Realcent.org

were struck down by a federal judge. at a minimum this will be a huge delay.

I have absolutely *no idea* what this means.

Can I type...sometimes yes... sometimes no

I don't understand either of the first 2 posts.

The ongoing CFTC investigation was supposed to impose position limits (1500 contracts max, I think) on silvers futures trading as "window dressing" that they were doing something to correct the alleged (and substantiated) manipulation. I guess that got over-ruled. Maybe that's why the metals shot up at first and are now pulling back, for the umpteenth time

District Court Overturns CFTC Position Limit Rule (Sept. 28, 2012)
Today the US District Court for the District of Columbia struck down the CFTC's position limit rule, which was scheduled to go into effect on October 12, 2012.

The court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs—the International Swaps and Derivatives Association and the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association. The court found that the CFTC "fundamentally misunderstood" the relevant provisions of Dodd-Frank and rejected the CFTC's interpretation that Dodd-Frank makes the imposition of position limits "mandatory," rather than "as appropriate" to prevent excessive speculation. The court stated that the case revolved around the question of whether a plain reading of section 6a of the Commodity Exchange Act "clearly and unambiguously requires the Commission to make a finding of necessity prior to imposing position limits." Based on its reading of the statute, the court concluded, "The answer is yes."

Although the court vacated the entire rule, the court noted that the Dodd-Frank amendments to Section 6a are ambiguous and lend themselves to more than one plausible interpretation, and added that the CFTC has the authority to "fill in the gaps" left by Congress.

Following the court's ruling, CFTC Chairman Gary Gensler issued a statement saying that he was "disappointed" by the ruling and is "considering ways to proceed."

Gamecock wrote:I don't understand either of the first 2 posts.

^^ I like this

Derivatives!

Way too complicated for the average person to understand in my opinion....

SilverDragon72 wrote:Derivatives!

Way too complicated for the average person to understand in my opinion....

Untrue.

But the "average person", of course, feigns ignorance as a past time. And even attempts to attain ignorance.

Which is why I would recommend NEVER being average. Below average is even better than average, if you don't believe me check out "Forest Gump".

Average is probably the worst thing someone can attain to

Lemon Thrower wrote:were struck down by a federal judge. at a minimum this will be a huge delay.

Well, let me say that no one is going to limit what positions the little island girl and I partake in - although I will sadly admit some are not as easy now as they were in my younger days.

barrytrot wrote:

SilverDragon72 wrote:Derivatives!

Way too complicated for the average person to understand in my opinion....

Untrue.

But the "average person", of course, feigns ignorance as a past time. And even attempts to attain ignorance.

Which is why I would recommend NEVER being average. Below average is even better than average, if you don't believe me check out "Forest Gump".

Average is probably the worst thing someone can attain to

Financial derivatives were one of the main causes of why we had the bank bailouts...just sayin'

You are correct though...a person shouldn't attain to be just average. I like to believe that I try for a bit more than average everyday!

barrytrot wrote:Average is probably the worst thing someone can attain to

Dilbert agrees http://dilbert.com/dyn/str_strip/000000 ... .strip.gif