Calling all Manipulation Theorists

[alor]

^ every year, the regulators would published the convicted criminals that got fined and jailed for markets misconducts etc
from the details of each cases, you can see the manipulations there, except when the actors are doing it on behalf of the regulators, such as market interventions etc free pass/out off jail card, just like monopoly game

 

[alor]

numbers rackets, 4D Toto
when the government doing it, its legal gambling
when Luigii and Mario did that, they are manipulator criminals, illegal gambling

 

[STKR]

It seems you did suggest spoofing could be used to suppress price, but have changed your mind?

Hah, you just quoted my comment yet it appears you didn't read it? I said "IF you were to use spoofing ALONG WITH HIGH VOLUME SHORTS." Never have I suggested, nor do I believe, that spoofing alone could be used to suppress the price.

Explain to me how spoofing doesn't affect market psychology when the very nature of spoofing is to give the illusion of market supply/demand that doesn't exist?

It is typical of the suppression theorists to conflate JPM holdings with JPM client holdings.

Agree, but as Chris Powell suggests, how do you know that JPMs clients aren't central banks or governments?

As per the silver surveys, government has played a roll in supplying the market in times of deficits. As per president Johnson's statements after signing the coinage act, governments had the will and intentions to suppress the price of silver via supplying the market with physical.

Not sure what you mean by interest? Maybe cost-of-carry?
And if you think the buy side has no relevance to market movements, then we are back to the point where you have very limited knowledge of markets.

What? I'm referring to Interest relating to supply and demand. If they're were an equal amount of buyers and sellers at equal volumes to take each side of every trade/contract, where would the market go? Stating that each contract has a buyer and a seller has no relevance to market movements.
Again, not sure where you get the idea that I would believe the buy side has no relevance.

this whole price suppression claim is just hypothetical, baseless conspiracy theory.

It's hypothetical but not baseless. Hypothesising is in important part of analysing possibility - To provide a path of investigation that otherwise wouldn't present itself if one were to stay thinking inside the box.
I'd like to get your opinion on what Chris Powell said:

1) Are governments and central banks active in the monetary metals markets or not?

 

[wrcmad]

Explain to me how spoofing doesn't affect market psychology when the very nature of spoofing is to give the illusion of market supply/demand that doesn't exist?

It's a futile argument.... explain to me how it does affect psychology. You can't. You can only hypothesise.
If market participants are looking at an illusion (the term that you used), then by definition they are unaware of what is happening in the background.
It follows logically then, that if and when spoofing is actually happening, the participants are not aware of what is happening, they are non-the-wiser, and they see everything as normal - and thus something totally invisible to them can't be affecting their psych.

Agree, but as Chris Powell suggests, how do you know that JPMs clients aren't central banks or governments?

Don't know.
But I'd suggest they do participate from time to time.... they do hold some of the biggest PM holdings in their gold reserves.
So what?

What? I'm referring to Interest relating to supply and demand. If they're were an equal amount of buyers and sellers at equal volumes to take each side of every trade/contract, where would the market go? Stating that each contract has a buyer and a seller has no relevance to market movements.
Again, not sure where you get the idea that I would believe the buy side has no relevance.

OK.
I'm confused now.
There are an equal amount of buyers and sellers at equal volumes..... that is the point?


Just as a foot note, we are up to Day 4 and Page 5 of this thread, and you still haven't answered the OP.

 

[STKR]

It's a futile argument.... explain to me how it does affect psychology. You can't. You can only hypothesise.
If market participants are looking at an illusion (the term that you used), then by definition they are unaware of what is happening in the background.
It follows logically then, that if and when spoofing is actually happening, the participants are not aware of what is happening, they are non-the-wiser, and they see everything as normal - and thus something totally invisible to them can't be affecting their psych.

LOL how are you honestly arguing this point?

"Spoofing is an illegal form of market manipulation in which a trader places a large order to buy or sell a financial asset, such as a stock, bond or futures contract, with no intention of executing. By doing so, the trader—or "the spoofer"—creates an artificial impression of high demand for the asset."

https://www.fxcm.com/au/insights/what-is-spoofing/#:~:text=Spoofing is an illegal form,high demand for the asset.

Very nitpicky attempt at a "gotcha" moment, if I've ever seen one.

Don't know.
But I'd suggest they do participate from time to time.... they do hold some of the biggest PM holdings in their gold reserves.
So what?

