No Silver Manipulation

[Jonflyfish]

Reuters-

U.S. regulators on Wednesday closed a five-year investigation into alleged manipulation of the silver market, saying 7,000 staff hours of investigation produced no evidence of wrongdoing.
The decision by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission was a defeat for silver commentators and investors who urged the probe, saying big banks were selling the metal short using futures and options to hold prices down. Big traders had dismissed the investigation as a waste of time and the charges as a conspiracy theory.

The CFTC formally closed the probe six months after a U.S. District Court dismissed a class action lawsuit making similar claims against JPMorgan Chase & Co..

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/09/ ... SR20130925


Don't shoot the messenger. I know most will choose to discount or ignore the findings because they want to believe something else. It is what it is.

Cheers!

[natsb88]

Did anybody really expect a CFTC investigation to "find" anything wrong with the silver market? To openly acknowledge a vulnerability in the "too big to fail" commodity financials that would have suggested sustained price manipulation over the last however-many years? Even if the investigation was something more than cosmetic, I would not expect any substantive evidence of manipulation to see the light of day. The matter, if there was one, would have been settled behind closed doors. (JPM did liquidate the bulk of its silver position during the investigation...)

Avoid market panic, save face. That's the MO of most Wall Street and banking investigations these days. (Corzine walked away from MFG a free man because there was "no evidence of criminal wrongdoing?" ) A "nothing to see here, move along" conclusion was expected from Day 1. It could be completely true, it could be a complete crock. I don't know which it is, but the official findings are surely canned and politically correct. Like assurances that voter fraud doesn't exist despite people voting as Eric Holder last November and the PA Game Comission pointing to a mountain lion and calling it a "long-tailed bobcat" because officially mountain lions don't live here. Public statements are scripted for "the greater good." I know some will choose to discount or ignore this because they want to believe something else. It is what it is.

[Jonflyfish]

Corzine and MFG have nothing to do with this. To conveniently associate them with this story is a far reach, even farther is to casually associate this with voter fraud?!
Would be much less relevant than someone who walked away a free (richer) man for producing gold plated tungsten bars and/or selling counterfeit coins.
Also, TBTF or TBTB etc is also a weak defense. Fines into the $billions are being assessed regulary for various violations.

What I take from this story is that nobody can prove that there was manipulation just like nobody can prove that there wasn't.
So, to make investments based on rumors or hopes of stories being true/untrue is simply foolhardy. I wonder how many here thought silver would be trading at prices less than half of where it was when people were so sure that the mother of all short squeezes was about to make them rich and teach those “banksters” once and for all. And how the endless buy-silver-now-now-now sites kept pumping the farce as price slid, and then faded into a new reason to prime the pump and tell people what they want to hear.
And there is no doubt what the slant on this forum is. However, it doesn't change anything one way or the other. It is what it is.
Truth in price.

Cheers!

[Engineer]

It is what it is.
Truth in price.

...and every man has his price. This is especially true of politicians and aspiring bureaucrats, but also applies to judges.

We now return to your regularly scheduled trolling.

[Jonflyfish]

It is what it is.
Truth in price.

...and every man has his price. This is especially true of politicians and aspiring bureaucrats, but also applies to judges.

We now return to your regularly scheduled trolling.

If you keep the subject relevant it won't be "regularly scheduled trolling." You can contribute civilly and constructively as well. It's just a choice.

It should go without saying that the "price" I'm referring to is the market price.


Cheers!

[natsb88]

What I take from this story is that nobody can prove that there was manipulation just like nobody can prove that there wasn't.

Which is exactly what I said. "It could be completely true, it could be a complete crock."

Corzine and MFG have nothing to do with this. To conveniently associate them with this story is a far reach, even farther is to casually associate this with voter fraud?!

My point wasn't to associate a CFTC report with voter fraud, not sure what you even mean by that . My point was simply that the "official story" is almost always biased to not make the officials giving it look bad. Strategic inclusions/omissions and intentional vagueness more so than outright coverup, but definitely biased. In any agency the "investigators" that write the final reports are also acting as public relations, and PR folks don't want to spark panic or make themselves, the regulatory agency that may have allowed something nefarious to occur right under their noses, look bad. This is all done by humans, and humans are never truly neutral.

Officially there was no housing bubble, until it popped. Officially the banks were too big to fail, until they did. IF there is something going on in the commodities markets, specifically silver, why would it be any different?

It should go without saying that the "price" I'm referring to is the market price.

