secrecy of the powerful interests, are not to deter the light of exposure and the consequences of justice for all. This is the difference between a republic and a dictatorship of the oligarchy.

The military industrial complex came to power in the US on the back of the Red Scare and the smears and fear-mongering perpetrated by the Senator from Wisconsin who 'loved to hear the sound of his own voice, more than the truth,' and his minions in Roy Cohn, and the enablers in the press who were cowed into silence.

There will be smears and distractions, ridicule and old prejudices dug deep will be brought newly forward. False flags and scapegoats. Threats and warnings of collapse will be like bluffs run to encourage the people to hand over their liberty for safety. If you do not think this can happen you have not been paying attention.

The perpetrators of this latest fraud, this unleashing of darkness upon the world, will count on the fear and apathy of the many, and the cynical contempt of the fortunate for the disadvantaged, to make them all the unwitting accomplices in their own inevitable destruction. It has worked for them in the past.

One cannot fight this sort of evil with hatred and violence, or hysteria and intemperate accusations, for these are its creatures and it uses them always to further its ends. The only worthy adversary of the darkness is transparency, openness, justice, and truth based on facts, in the light of reason, with the guidance of the light of the world. We are not sufficient of ourselves to stand against it, and if we knock down the law, the Constitution, to chase it with expediency and private justice, what will protect us when it turns around to devour us?

But we should never be a willing victim, and even worse, a silent bystander or mocking accomplice. This is why were you born here and now, to stand witness to the truth, as you can find it and value it above all else.

It is not easy to find the truth, as it is a journey, a way that never ends. And without a proper guide and companionship, it may be all too easy to grow weary or panic, and lose one's bearings and one's heart. But sometimes it is easier to discover what is not the truth by its acts, its results, the fruit that it produces, and the darkness and secrecy in which it dwells.

And the truth is not with the financial system, and the web of deception and fraud, that has served it. "What is Truth?" he asked. And Pilate turned and washed his hands of it, and condemned himself, forever.

Robert Reich
Greenspan, Summers, and Why the Economy Is So Out of Whack
Sunday, April 4, 2010

"I’m in the “green room” at ABC News, waiting to join a roundtable panel discussion on ABC’s weekly Sunday news program, This Week.

Alan Greenspan is now being interviewed. He says he bore no responsibility for the housing bubble that catapulted the nation into a financial crisis in 2008 because no one could have known about the bubble when he chaired the Fed in the years before it burst. Larry Summers was interviewed just before Greenspan. He said the economy is expanding, that the Administration is doing everything it can to bring jobs back, and that the regulatory reform bills moving on the Hill will prevent another financial crisis.

What?

If any single person is most responsible for the financial crisis, it’s Alan Greenspan. He presided over a Fed that lowered interest rates to zero (adjusted for inflation) but failed to prevent banks from using essentially free money to speculate wildly. You do not have to be a brain surgeon to understand that if money is free, banks will take it and lend it out. And if oversight is inadequate, the banks will lend the money to anyone who can stand up straight and to many who cannot. The result will be a giant subprime lending bubble that will burst.

If any three people are most responsible for the failure of financial regulation, they are Greenspan, Larry Summers, and my former colleague, Bob Rubin. In 1999 they advised Congress to repeal the Glass-Steagall Act, which since 1933 had separated commercial from investment banking. By 1999, Wall Street was salivating over such a repeal because it wanted to create financial supermarkets that could use commercial deposits to place bets in the financial casino. That would yield the Street trillions.

At the same time, Greenspan, Summers, and Rubin also quashed the efforts of the Commodity Futures Trading Corporation to regulate derivatives, when its director began to worry that derivative trading already was getting out of control.

Yet Greenspan continues to take no responsibility for what occurred. In the interview he just completed he avoiding saying anything about the failure of the Fed under his watch to adequately oversee the banks, and the absence of sufficient financial regulation to begin with.

I dislike singling out individuals for blame or praise in a political system as complex as that of the United States but I worry the nation is not on the right economic road, and that these individuals — one of whom advises the President directly and the others who continue to exert substantial influence among policy makers — still don’t get it.

