And the stock ounces-trend of IShares Silver Trust, the biggest silver "Exchange Traded Fund", that since it came into existence on 21 april 2006 stacked 10000 tonnes silver (it had 305 Moz in januari 2010, 366 Moz in april 2011): date / ounces (2decimals) / lbma silver price that day 2014/12/12 341,009,164.10 $17.07 2014/12/17 338,997,763.10 $15.95 2014/12/19 338,135,759.30 $15.86 2014/12/23 332,293,606.30 $15.71 2014/12/24 330,569,731.90 $15.77 2014/12/26 330,138,768.70 $15.77 2014/12/30 329,564,166.70 $15.79 2015/01/07 328,457,815.00 $16.33 2015/01/09 327,979,086.00 $16.24 2015/01/15 325,011,041.00 $17.12 2015/01/23 319,314,728.30 $18.23 2015/02/02 320,463,377.90 $17.59 2015/02/13 320,327,936.40 $16.86 2015/02/18 324,299,395.10 $16.42 2015/02/23 325,734,790.10 $16.20 2015/03/02 326,117,526.90 $16.42 2015/03/03 325,992,632.10 $16.32 2015/03/05 327,332,121.30 $16.19 2015/03/23 325,323,311.10 $16.73 2015/03/31 321,975,628.10 $16.60 2015/04/02 321,839,925.30 $16.84 2015/04/10 324,230,705.30 $16.55 2015/04/21 326,334,428.70 $16.08 2015/04/27 327,673,175.90 $15.84 2015/05/05 325,530,371.80 $16.42 2015/05/12 322,662,497.80 $16.46 2015/05/13 323,618,377.80 $16.65 2015/05/15 319,125,799.00 $17.25 2015/05/20 317,930,986.50 $17.07 During the latest price uptrend they bought and during the latest price downtrend they sold. Abit the opposite of what central banks do on the gold market to sponsor bullion banks, to then fine the money back, as to nicely control inflation by inflicting gold speculators less ounces when buying then less fiat when selling.
The whole of everybody that buys/sells futures contracts do. The net result of their trading actions, as indicated by their total net position (+X on supply side, -X on demand side, talking about the X, being the current forward price component in the spot price. Since on a futures market, not commodity but dollars are the goal, so the contracts nearly never end in delivery of commodity, but dollars instead, that price part is bogus. It is possible to dissect down to certain trader classes responsible for certain price changes, but since entities are classified according to a current predominant activity and amount, that's just guessing, and in the end what does it matter whether it's Joe or John or Ben that uses the futures market? One thing however is a property that seems to rule: those active on the futures market tend to be the most informed and closest to the supply chain. So if they hedge on the futures market, it's to lock in a price and profit, at expense of those in the cash market, being the motif behind the invention of the futures market. For silver, gold and other commodities suited for storage of value and thus a big stockpiling part those are mostly people like some of us stackers, for other commodities, it is the end consumers, like for ex energy like crude oil, having paid like 5 years way too much. Silvers futures market component is exceptionally big compared to other commodities, a 60000 position is about 1/3 of words annual supply/demand, gold is half of that, and other classes commodities again lower. Last year I calculated crude oil, and it was like 1/8 or 1/10. And that's also the reason for the much bigger silver price fluctuations. Something to seriously take into account when stacking silver instead of fiat, and hence I follow this since I discovered it (for me post mortem though). This parameter seem to rule on the 3-4 months term. Probably the period over which those most informed and closest to the supply chain place their orders.
I would have thought that's pretty obvious now. "They" are the big banks. They got caught manipulating the FX markets but nobody is going to jail. The commodities markets are small potatoes in size in comparison "They" can make the price go wherever they like until they get caught - and even then they'll just pony up a fine and keep going The rest of us are collateral damage
Big banks or big whatever, need a (combined) counterparty that is equally big. A buyer/seller of an ounce needs a seller/buyer of an ounce. So a focus on "big banks" is a useless one. Why ignoring the (combined) counterparty? And no, "they" cannot make the price go wherever they want. If they drive the price up along futures, and their (combined) counterparty throws its silver for sale at that higher price, then they have to stop driving it up, and rather drive it down instead. So, that (combined) counterparty, your "we" still has something to say. My POV is the latter, and hence that "vacation money" theory, whether it's the case or not. Some talk about price manipulation but it's actually thought-manipulation, and it's what it is: an attempt, they have to convince, they cannot force people to buy or sell at a price, and if "we" don't then that "collateral damage" resides within their own club, whoever "they" is. That's just irrelevant.
That's true if you believe that there is a normal market with human buyers and sellers. HFT markets dominated by algos can be easily manipulated even by a single kid without collateral damages as demonstrated and explained by Nav Serao.
Your "algos" can have 1 or 1000 program lines, and be written by a dumbass or smartass, in the end, they still need counterparties making the wrong decisions. Algos don't "dominate" markets. Input > process > output decisions still need input from and output to. The speed of trading is nothing but an intermediary element, that is on its own useless without these ends. Manipulation needs convincing, that's where it can fail, regardless trading speed. Sometimes it helps to separate economical agents from results from what economical agents do. Trading speed, HFT, isn't an economical agent. It's nothing but a tool, much like a barber's scissors. Without people that want a haircut, the scissors is useless. And eventually, in the end, the barber too. The very same applies to manipulators on markets.