...and by "market" you mean financials, which is problematic for reasons already discussed in your other thread. And to that point, was there "truth in price" when the Hunt brothers cornered the market? And is it not at least conceivable that the same could be done in reverse?

[Jonflyfish]

Which is exactly what I said. "It could be completely true, it could be a complete crock."

Right. But then you tossed in various unrelated stories to slant your perspective. I remain neutral. I really could care less. If the findings were punitive and against Blythe et al I'm sure many here would then give credit and cite the story as credible. It's all withing the paradigm. My views are pragmatic and neutral. Just sharing a news article that has been a hot topic in this forum. I didn't make it up, nor did I write it. Just a friendly messenger.

Officially there was no housing bubble, until it popped. Officially the banks were too big to fail, until they did. IF there is something going on in the commodities markets, specifically silver, why would it be any different?

Specifically, all examples have been determined and investigated etc in hindsight, including silver, which also bubbled up and popped. So, no different.

...and by "market" you mean financials, which is problematic for reasons already discussed in your other thread.

No. I mean the market. When someone calls retail dealers like Tulving or Apmex they have a market price. They are in the physical business, just as you are. Being a business they will find the best market pricing facility. Any idea how they determine the "market price" to quote customers for bids and offers? If it were "problematic" I'm sure they wouldn't choose to use it and would choose to utilize something else instead.

Cheers!

[slickeast]

Just remember people ( especially the government or anyone of authority) tell you what THEY WANT you to hear.

Could there be manipulation? Of course

Could the investigation be a lie? Of course

Can we do anything about it? Nope

There is nothing stopping silver from going to $10/oz or $45/ oz. We saw both in the last 5 years.

Its a rollercoaster. You just in need to decide how long you are willing to ride and when you want to get off.

[Engineer]

My views are pragmatic and neutral.

...if you say so.

What I've been and will continue to be a critic of, are the small bucket shop dealers

You've made it abundantly clear that you're a fan of the paper market, and made MANY disparaging remarks about the retail physical market being corrupt. IMHO, you're anything but neutral and just here to continue your diatribe on why paper promises are better than wealth in your pocket.

[DirtyFingers]

C.an't F.ind T.he C.rooks

Some things never change and nothing surprises me anymore.

[natsb88]

Just sharing a news article that has been a hot topic in this forum. I didn't make it up, nor did I write it. Just a friendly messenger.

Which is fine. But if you are simply a messenger of a story you have no vested interest in, there should be no need for you to berate those who express an opinion on the subject.

My views are pragmatic and neutral

Pragmatic, sure. You make a living analyzing this stuff and the way the "market" reacts to it. (And by "market," I mean the large-scale futures players who dwarf the actual physical supply and demand characteristics that comprise a natural and free commodity market). You are good at what you do and profit from it, I can respect that part of it. Neutral? It is very, very difficult to take somebody seriously when they try so hard to convince people they are neutral. I think there is at least one proclamation in every one of your threads about how incredibly neutral you are. I would be much more inclined to believe your neutrality if you weren't constantly bringing it up.

[Jonflyfish]

My views are pragmatic and neutral.

...if you say so.

What I've been and will continue to be a critic of, are the small bucket shop dealers

You've made it abundantly clear that you're a fan of the paper market, and made MANY disparaging remarks about the retail physical market being corrupt. IMHO, you're anything but neutral and just here to continue your diatribe on why paper promises are better than wealth in your pocket.

Sadly you called it with your trolling. You and I both know that you have misrepresented and misquoted what I said about the bucket shop dealers. To be fair, that was in reference to a market condition that saw a huge disparity in pricing among dealers. Some, and I emphasized that it was some, not all dealers, chose to engage in unscrupulous activity when the market broke to the downside during the precipitous price decline, under the guise of a silver shortage (which there wasn't). They weren't hedged and subsequently charged the vulnerable folks exorbitant, unethical premiums. Those were folks who wouldn't have known better but read blogs and push the metals dot com sites to buy before its all gone and too late etc etc but don't know the market and who would have trusted that the dealers to be honest and offer fair market prices, but didn't.
Again, I repeated several times (at that time) that I was referring to some dealers, NOT all. Not interested in re-hashing this. Sad to see you take abstracts as troll bait then misrepresent it.

As for "MANY disparaging remarks" about the physical market, what were they?
"just here to continue your diatribe on why paper promises are better..."...."wealth in your pocket".
Well, I don't think you used that word "diatribe" in the correct context about your opinion re something you say I'm very positive on...
It never ceases to amaze me what a well funded account and a matching debit card in your pocket can buy. I agree with that.
I'm neutral because I'm not married to a view or position. I trade when and where opportunity presents itself.