So could it be possible they are managing the markets through their activity?

OK.
I'm confused now.
There are an equal amount of buyers and sellers at equal volumes..... that is the point?

Yet you conveniently disclude orders placed beyond the contracts. The supply and demand of the overall market rather than those engaged in contracts. Your point that there must be a buyer and seller of each contract has no bearing on market movements.

Just as a foot note, we are up to Day 4 and Page 5 of this thread, and you still haven't answered the OP.

Your question appears rhetorical and is poorly addressed. Volumes are only indicative of aggregate market participation. What other insights are you claiming they're revealing? You make a very poor point and propose a rather baseless question with the intent to have some fun dispelling myths surrounding manipulation. Good for you. This is why I immediately asked you to define manipulation, something which you actively chose to ignore until it suited you.

As for what is a fair price, or fair value, we've already discussed that value is subjective.
A 'fair' price may be analysed by supply and demand, Utility , mining and refining costs along with future supply/demand predictions. The question is, fair in relation to what?

 

[wrcmad]

LOL how are you honestly arguing this point?

I just did.
And I did a good enough job that you had no retort.

So could it be possible they are managing the markets through their activity?

I don't believe so.

Yet you conveniently disclude orders placed beyond the contracts. The supply and demand of the overall market rather than those engaged in contracts. Your point that there must be a buyer and seller of each contract has no bearing on market movements.

I'm still confused?
Are you meaning "beyond the contracts" is the phys market?

Your question appears rhetorical and is poorly addressed. Volumes are only indicative of aggregate market participation. What other insights are you claiming they're revealing? You make a very poor point and propose a rather baseless question with the intent to have some fun dispelling myths surrounding manipulation. Good for you. This is why I immediately asked you to define manipulation, something which you actively chose to ignore until it suited you.

My question isn't rhetorical... but it is definitely loaded.
It's not poorly addressed - it addresses decades of price-suppression conspiracy theory - that of the cartel dumping multiples of global production volumes on the paper market using naked shorts.
If my definition of manipulation (long-term price suppression) doesn't fit yours, then your argument is irrelevant to this thread, and there is no manipulation issue to be discussed.... nothing to see here.

 

[STKR]

I just did.
And I did a good enough job that you had no retort.

You are becoming increasingly 'special' in my books. Please, feel free to explain why spoofing is illegal, or against regulatory standards?

I don't believe so.

Why not?

It's not poorly addressed - it addresses decades of price-suppression conspiracy theory - that of the cartel dumping multiples of global production volumes on the paper market using naked shorts.

Precisely, poorly addressed like an inside joke that nobody gets.

If my definition of manipulation (long-term price suppression) doesn't fit yours, then your argument is irrelevant to this thread, and there is no manipulation issue to be discussed.... nothing to see here.

Your argument is also that it isn't possible. Why debate about whether it exists if you can't even perceive it's possibility?

For you to backtrack and pretend we haven't been discussing long-term price suppression is beyond laughable - much like you stance on it not being in the realms of possibility.

 

[STKR]

The banner ad

 

[wrcmad]

Memes = a definite sign that meaningful conversation is over, for the second time in this thread.

So. A lot of blustery, off-topic dialog which is getting quite boring since it became a debate about semantics.

But still no answer to the OP.

I might use this thread as a reference link whenever anyone wants to whine about Crimex or the Cartel in future.

See my sig.

 

[STKR]

Memes = a definite sign that meaningful conversation is over, for the second time in this thread.

T'was a screenshot of the banner ad over the tread title.

So. A lot of blustery, off-topic dialog which is getting quite boring since it became a debate about semantics.

But still no answer to the OP.

Kinda funny considering you've made this about semantics with your misconstrued definitions.

I've addressed your OP, I also think focusing in on volumes as the sole reason why people believe price suppression exists is a bit narrow sighted. The volumes argument is based around the disconnect between the physical supply and demand and the volumes of paper silver being traded. Volumes by themselves reveal very little other than aggregate market participation. Hence why your proposed questions are poorly addressed and directed.

Your post is based around manipulation theories, I provide evidence of manipulation that doesn't fit your definitions. Then the conversation turned to manipulation in regards to long-term price suppression.