The direction financial reform is taking is not encouraging. Both the bill that emerged from the House and the one emerging from the Senate are filled with loopholes that continue to allow reckless trading of derivatives. Neither bill adequately prevents banks from becoming insolvent because of their reckless trades. Neither limits the size of banks or busts up the big ones. Neither resurrects the Glass-Steagall Act. Neither adequately regulates hedge funds.

More fundamentally, neither bill begins to rectify the basic distortion in the national economy whose rewards and incentives are grotesquely tipped toward Wall Street and financial entrepreneurialism, and away from Main Street and real entrepreneurialism. It was just reported, for example, that America’s top 25 hedge fund managers last year earned an average of $3 billion each. They continue to pay a federal income tax of 15 percent on most of that, by the way, because their lobbying efforts have been so successful.

Meanwhile, the so-called jobs bills emerging from Congress and the White House are puny relative to the challenge of restoring jobs in America. Last Friday’s jobs report, read most positively, showed 112,000 jobs added to the economy in March. But that’s below the number needed simply to keep up with an expanding population. In other words, we’re actually worse off now than we were a month ago. At the same time, the median wage of Americans with jobs keep dropping.

The American economy is seriously out of whack. The two people interviewed this morning don’t seem to understand how far."

Five Weekly Charts: Gold, Silver, US Dollar, US Long Bond, and SP 500

Gold's bull trend is intact, but it is facing formidable resistance at $1150.



Silver is in a bull trend, but the $19 level could be difficult to surmount.



The US dollar index is still in rally mode, but has backed off the key 82 resistance level. The Dollar index is a composite of other currency crosses and the recent strength has been largely due to euro weakness. If stocks retreat the dollar rally will likely continue.



The Long Bond looks range bound, and is hanging on to support.



The SP 500 is a good representation of the US equity markets. It has reached the logical conclusion of what might be termed a bear market bounce based on monetary expansion, similar to other recoveries after significant declines. If the SP 500 breaks down from here, the risk is that it might fall to retest the lows. The market rally is thin and not backed by widespread buying, and certainly not the traditional buy-and-hold investor.

To put it simply, the SP 500 and US equities in general are now 'hitting a high note' and it is a good question to wonder how long they can hold it without some backup from the chorus. The 'chorus' of course is evidence of a structural recovery that is not depending on Fed monetization, official sleight of hand, and accounting gimmickry.



Even with the 'good' employment number, the stark contrast is that the median hourly wage continued to decline. This is not deflation, as the CPI and PPI continue to advance, so much as a reflection that the jobs available are largely temporary and of an inferior quality from which to build a sustainable recovery.



As alway, keep an eye on the VIX which is one of the fear indexes along with some of the key spreads.

The Federal Reserve's Veil of Secrecy And Authority Is Being Taken Down, But Slowly

One of the first things that 'put me off' of Obama was the choice he made of key appointments to his Administration, selecting the two Robert Rubin acolytes Tim Geithner and Larry Summers to his team, marginalizing Paul Volcker, and then making no place for Robert Reich. Although I am sure that, like the rest of us, he puts his pants on one leg at a time, he has shown himself to be a remarkably intelligent and competent member of the Washington political world. I admire him.

Make no mistake, the Fed looks to have been abusing its secrecy and its position, and Bernanke and Geithner are culpable. Reich makes the points as well or better than I could so here is his recent piece on the subject. All the blog's are picking it up.

As I recall, the Fed said they were only acquiring 'investment grade' instruments, which would be taken on its balance sheet in support of the US Dollar, in addition to the usual Treasury Debt. The recent exposures of the holdings of Maiden Lane show these to be more like junk bonds, and certainly not as represented.

The Fed must be audited, and it role as the 'master regulator' and as the place where the Office of Consumer Financial Protection would be located is a farce, a cruel joke. Chris Dodd must either be senile, entirely cynical, or believe the American people to be complete idiots. The only reason I could even imagine for considering it is that the Fed is a 'cost plus' agency, meaning that they are self funding out of the mechanism of creating money, taking all their costs out before they turn over the interest income from the public debt back to Treasury.  This is also a source of their growth and power. The problem that public agencies often have is that the industries that are regulated by them use their donations and lobbyists to curb appropriations for the agencies that regulate them in order to hamper and stifle them.