If you engage in relevant and civil dialog happy to discuss. Otherwise, if just taking stabs and misquoting abstracts to create an inflammatory waste of space here to incite a reaction as your modus operandi here then not interested in responding.

Cheers!

[Jonflyfish]

Which is fine. But if you are simply a messenger of a story you have no vested interest in, there should be no need for you to berate those who express an opinion on the subject.

No berating by me. However, it is apparent that others have been emotionally charged to berate me for simply sharing. If the story had an opposite tone, would have shared that too. Imagine folks here would be cheering and using the info to sustain and support what they have been telling (selling) others by giving credit to and quoting Reuters and the CFTC. It's normal human behavior.

Pragmatic, sure... Neutral? It is very, very difficult to take somebody seriously when they try so hard to convince people they are neutral. I think there is at least one proclamation in every one of your threads about how incredibly neutral you are. I would be much more inclined to believe your neutrality if you weren't constantly bringing it up.

I don't try "so hard" to convince people of anything. I do notice many here who try so hard to force their views (which may be a conflict of interest) on others by repeatedly attacking my comments as a way to make their perspective sales-worthy.
I'm neutral because I simply don't care what the market does- I really don't. I'll trade where the opportunity presents itself without prejudice or bias. You can believe that or not. That's fine.
Truth in price.
Cheers!

[Treetop]

I don't try "so hard" to convince people of anything. I do notice many here who try so hard to force their views (which may be a conflict of interest) on others by repeatedly attacking my comments as a way to make their perspective sales-worthy.

You dont try so hard beyond a large portion of your posts belittling those you disagree with on said topic. I often found your opinion on the market interesting but I stopped even reading your posts 95% of the time. (admittedly also alot less interesting after you were dead wrong in price direction awhile back, having said it was about to rise right before it spent months falling. I asked you about that and you said that the rise was to come after it finished falling, rather then acknowledging you were wrong. Most of us have called some movement or another incorrectly Im not aware of anyone else here trying to pretend they were still correct when obviously not.)

[Jonflyfish]

I don't try "so hard" to convince people of anything. I do notice many here who try so hard to force their views (which may be a conflict of interest) on others by repeatedly attacking my comments as a way to make their perspective sales-worthy.

You dont try so hard beyond a large portion of your posts belittling those you disagree with on said topic. I often found your opinion on the market interesting but I stopped even reading your posts 95% of the time. (admittedly also alot less interesting after you were dead wrong in price direction awhile back, having said it was about to rise right before it spent months falling. I asked you about that and you said that the rise was to come after it finished falling, rather then acknowledging you were wrong. Most of us have called some movement or another incorrectly Im not aware of anyone else here trying to pretend they were still correct when obviously not.)

I really don't know what the point of your main body paragraph is but it appears that you were attempting to, as you say, "belittle" me with a bunch of random fragments.
As for belittling others, I don't know what you mean. A typical thread with many charged reactions seems to occur when I post a perspective, idea or in this case a news headline that concludes the long anticipated findings of the CFTC that apparently didn't say what many wished it would have, so they came charging after me for sharing.

Cheers!

[natsb88]

I don't try "so hard" to convince people of anything. I do notice many here who try so hard to force their views (which may be a conflict of interest) on others by repeatedly attacking my comments as a way to make their perspective sales-worthy.

Where is this happening? The only views presented forcefully in this thread are yours. Several people have expressed general opinions, and your replies have been about how they are wrong and you are right. That's the only "forcing" I see here.

...so they came charging after me for sharing.

Nobody came charging after you for sharing. Some people expressed an opinion different from yours and you threw a hissy fit.

No berating by me. However, it is apparent that others have been emotionally charged to berate me for simply sharing.

Please point out where somebody berated you for simply sharing the story. I sure didn't see it. I made general comments on the tone of official investigations and reports and problems with "market" prices. None of that was about you but you seemed to take it personally. Maybe you think everything is about you. I don't know. These threads start with interesting topics and interesting opinions but quickly degrade into you complaining about being bullied. I don't see it. Perhaps you are overly sensitive or misread the tone of written text? Truly disappointing that you are unable to have a mature discussion among those with differing opinions because I do like to hear opinions from those with much different perspectives than my own. If getting the last word is so important to you, you can have it. "There's no point in arguing with an ibex."