I've addressed and provided evidence to support the possibility of long-term price suppression:

1.) President Johnson's comments after signing the 1965 coinage act:
"Treasury has a lot of silver on hand, and it can be, and it will be used to keep the price of silver in line with its value in our present silver coin."

Pretty clear indication that the idea of suppressing the price is not new, and was not only feasible, but openly accepted and projected

2.) Government sales data from silver surveys showing the government supplying the market in times of deficits:

https://www.silverinstitute.org/all-world-silver-surveys/

I mean, how can you really suppress the paper price of a physical asset if the physical asset is in high demand and low supply? The free market would take hold and not allow suppression to exist long-term.

I also find it interesting that the transparent silver holdings hedge funds and ETFs drop by approx. 120Mozs in 2011-12 and 2015-16.





3.) Proposing the idea and possibility that central banks could be the clients of Bullion investment banks and the actual holders of the largest positions on the COMEX.
If you actually read the gata document (which you won't) you will see the evidence provided showing the confirmed involvement of CB in the monetary metals Market.

http://www.gata.org/node/17707

4.) The timing and introduction of CFTC position limits, proposed in 2011 and introduced in 2012 - Limiting position sizes for non-hedging speculators, while allowing exemptions for certain entities who happen to hold the largest positions by %.


I think I've done a reasonable job at demonstrating how it could be possible, and even likely that the price of silver could be suppressed. What have you offered? Conjecture? Infact, the only person who provided any sort of evidence or link to any article to back up a position was @bron.suchecki .

I also address his response. The article from Keith Weiner didn't do anything to disprove price suppression, it focused in on the claims that banks were speculators. It made some very good points about the speculative nature of the banks, yet conveniently dismissed the positions held by JPM by not even mentioning them.

So you can pretend all you want Mr Mad, my position has more supporting evidence than your position does that long-term price suppression isn't possible.

 

[alor]

You can fool someone because they are looking to get something. It's hard to convince someone they have been fooled because it takes that promise and all they have invested in it away. It's like a gambler. It's easy to lure them into a game, but it's hard to get them to stop and realize that they will never gain back what they have lost.

 

[wrcmad]

So you can pretend all you want Mr Mad, my position has more supporting evidence than your position does that long-term price suppression isn't possible.

{Yaaaaaawwwwwn} .......
then can you please explain silver's price ascent to multi-year highs in the last 24hrs on the back of the COMEX volume of 175,000 paper contracts - equivalent to 870 million oz's.... more than the whole of 2019 global mine production traded in a single day.

BTW.
You are way over your head thinking you know more than @bron.suchecki .
It was at this moment that I stopped giving you much credibility.

 

[STKR]

BTW.
You are way over your head thinking you know more than @bron.suchecki .
It was at this moment that I stopped taking you seriously.

Pffft. Bron was far from dismissing the possibility of price suppression. He was merely indication the positions of the large traders weren't speculative. I was merely asserting my views of the analysis, not "thinking I know more than Bron". Proposing ideas and providing supporting documentation or evidence is far from thinking I know more than anyone - It's part of sharing, provoking discussing and facilitating debate. However, I'm not surprised you hold the perceptions you do.

Just like how Bron Said that nobody has responded to or addressed Keith Weiner's article, yet I was able to provide Chris Powell's article doing just that. Does the professional pedigree of any individual automatically disqualify critique? Is said critique automatically disqualified because of the source? Or is a fact still a fact, and a good point and logic still credible?

Gotta love how you sidestep arguments and provide no supporting evidence, yet call me out with your hypocritical rhetoric.

 

[Farkle Minkus]

Some may enjoy this

 

[wrcmad]

I've addressed your OP.

I didn't think you had - in fact, I went back and re-read the whole thread. Still couldn't find where?

Then I read the remainder of the waffle on this page.....
.....

And I found it!!!!:

I mean, how can you really suppress the paper price of a physical asset if the physical asset is in high demand and low supply? The free market would take hold and not allow suppression to exist long-term.

It took 5 pages, but you finally managed to retch it up!

I guess we can agree, and consider this one settled!
(Thank fk for that.... I was really starting to lose interest.)
Cheers.

 

[STKR]

I didn't think you had - in fact, I went back and re-read the whole thread. Still couldn't find where?

Then I read the remainder of the waffle on this page.....
.....

And I found it!!!!:



It took 5 pages, but you finally managed to retch it up!

