Starts April 1, 2014 and is fully implemented by the middle of 2015. https://www.google.com/#q=what+is+the+volcker+rule Will the TBTF banks be exempt? Can its publically stated purpose be trusted? Could this signify the end of PM suppression? What theories do you have about its effect on PM's ?
I think it's just another bogus story to get peoples trust in governments/banks again. Take for ex. that limit on size of banks, claimed to block them from becoming 'too big to fail'. That's just lol, because banks lend their depositors money to other banks, effectively tying together all of them as a whole, if one goes to the graveyard, the others follow it. It's very similar to the trick that governments use: they pretend to be all different, and conflict eachother, but in reality, they work together alike they're one. What's the difference between a single big monopolist and a big cartel of multiple smaller ones? Nothing? And look at what governments say when they copycat eachothers decisions: they name it 'harmonization'. Look at the EU central planners do: they copycat eachothers tax levels as to block what they name as 'tax shopping' and 'unfair competition'. While in essence, this 'harmonization' is the very same as price agreements. If private business do this, governments sue them for price agreements. But when they do it, they name it with a friendly/positive/soft word: "harmonization" So that multiple smaller banks, that's just another scam. And PM suppression? Heh, they can only suppress by selling, and in order to sell, they have to buy it first. So there's a 'lil logical flaw in that PM suppression story.
Selling long contracts can drop the price, but doesnt buying short contracts also drop the price? What do they have to buy first in order to buy short contracts? I thought the whole suppression story revolved around the massive number of short contracts? It seems that in almost every post of yours I see you down play the idea of pm price suppression. Do you think they simply arent motivated to keep the price down, or they cant do it, both, neither? Precious metals are the ultimate competition to fiat currency, and banks they love their fiat currency. I have a hard time believing they wont suppress the metals especially when their currency is on shaky ground.
There is no such thing as a 'long contract' or 'short contract', a long position cannot exist without a short position as counterparty and vice versa, every contract requires two parties: a long and a short. And I'm sure you know all this. So why then split it up? So the pure existence of a contract already implies a willing buyer and a willing seller, or in short: an agreement. So your 'massive number short positions IMPLIES an equal number long positions. http://www.cftc.gov/dea/futures/other_lf.htm 25/03/2014 31755 $19.96 Producer/Merchant/Processor/User Long 18703 Short 46401 SwapDealer Long 34545 Short 38602 -> 18703+34545-46401-38602=-31755 ManagedMoney Long 35672 Short 22876 OtherReportables Long 9828 Short 3611 SmallTraders Long 24600 Short 11858 -> 35672+9828+24600-22876-3611-11858=+31755 What do you do: you focus on the first bold, your massive number of short positions. But I don't hear you about the second bold, that equal (combined) massive number of long positions. And on top of that, it's not an amount longs or an amount shorts that matters for the price, but the NET position: 25/03/2014 31755 $19.96 Producer/Merchant/Processor/User Long 18703 Short 46401 -> this Trader Class NET position is -27698 so NET short 27698. SwapDealer Long 34545 Short 38602 -> this Trader Class NET position is -4057 so NET short 4057 (notice how much lower the NET number is than the individual numbers for long and short). ManagedMoney Long 35672 Short 22876 -> this Trader Class NET position is 12796 so NET long 12796. OtherReportables Long 9828 Short 3611 -> this Trader Class NET position is 6217 so NET long 6217. SmallTraders Long 24600 Short 11858 -> this Trader Class NET position is 12741 so NET long 12742. Just to illustrate along a margin value how useless your focus is on shorts: imagine that a Trader Class (or any single/combination of entities residing under it) has 100000000000000 short positions and 100000000000000 long positions. Despite the GNORMOUS figure of shorts, this Trader Class has a ZERO effect on the price. About price suppression: I play down YOUR (and some others) "idea" of price suppression, not price suppression as such. I see price suppression another way: the way of tricking people into paying higher prices, to then sell them in the red, to then trick them into selling for lower prices, to then buy back in, causing huge price fluctuations that make people leave disappointed, and scare off new people, and thus reducing the size of the market, and with it, the price. The question then is, why do you not talk about the latter, and instead focus on alike one side of a coin as if the other doesnt exist?
I admit you seem to understand the paper metal markets alot more then me, if not for anything more then your replies always being so long. Then what is the driving force behind the metals falling in such a bullish environment? Record coin sales, central banks and governments buying up so much, all of Germany's gold pretty much gone, central banks printing like crazy, several big countries talking about getting away from the USD, and yet the paper metals market continues to decline? Also you didnt address my point about motivation behind the potential price suppression. If you think there is no price suppression then is it because banks feel no need to stomp the competition or they dont have the power to suppress the price or what? Was the May 1, 2011 waterfall decline of $6 in minutes, along with a whole bunch of margin increases in a very short time, all while silver was about to break its all time high, just normal selling in your view? So ultmately you think there is very little if any suppression of the precious metals?