[Jonflyfish]

Where is this happening? The only views presented forcefully in this thread are yours. Several people have expressed general opinions, and your replies have been about how they are wrong and you are right. That's the only "forcing" I see here.

General opinions? Those were in the minority. No question after the pointed, personal and specific specific belittling, along with jovial misquoted abstracts to disparage and berate me. Or your multiple personally directed negative comments.

Nobody came charging after you for sharing. Some people expressed an opinion different from yours and you threw a hissy fit.

Hissy fit. That's cute. What hissy fit? Or, are you just trying to stoke the fire yet again?

I sure didn't see it. I made general comments on the tone of official investigations and reports and problems with "market" prices. None of that was about you but you seemed to take it personally. Maybe you think everything is about you. I don't know. These threads start with interesting topics and interesting opinions but quickly degrade into you complaining about being bullied. I don't see it. Perhaps you are overly sensitive or misread the tone of written text? Truly disappointing that you are unable to have a mature discussion among those with differing opinions because I do like to hear opinions from those with much different perspectives than my own. If getting the last word is so important to you, you can have it. "There's no point in arguing with an ibex."

You seem to make everything personal and about you. Maybe you think everything is about you. I don't know either. You seem to feel the need to reply to posts that were not directed to you but you seem to feel the need to personally reply as though they were. I don't know why you would do that but maybe you are trying to protect your ego or a particular customer.
As for your other points- It was more than obvious that you were making specific, not general comments about "market prices" from my post. Don't be so coy. Mature discussion? Who was making any mature discussion on this thread in response to the initial post? Mostly immature heckling and jeering directed at me. I find it amusing that you try to stoke the fire then point the finger as if to say I did. Yet, I don't misquote others, tell them what they think, what they do or get their junk in a wad etc. People reacted to my posts so I replied. To be civil is NOT to be personal. If people want to comment in general about topics in a constructive way, that's great. To initiate pointed disparaging, false, personal remarks to (and about) someone, that's different. It's not important to me to "get the last word". Apparently, you enjoy throwing mud then commenting about the last word. No point in calling yourself an ibex but I won't argue with you beyond this point.

Cheers!

[Rodebaugh]

Rueters:
"In the past, the CFTC has levied heavy fines for trading rule violations. Yet only once in its 36-year history has it successfully concluded a manipulation prosecution: a 1998 case concerning electricity futures prices."

Talk about results, With a CFTC rock solid gumshoe record like that we know the best folks were working hard on the case.
The way I see it: If there is money to be made....folks will make it. Doesn't matter if its digging ditches or running cocaine on subs. Risk VS Reward for a given Opportunity.

[Jonflyfish]

In 2011 and 2012, the CFTC filed at least 201 enforcement actions, almost as many as the past five years combined, and has already recovered approximately $1.8 billion in total sanctions.

It's very difficult to "prove" market manipulation. There are several factors that make it difficult. Having a hunch doesn't cut it. Most commodities are very liquid and widely traded. To prove that you even moved the market and what the impact was in a vacuum relative to the countless other degrees of freedom is not an easy thing to prove.

However, there have been several successful manipulation cases over the years.

Some recent manipulation cases-

In April 2012, Optiver Holdings agreed to a $14 million settlement with the CFTC in connection with
alleged manipulation of the crude oil futures price in 2007.

In June 2012, Barclays Bank settled with the US Commodities Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), the US Department of Justice (DOJ), and Britain’s Financial Services Authority (FSA) for $453 million in a complex case of alleged manipulation of the London Interbank Offered Rate (LIBOR) by several major banks from 2005 through 2009

Cheers!

[johnbrickner]

. . .

Don't shoot the messenger. I know most will choose to discount or ignore the findings because they want to believe something else. It is what it is . . .

I'm neutral because I simply don't care what the market does- I really don't. I'll trade where the opportunity presents itself without prejudice or bias . . .

Truth in price.

Cheers!

I won't shoot ya Jonny. I'm in a position where I'm a messenger and get it about once or twice a season. And almost every time it's because the person is either ignorant or has an opinion they don't want changed. I get to tell parents and coaches their child/athlete has an injury. Lately, it's the laws and research dealing with concussions and proper recovery time.

Most of the time, I see it coming. I'll bet you did too, which is why you said "Don't shoot". You may not mean to but, you sure have a knack for stirring up the hornets nest. Truly, the outcome of this investigation is what it was.