How can you even think of putting an office of reform and consumer protection in the very institution that was at the epicenter of a historic fraud? And shows itself completely willing to mislead the public, and some even believe perjure itself to the Congress to protect its true owners, the big Banks?

There are more things to come. But the frauds yet to be revealed may very well shake this government to its foundations, and very few blogs and almost none of the mainstream media are yet pursuing those stories of market manipulation, secret dealings, insider trading and official protection of corruption.

From The Fed Is In Hot Water by Robert Reich

"First, only Congress is supposed to risk taxpayer dollars. The Fed is not part of the legislative branch. Its secret deals, announced almost two years after they were done, violate the democratic process, if not the Constitution itself. Thomas Jefferson put a stop to Alexander Hamilton’s idea of a powerful central bank out of fear it would be unaccountable to the public. The Fed has just proven Jefferson’s point.

Second, if the Fed can secretly bail out big banks, the problem of “moral hazard” – bankers taking irresponsible risks because they know they’ll be rescued – is far greater than anyone assumed after Congress and the Bush and Obama administrations bailed out the banks. Big banks will always be too big to fail because they know the Fed will secretly back them up if they get into trouble, even if Congress won’t do it openly.

Third, the announcement throws a monkey wrench into the financial reform bill now on Capitol Hill, which gives the Fed additional authority by, for example, creating a consumer protection bureau inside it. Only yesterday, Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) blasted the Dodd bill for expanding the Fed’s authority “even as it remains shrouded in secrecy.” (When Jim DeMint and I agree on something you know it has to be close to a universal truth. - Jesse lol)

The Fed has a big problem. It acts in secret. That makes it an odd duck in a democracy. As long as it’s merely setting interest rates, its secrecy and political independence can be justified. But once it departs from that role and begins putting billions of dollars of taxpayer money at risk — choosing winners and losers in the capitalist system — its legitimacy is questionable.

That it chose to reveal the truth about its activities during a week when Congress is out of town, when much of official Washington and the Washington media have gone on vacation, and only after several federal courts have held that the Fed must release documents related to its bailout of Bear Stearns, suggests it would rather remain secret than become transparent.

Much of what Ben Bernanke and Tim Geithner did (when Geithner was at the New York Fed) in 2008 was presumably necessary. But the public has no way of knowing. The public doesn’t even know who else the Fed has bailed out, or what entities it will bail out in the future. All we know is the Fed secretly bailed out Bear Stearns and AIG and thereby subjected taxpayers to risks that remain even today, without informing the public. That’s not a record on which to build public trust."

SP Futures Daily Chart

Different Day, Same Drill.

Neither snow, nor rain, nor weaker than expected ADP reports shall keep these bubbles from their appointed highs and the end of month paint job.

It will be interesting to see how the trade goes tomorrow with traders squaring up for a three day weekend, especially with the Non-Farm Payrolls data coming out on Friday while the markets are closed in the US.

I suspect that number will come in rather close to my projection of +75,000 despite the weak ADP jobs number. This is a little light of the consensus view which is +190,000. So a number a little north of 100,000 would be a nice compromise for the propeller heads at the BLS to achieve, by revising some prior months. These are miniscule percentage changes in the bigger picture, but this is how irrational the US markets have become.

ADP only tracks real private payroll data, and does not include government employment and imaginary jobs. The Federal government has a large number of workers that have been hired to concduct the Census which is done every ten years. I would think the number will include them with some other government employment. And this month is a little more favorable in its seasonal adjustment, with the next month even moreso.

The market is also edgy because today is the last day of the Fed monetization of mortgage debt. I do not think this is a practical matter so much as psychological in the short term. The Fed will most likely shift its monetization to another area and allow proxies to continue its work.

King World Interview with Andrew Maguire 'the Silver Market Whistleblower'

"The Biggest Fraud in the World"

I do not know what to think about this, except to just offer it up to you for your own information.