I guess we can agree, and consider this one settled!
(Thank fk for that.... I was really starting to lose interest.)
Cheers.

Man, I am actually in awe by much you continue to grasp at straws. You apparently read through the whole thread, yet find the 'Ah Ha!" Moment from a few posts ago?

How about the posts on the first page?

This means that a few banking entities and hedge funds will have more leverage to influence prices in one direction or the other, yet supply and demand fundamentals still exist.

the exemptions to the position limits does not mean that certain entities can place unlimited positions, they still require the physical metal in their "transparent holdings".

So the acknowledgement or physical supply and demand fundamentals completely disproves the price suppression theory?

So governments or banking entities can have above ground silver holdings/reserves and use them to feed the physical market in times of deficit, and it doesn't have anything to do with managing the market or price? Even though president Johnson clearly stated that they can and will use holdings to suppress the price, and this somehow makes you feel better?

I guess that's settled then
At ease soldier!

 

[JohnnyBravo300]

It's no secret metal prices have been manipulated in different ways. Theres no denying it. Hardly worth a discussion over.

 

[hardyakkagold]

It's no secret metal prices have been manipulated in different ways. Theres no denying it. Hardly worth a discussion over.

My thoughts exactly!

wrcmad and shiney have picked the wrong crowd to try and convert with their twisted logic

At one time I hated the manipulators and their seemingly endless price smack downs from 2011 until recently.

But now I have grown to quite like them and their actions over the years, as it has allowed me to accumulate a precious metals stack
that is probably many times lager than it would have been if the price suppression had not occurred over the years.

 

[STKR]

It's no secret metal prices have been manipulated in different ways. Theres no denying it. Hardly worth a discussion over.

I think it's worthy of discussion about whether long-term price suppression exists. We're into PMs for a variety of reasons and price suppression could drastically impact you perceptions and expectations, depending on what you choose believe.

I also think the belief in price suppression theory would've been more useful in past decades, but I doubt it holds much less relevance today.
I don't think governments hold much silver, if any at all. I've also discovered an interesting occurrence when analysing the silver surveys a few weeks ago.

Notice the listing(s) for net government sales and net government purchases. Now look at total supply and total demand - They are absolutely identical! No surplus, no deficit and a good indicator of direct government intervention and management.

This is from the 2007 silver survey


This is from the 2020 silver survey:
Notice the net government sales drop off. Physical supply deficit is significant.



I think we're entering a period where the intervention by injecting the physical market with silver is nearing an end. I wouldn't be surprised if the last of the government stockpiles were issued to certain 'custodians' to help manage the market. It might actually explain the acquisitions of such volumes of silver in times of deficits.

Compare the years in each chart.
Also notice when the "transparent silver holdings" increase and retract. I believe the repositories listed here may be the last defence before we see the free market truly take hold.





I really liked the reason President Johnson gave for needing to remove silver from coinage:

"Now all of you know these changes are necessary for a very simple reason--silver is a scarce material. Our uses of silver are growing as our population and our economy grows. The hard fact is that silver consumption is now more than double new silver production each year. So, in the face of this worldwide shortage of silver, and our rapidly growing need for coins, the only really prudent course was to reduce our dependence upon silver for making our coins."

In the absence of above ground stockpiles, silver once again becomes a scarce material.
Our uses for silver are still growing as the population and economy grows.

So, are we in the face of another worldwide silver shortage?
And due to our rapidly growing need for silver in industry, what will the next "prudent course" be?

 

[Pirocco]

Manipulation?
Well.. a future markets existence reason is to manipulate a price along an order that gets cancelled instead of executed.
That's all I think, maybe one could name adjustments of required margin also manipulation. But in essence, this is a secondary effect of the same.

Then... maybe manipulation not of price but of peoples mind?
That's also a big one, for ex look at all the suckers scared by the 1 Covid-19 death and 40 other death causes on every 15586 people on the planet, that governments used as excuse to fire a shotgun load at the economy in order to bring a next crisis / big prices fluctuation were suckers buy high to then sell low.
But there are numerous such manipulations of minds. Quantitative Easing was also such one. Including the bogus story that infested all pm selling place, that the Fed had created 16 instead of 1.2 billion dollars, so called unveiled by a GAO "investigation".
Plain bullshit, they chosed the non term adjusted total of the loans.
One can thus claim any amount, by just increasing the time period that is measured over.