Now this whole neutrality thing, an emotional detachment. I think only an opportunist with strict discipline can do so. I can appreciate the trading system you must have. No doubt mechanical and mathematical. Love the charts. But, it can't be totally emotionless can it? Would you do it if you didn't love it? Or is it as others have told me "it's just a game you play to win". In which case it's the money used to keep score. No matter. I'm getting to personal, no need to answer.

In any case, the best athletes I work with are the ones most able to control their emotions on the field of battle. You seem to be able to do the same with a trade where there is a substantial value to it, without attachment. Fairly sure I would have difficulty doing the same. As for me, price is reality and I don't necessarily consider my reality truth. It's just what it is. For you, truth is price. It's going to take me some time to wrap my brain around that concept and drop the one I currently have. But at least I'm open enough to consider it.

Keep posting Jon,

[Engineer]

Saying there's no manipulation because the CFTC dropped an investigation is like saying people don't speed when the cops are in the donut shop. It's disingenuous.

To see this sort of self-serving circular logic presented by the parasites who make a living trading paper rather than providing services? IMHO, it stinks of propaganda.

[Jonflyfish]

. . .

Don't shoot the messenger. I know most will choose to discount or ignore the findings because they want to believe something else. It is what it is . . .

I'm neutral because I simply don't care what the market does- I really don't. I'll trade where the opportunity presents itself without prejudice or bias . . .

Truth in price.

Cheers!

I won't shoot ya Jonny. I'm in a position where I'm a messenger and get it about once or twice a season. And almost every time it's because the person is either ignorant or has an opinion they don't want changed. I get to tell parents and coaches their child/athlete has an injury. Lately, it's the laws and research dealing with concussions and proper recovery time.

Most of the time, I see it coming. I'll bet you did too, which is why you said "Don't shoot". You may not mean to but, you sure have a knack for stirring up the hornets nest. Truly, the outcome of this investigation is what it was.

Now this whole neutrality thing, an emotional detachment. I think only an opportunist with strict discipline can do so. I can appreciate the trading system you must have. No doubt mechanical and mathematical. Love the charts. But, it can't be totally emotionless can it? Would you do it if you didn't love it? Or is it as others have told me "it's just a game you play to win". In which case it's the money used to keep score. No matter. I'm getting to personal, no need to answer.

In any case, the best athletes I work with are the ones most able to control their emotions on the field of battle. You seem to be able to do the same with a trade where there is a substantial value to it, without attachment. Fairly sure I would have difficulty doing the same. As for me, price is reality and I don't necessarily consider my reality truth. It's just what it is. For you, truth is price. It's going to take me some time to wrap my brain around that concept and drop the one I currently have. But at least I'm open enough to consider it.

Keep posting Jon,

Thanks friend. Nice to see a rational post. Must be quite a challenge to break the news to folks about injuries. Takes a special person to handle such. Kudos to you!

As far as trading goes- In the early years, trades were emotional for many reasons. Would feel the ups and downs like a roller coaster. Now, if the market moves up, its a good day. If it moves down, its a good day just the same. The discipline provides satisfaction but that's as far as the emotion goes. I'm satisfied with locking in sizable gains and just as satisfied to realize small losses. The key is to understand what causes the emotion and identify what avoids it. That way the market never controls the emotion. Some people are looking for excitement. Disciplined trading isn't it. Doing the same thing over and over in a very mechanical approach provides little emotional feedback in a continuous loop of activity.
Leverage or not, most folks are quick to lock in small gains (sell on a short term high) when seen and load up on their losses (adding to dips and deeper dips.). Most people think to buy low and sell high. That can be devastating in a breakaway trend. Buying high and selling higher or selling low and covering lower is the opposite of a vast majority and works very well. Trends are where the big money is made.

Cheers!

[natsb88]

Since JFF is too busying self-diagnosing to answer my question, I'll pose it again to anybody else who has thoughts on the issue. Was there "truth in price" when the Hunt brothers cornered the market in 79/80? And is it not at least conceivable that, with access to enough money/credit, the same could be done in reverse? I'm not saying it is going on, I'm asking hypothetically if it would be possible. And if not, what is different about the system today that would prevent it?

[Catfish4u]

In unrelated news a fox was overheard stating 'there has never been a single fox in any hen house'!

[Sheikh_yer_Bu'Tay]

Professor Antal Fekete http://www.professorfekete.com/articles.asp wrote a great article about basis trading maybe 5-6 years ago. He also claimed there was no manipulation in the futures market. It is all about trading on the "basis".

I wish I could find it again.