I understand paper metal markets better than you? You must be kidding? I'm not interested a penny in them. What I am interested in, is how to find out the size of their (later on cancelled) orders. That's it. Not more, not less. Check the Silver Institute supply/demand figures. It shows 'Implied Net Investment' as big as the coin sales. And unlike with gold (which is a case on its own, due to central planners large stocks), governments/central banks did NOT net buy silver: Net Government Sales (positive means it's [SUPPLY], negative means it's [DEMAND]) 1997 -0.7 1998 33.5 1999 97.2 2000 60.3 2001 63.0 2002 59.2 2003 88.7 TOTAL1997-2003 401.2 RATE 57.314/YEAR 2004 61.9 2005 65.9 2006 78.5 2007 42.5 2008 30.5 2009 15.6 2010 44.2 2011 12.0 2012 7.4 TOTAL2004-2012 358.5 RATE 39.833/YEAR The problem you have is that you think that what you know is the whole, but it's not, it's a part. The reason for silvers price rising that much, was a combination of elements. A major one, as big as the coin sales (and actually, and weird enough, exactly as big, see my topic for it), WAS the Exchange Traded Funds, that mostly only came into existence 2008+ purchases. These built up a big silver stockpile, but since 2011 their addition rate dropped hugely. But production and recycling didnt drop, so that new silver didnt find the demand anymore that it found during the 2009-2011. And hence the price dropped. Your 'bullish environment' is actually only half the story, the other half stalled, and as long as production doesnt drop again, this stays the case. And aside of this, todays $20 is 4 times the $5 of a decade ago, and 2008's average +30%. At some point, bulls sell, and become bears haha. The stockpiled silver (coins and 1000 ouncers) amounts to about 120% of a worlds annual total supply/demand. What does this mean: that the sales of it can undo the price effect of a demand that rises 10% every year, 10 years long. And that's something that some persistently seem to ignore: every ounce bought as 'investment', bringing a price increase, will be sold again, bringing an equal price decrease, or in other words, the over the years NET total price change of any 'investment' that is a dead thing (alike a dead metal), is ZERO. So your bullish environment is BOUND to end, and so it did, in a degree, because +30% in 5 years is not that 'BEAR', and +300% in 10 years, neither.
All banks (and whoever money for nothing clubber) have to do, is frontrun people in buying, and frontrun people again in selling. That's not really 'price suppression', isn't it? Of course it was no 'normal' selling. The buying took 4 months. The selling took a couple days. For the obvious reason. It takes more time to convince people to pay more, than to decide to hit the 'sell' buttons. Price 'suppression'? Well, some shot the price up, let others shoot it further up, then shot the price down. No gun involved, just purchase and sell orders, doesnt matter coins, ETF shares, futures contracts, whatever.
Back when the Hunt brothers were taking physical delivery of silver futures because they believed fiat currency was a threat to their wealth, silver rose to around $50 oz U.S. The government panicked and so did the Comex. Comex passed a rule that they would only accept sellers and no buyers and silver fell fast and hard. Price suppression at its finest.
P&a Passed a rule to accept only sellers? Sell to who? The void? The rule wasn't to block buyers, it was a contract limit per account, meaning that, with some granted exceptions (with the Hunts not among them since they borrowed like crazy to buy all that silver), nobody would be able to take a total position bigger than X, so anyone with a smaller or no total position at all, could buy, to any combined total. That this buying didnt happen was simply because people were not that stupid to start paying that much, and instead, considering the crazy price uptrend, they started to sell (you don't really think that only the Hunts bought silver do you?) instead, resulting in the price dropping alot, with the Hunts being unable to meet the margin call once it dropped below their limit. And by the way, the Hunts were not like spending own money on silver, they borrowed heavily to do so, and their lenders began to fear that they would not see their money back, a loss of trust, that left the Hunt brothers no choice but to declare bankruptcy. Price suppression? Lol no. Just people buying alot, then selling alot. Just imagine that the Hunt brothers would NOT have borrowed to buy the silver. Then what? Do you think they would have eaten it or so? They would have sold it anyway, reverting the price trend they brought. See, it doesn't really matter if a price drops 90% in a day, a week or a couple years, it's just the same drop. And by the way, that much touted about $50 in 1980 was a one day fly, not worth to serve as any reference, and those that do so, are just trying to mislead people. 1980's price average was just $16, being 32% of the $50 peak. To compare: 2011 had an average price of $35, being 70%, thus over double the 1980 average, of its $50 peak. These are the price figures: <year> <silver> <gold> <ratio>: 1970 1.635 35.94 21.98 1971 1.394 40.80 29.27 1972 1.976 58.16 29.43 1973 3.137 97.32 31.02 1974 4.391 159.26 36.27 1975 4.085 161.02 39.42 1976 4.347 124.84 28.72 1977 4.706 147.71 31.39 1978 5.930 193.22 32.58 1979 21.793 306.68 14.07 <- average silver price in 1979 was higher than the $50 peak year 1980. 1980 16.393 612.56 37.37 <- average in 1980 just $16. 1981 8.432 460.03 54.56 1982 10.586 375.67 35.49 1983 9.121 424.35 46.52 1984 6.694 360.48 53.85 1985 5.888 317.26 53.88 1986 5.364 367.66 68.54 1987 6.790 446.46 65.75 1988 6.108 436.94 71.54 1989 5.543 381.44 68.81 Don't just take the vested interest stories out there for true. Check it yourself.