I am disappointed, however, that only the blogs, and almost no one in the mainstream media, have bothered to cover this story and to speak to the principals, and to either debunk them, support them, or even consider what they have to say.

This really is like the Harry Markopolos story, trying to get a hearing on the Madoff ponzi scheme, and being repeatedly ignored, intimidated, and discouraged in every way possible by the establishment, and even fearing for his life.

Even if this is a mistake, a hoax, some conspiracy, it deserves a proper hearing and an airing in the public. Ignoring it raises even more questions, and serious concerns about the integrity of the US markets. If instead of a proper airing there are only the smears, and disinformation, and the usual sly ad hominem attacks, or even worse, I will begin to believe that it is true.

King World News Interview with Andrew Maguire and Adrian Douglas

I cannot believe that testimony is being completely ignored. I do not understand why this is a 'national security' issue. It seems just too bizarre to me.

Do people inside the trade know something that we don't know? Are these fellows frauds or just mistaken? Is this a hoax? Part of some conspiracy?

Or is this something coming right at us, that will end up hurting the public once again, as the rampant fraud in the financial markets has done so thoroughly.

Is there is something going on then it is time to bring it out into the open. If it is national security concern, or more properly the national interest, because it involves the US banking industry, how long do they think they can keep this sort of thing quiet?

If this is something else, why is it not aired, investigated, and nipped in the bud?

I am trying to keep an open mind on this, but it is not being made any easier by what looks like a curtain of silence while the stories and counter-moves are prepared.

I was disappointed that in the interview they never seemed to discuss the hit and run car incident.

I don't want to speculate or get paranoid on this but its not easy. We deserve to know the truth.

Note at night: I have now listened to this tape five times, carefully. It is a bombshell. This has to be dealt with, one way or the other. Bring it out into the light of day, and let the facts be known. This is either the equivalent of the fictionalized testimony on the order of the Salem Witch trials, or one of the most damning accusations of malfeasance in office against quasi-governmental agencies, and probably US officials, since Teapot Dome.

Giving the mainstream media the benefit of the doubt, they are afraid to touch it because it is radioactive. They will wait on the sidelines until something happens. And the strategy seems to be to stonewall, and hope it goes away. The American public is nortoriously fickle and if not reminded of it will move on to the next shiny thing, the next controversy of any type.

But the coverup is always the first mistake of a government in approaching a breaking scandal. But they never seem to learn. You deal with it up front and early. It was not the actual burglary at the Watergate that brought down the government, and took American into its 'long national agony.' It was, and always is, the coverup.

"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

What is the 'Spot Price' of Gold and Silver And How Is It Set?

When you ask even a relatively experienced and sophisticated precious metals trader "what is the spot price of gold or silver?' you will generally hear a pause, and then they will come back with a price after checking their computer screen for the latest spot price from some ubiquitous and reliable provider of such quotes, or one of the lesser known, diverse providers of this information.

But when you say, "No what I was asking is 'what is the spot price, where does it come from, who sets it?'" you will most often hear that this is the last physical trade, or the current market price of physical bullion.

Well, is it?

Actually despite what you might think or what you might have heard, it is not.

The reason for this is that there is no centralized and efficient market for the sale of physical bullion in the US at anything resembling a 'spot price.' What is their number, where are their prices and trades posted? Who is buying and selling what, TODAY, with the real delivery of bullion as the primary objective?

There are several large markets for physical bullion in the world, where real buying and selling occurs, with delivery given and taken. The most famous is the London Bullion Market Association, which is an dealer association, over the counter market where the price is set twice a day as the 'London fix' but each counterparty stands on their own with no central clearing authority. From the perspective of bullion the LBMA is 'where the action is' and the Comex is a sideshow. Although there are recent revelations and suggestions that the LBMA is also slipping into a paper market with multiple claims on the same unallocated bullion, fractional reserve bullion banking as it were. Nothing new. It just gets more out of hand at certain times in history.

The reason that physical trading in bullion became so highly concentrated in London was best explained to me by one large bullion dealer. "This situation exists because of the gold confiscation in the US in 1933. When that happened, physical metal trading in the US came to a complete stop. When gold ownership was again made legal on December 31, 1974, the physical metal trading had become so developed outside of the US that it stayed there and never really returned."

But once the London Fix is over, and the day moves around the world, the New York markets open and become more dominant. Where and how is that price obtained? Where is the price discovery.

The fact of the matter is that the bullion market in the US is highly fragmented among many, many dealers in bullion. Yes they have their 'wholesale' sources, but even those sources are more fragmented than I would have imagined.

There seems to be no central market for physical gold and silver in the US, except for the largely paper futures markets. Because the fact of the matter is that the spot price of gold and silver are a type of Net Present Value (NPV) calculation based on the futures price in the nearest month, or the front month.

I had not been able to obtain the actual calculation used by any of the principle quote providers. And I am not saying that they are doing anything wrong at all. Or right for that matter, since I do not audit them or look over their shoulder. I do not know how accurate anyone's reportage might be, or how to explain the discrepancies between the futures prices and the spot prices that occur all too frequently these days. How can one without more transparent knowledge?

For those of you that are familiar with it, the spot price would be calculated from the futures in much the same way that the 'Fair Value' price is obtained for a stock index like the SP from the futures trade, essentially an NPV calculation.

FORMULA FOR DETERMINING FAIR VALUE

F = S [1+(i-d)t/360]

Where F = Fair Value futures price

S = spot index price

i = interest rate (expressed as a money market yield)

d = dividend rate (expressed as a money market yield)

t = number of days from the current spot value date to the value date of the futures contract.

So like most net present value calculations we would have some 'cost of money' figure used to discount the time decay from the strike time of the contract to the present. There is no dividend with gold for example, but there is a lease rate, and a proper calculation should include some allowance for this.

The details are not so important, again as I say, unless you wish to start up your own quotations service, or do your own pricing as a large dealer to make sure you know what a fair price might be.

What is important is that almost all retail transactions for physical bullion in the US key off a 'spot price' that is derived from a paper market which is not based in the reality of physical supply, since the futures exchanges explicitly allow for the settlement in cash if physical bullion is not available. In fact, the vast majority of transactions are settled in cash, and are little more than derivatives bets it seems, and often hedges related to other things like another commodity or interest rates.

So that is the truth of the spot price of gold and silver in the US as best as I can determine it. I am not saying that anyone is doing anything wrong or illegal. I am saying the system is inefficient in that it suffers from the lack of a robust physical market to 'keep it honest.'

Also, almost every trader I speak with does not really understand what the spot price really is, or the implications of what price discovery looks like in a fragmented market where the pricing is set by a group of speculators that rarely deal in the actual commodity itself.

I am surprised that indeed some smart entrepreneur has not consolidated the buying and selling of physical bullion on demand into a highly transparent and efficient market which is the real price setter, rather than the commodities exchanges in which arbitrage can be easily crushed by the very rules of the exchange that allow for unlimited position size, extreme leverage, cash settlement as an easy alternative to shortage, unaudited and unallocated stores of supply, and secrecy. We even recently saw the scandal where a large Wall Street broker was selling bullion and even charging the customer annual storage fees without ever having purchased the bullion for them in the first place!

The actual prices for stocks are published on a price by transaction basis on public exchanges whereas gold and silver have no such facility. That is a key difference, and why the futures market has a significant need for tighter reins on speculation including position limits, accountability for deliverables, and limits on leverage and speculation, more so than any other market. The metals markets are thin and small compared to the forex and financial asset markets, and therefore the most vulnerable when they intermix.

The futures market will be efficient and honest the more it takes on itself the rigors of a physical market. Even Alan Greenspan alluded to this, that the dollar reserve currency standard 'would work' as long as the Fed had the discipline to manage it as if it had the rigor of an external standard like gold. Well, you can toss that vain assumption about the self restraints of human nature out the window. Do you really think that bonus hungry traders are more virtuous and selflessly devoted to the public good than the economists at the Fed? Please.

And I have not spent any time discussing it, but when one has a price that is derived from even a publicly available albeit flawed price like the front month futures, without transparency in the derivation and updating the opportunity to skin pennies all day long is there as a temptation, since there is no official or easily calculable method to check its accuracy.