Pirocco look up January 21 1980 the date Comex limited all silver futures trading to liquidation only. Price suppression. Don't follow the herd, investigate with an open mind.
But I'm always open for other thoughts, because I DO believe in the central planning macro strategy that is known as "The Big Lie". So I give it a chance, so feel free to provide me with documents/data that supports the statement and explains that price suppression. I don't require legal texts, just enough elements suggesting it directly and/or indirectly is already fine, IF they come from sites that are forced to keep up a reputation because it would cost them money if not. And to add: it wouldnt change a penny in what I said in the last part: it wouldnt have made a difference on the average silver price trend, for the very simple fundamental reason: those that buy silver in the monetary role storage of value, won't eat it, won't throw it in the ocean, and while a stacker can bury a bag coins in the roof or in the garden to then FORGET OR DIE, nobody is going to do that with a thousand 1000 ounce bars. At least not on purpose (case sinking ship)
Beyond generating a few mountains of regulatory paperwork, nothing of substance will be altered by this 'Volcker Rule'.
Another remark: Do you know how futures work? A futures contract is basically an agreement (actually the 2 parties are passively matched by the market runners) between a buyer and seller, to trade in a determined future. This agreement is cancellable (what you name as 'liquidation'), and most futures position owners also DO cancel it before it expired, or 'at best', just shift forward the expiration date (what is named 'rollover'). And why? Because it's not the creation/liquidation that makes them gain (or lose) dollars, it's the price movement DURING the existence of the contract, that does. So any forced liquidation, just comes down to doing what would have been done anyway, so not only in my previous posts investment fashion, but also already on the futures market level itself. Just think about why people take a futures long (or sell) position at all? Why don't they just buy (or sell) directly? If they really wanted the silver itself, and really thought that the price would increase, then why don't they just directly buy the silver? I'll tell you: because actually, they aren't after the silver, they are after other peoples dollars/purchasing power. The same happens along coins/ETF shares/whatever representation or metal itself. The futures market is mainly a hedging instrument, meaning that futures positions are taken to prevent losses due to the temporary buying clubs. In the end, on every time basis, one has to pay for anothers profit. Just imagine a precious metal dealer, some of his customers buy in january at $20, to then return to sell it in february at $25. If the dealer does nothing, he ends up as the paying side, and would soon have to declare bankruptcy. If the dealer would plain refuse to buy the silver back, then those customers would be angry, and angry customers is bad for business. So the dealer does something smarter: he takes a futures market position against those customers, with a size according to the amount ounces that he thinks will be sold back over that term. This comes at a cost of possible profit ofcourse, shorting every ounce would undo all profits, so the dealer has to make some choice in the degree that he plays the same risk game as his customers. Since a real business (delivering a product/service) tends to exhibit a desire to minimize risk exposure, since its their making a living, dealers use the premium / spread instead. So those that complain about high premiums, should take into account that in the end, that high premium finds an origin 'beyond' the dealer, being the money for nothing clubs out there, so blaming a consequence rather than a cause. In the end, someone has to pay, even for the mere inflation hedge (being a neutral in terms of purchasing power). So your 'all silver futures trading to liquidation only', is basically nothing but a 'market freeze'. Position holders cannot trade, but they also don't have to cancel their positions, and even in case margin requirements make that impossible, the liquidation of the contracts just happens sooner, since their holders werent after the silver anyway.
The difference between Volcker and Greenspan was that the former managed to disguise/cover things up in his words, while the latter made things 'too clear for anyone' (for ex in a speech openly listing all possible causes for general price increasings/inflation), resulting in more succesful speculation and thus more doom for the central planning thieves. Although later on, he became wiser haha.
So Pirocco what experience do you have in trading markets? You said you don't understand paper metal markets more then me, yet the bulk of your replies seem to be geared towards convincing us that you do know alot about how the markets work. Do you think its possible you could be wrong about there not being price suppression?
Know what experience in your "trading markets" is about? Observing others in order to succeed frontrunning them. I don't want that 'experience'. Markets are situations. They work nor do anything. People on them are the agents that do something, I talked about the motivations and methods of the latter, not the situation that is the former. And 'convincing' only applies to people that really think that they are right, even if they're not. There are exceptions, and your "trading markets" are infested with them, haha.