I contacted a few big dealers hoping to get intimations that there was some sort of a private wholesaler network, in which two or three regional distributors set prices based on available supply. There is a 'dealer market' in which prices in lots of twenty five bars of London ready gold is quoted, but that seems to be part of the parallel market in physical bullion centered around the LBMA that is divergent from the continuous paper price and the 'spot price.'

There is always a wholesale cost and a retail price with a markup. That is not an issue. What seems to be the problem is that when a few players can crush price with paper positions, this tends to remove the discpline of arbitrage of market mispricing from the picture. This is the only part of the efficient markets hypothesis that ever made any sense. If there is a price discrepancy, market players will move in to fill it. This is the case against manipulation.

Except they cannot really address any serious market mispricing because the price is set in the paper markets which are not amenable to efficient arbitrage. Unlimited leverage through derivatives, and the willingness of central banks to sell into the gold market to manage price spikes, again as Chairman Greenspan admitted, takes care of that. Not even a motivated buyer with deep enough pockets like China would take on this market openly because all they would do is buy against themselves, and drive a default which would be cash settled by force.

You might ask at this point, why would anyone ever wish to engage themselves in this market, besides those who must obtain supply for industrial or cosmetic uses? Few do actually, except to buy physical bullion at the retail level, and hold it as protection against the devaluation of currency and the monetization of the debt.

There are always professional speculators, but they tend to go with the momentum for the reasons outlined above. Its an easy trade. I sometimes play the arb myself, or at least maintain an awareness of it. You can't fight the Fed in the short term, and the financial engineers and statists hate anything that threatens to rival or even limit their power. But that does not mean that one might not insure themselves against the eventual failure of the new masters of the universe to control the large forces and unintended consequences of world markets. What I find so disappointing is that Greenspan knew all this. and wrote eloquently about it, before he sold himself to those who he had spent the bloom of his intellect opposing. I was never interested in this subject until I started reading his various biographies to understand his thinking better in the late 1990's, and then went on to read his early works on the state and freedom. If he had been a more noble figure his fall might have been a tragedy. As it is, it just seems to be another dishonorable failure of stewardship and conscience.

This is what you have. Whether it works well or not is another matter and it seems a personal opinion heavily biased on where you sit at the playing table. But from a purely economic perspective if I were going to set up a mechanism to allow price fixing and fraud to occur, I could do little better, except perhaps to set up something more like an opaque monopoly such as the Federal Reserve with the ability to create supply out of nothing. The investors and producers are largely at the mercy of those who control the paper markets And this says nothing about the involvement of the central banks in influencing the price, which they admit that they do, if only obliquely.

Sure one can say. If you don't like the price you can keep taking delivery, except that you can't. The price is set on the Comex, which delivers paper dollars at will, and has a history of changing its rules at the drop of a hat to rescue trapped suppliers and speculative shorts. This is the sort of odd market that resolves itself in executive actions precipitated by breakdowns and default.

There is nothing here that could not be greatly improved by position limits and much greater transparency and accountability for counterparty risk. CFTC Commissioner Bart Chilton has shown himself to be remarkably insightful and courageous in promoted these changes to the US futures markets in the metals. Far from an efficient and vigorous market, as Adrian Douglas said at the CFTC hearing the US is merely a "sidehow" to the London market when it is open for trading at least with respect to actual product. But as amenable as this paper based market is to the 'easy skim' one might imagine there is a status quo that would fight any reform vociferously.

To use a poker analogy, I don't mind a 'no limits' game as long as it is table stakes where you put your 'stash' on the table for all to see, which again this is not, and the pot is split if you are raised beyond your bankroll, which this is also not. I would not imagine that a no limits game in which the big players are also often the dealers, and can see the cards that other cannot because of their seating, is the best sort of a mechanism with which to conduct price discovery for the average person in the market, who only wishes to play a few hands on a limited budget, or a small producer who wishes to bring their product to market.

As someone who approaches it as an amateur economist, and has been looking at its dynamics for the past few years, I may be missing something, but this seems less like an efficient market mechanism for price discovery and capital allocation, and more like a carney game.