"Convincing" is exactly what spoofing/layering does. It is a manipulation practice and it is illegal in theory, and it's only possible with the speed that HFT grants. The futures markets are highly manipulated - even by a small fry if he gets it right -, imagine what big institution can do.
I am surprised that there is any silver left to buy. The HUGE amount of people i saw writing about "backing up the truck " and loading if silver went sub $20 was huge. Yet here we are sub $20 for sometime now and i can still buy it and i see truck sales have not increased dramatically either. I fear there were a lot of fantasists on these forums in 2011.
What you read from people, is not necessarily what they do themselves. That's how prices were driven upto $50 in 2011. It's not a coincidence that $32 to $50 took 3 months, and $50 to $32 took 5 days. Alot knew very well, they acted that way.
Maybe those type of "all-in" thinkers spent too much free-cash on silver at $30, $27, $23, $20 .... when it hit sub $20 they might have had too much invested at that point to be "backing up trucks" under $20.
Another update: 02/06/2015 57569 $16.70 > $13.30 26/05/2015 61502 $16.79 > $13.82 19/05/2015 62485 $17.40 > $13.71 12/05/2015 38103 $16.46 > $14.45 05/05/2015 37250 $16.42 > $14.44 28/04/2015 33999 $16.32 > $14.6 21/04/2015 33836 $16.08 > $14.38 14/04/2015 41980 $16.08 > $13.8 07/04/2015 50438 $16.86 > $13.97 31/03/2015 49861 $16.60 > $13.75 24/03/2015 39242 $16.97 > $14.88 17/03/2015 30210 $15.56 > $14.1 10/03/2015 33263 $15.78 > $14.1 03/03/2015 39712 $16.42 > $14.3 10/02/2015 53457 $16.80 > $13.7 <- alot sales and/or demand drops on the cash market around $17 03/02/2015 56199 $17.59 > $14.29 27/01/2015 61593 $17.87 > $14.18 20/01/2015 55641 $17.80 > $14.54 13/01/2015 46804 $17.00 > $14.37 06/01/2015 36951 $16.47 > $14.54 30/12/2014 38636 $16.25 > $14.20 23/12/2014 33732 $15.71 > $14.01 16/12/2014 33997 $15.87 > $14.16 <- alot sales and/or demand drops on the cash market around $16 09/12/2014 35357 $17.12 > $15.31 02/12/2014 26576 $16.31 > $15.13 25/11/2014 22043 $16.56 > $15.69 18/11/2014 18367 $16.08 > $15.48 It's now $13.3, based on a bottom - futures position of 10000. It's the lowest in the list. So at the moment $13 is a reasonable target to buy another chunk. IF the futures market entities are willing to dump their position, they always were so far in the 2011+ bear market, they didn't during 2009 - early 2011, but then ETFs were building up their stocks, a demand part that isn't there anymore.
And: 09/06/2015 35941 $16.13 > $14.277 The 10000 position - based bottom price jumped back up from $13.30 to $14.277, almost an "entire" dollar in 1 time. Last plusminus same-price occurrences: 17/03/2015 30210 $15.56 > $14.1 03/03/2015 39712 $16.42 > $14.3 27/01/2015 61593 $17.87 > $14.18 16/12/2014 33997 $15.87 > $14.16 So the last situation, 9 juni 2015, looks very similar to the one of 16 december 2014. 2 reports (2.5 weeks) ago, it predicted the lowest price so far, $13.3. Over this term, 6 months, it now looks (and again) like a sideways. $13 doesn't seem to be for next weeks. Instead, it's quite possible that the money for nothing club rushes back in once again. Over this 6 months term, the price component caused by the bogus (it nearly always ends in delivery of dollars instead of ounces) futures market demand made some quite big fast sweeps. A sub 10000 position is something that did not happen much over the last decades. There were clusters (a bunch of hits) in 1997 (Asian Contagion Financial Crisis), 2001 (9/11 Crisis) and 2013. http://finviz.com/futures_charts.ashx?t=SI&p=m1 Reminder: This is a part of the story. There are other parts. Sometimes they influence the price in a bigger degree than the 50000 x 5000 ounces position swings on the futures market, that dominated since 2011 / end of bull - start of bear market. If silver ETF shareholders would do a big dump for example. Or we stackers selling like lemmings. As long as we don't, the futures market entities (dealers etc) can hold up the price wherever they want, to make the few or many that do buy, pay more / receive less ounces for their dollars. Begin to end, the futures market serves as a way to lock in a cost / profit on a silver transaction on the cash market. If the futures position shows a jump, it's like a stock replenishment, and later on, while they're selling it, they lower the position with it. That's what we see, and also in the price, IF other elements stay a minor factor. $15 was 2008's average price. That was a crisis year, and the bottom position then was 20000. But, at that moment, the stocks silver (alike ETFs) were much lower. Despite the price being the same, the rest isn't. Expecting a runup (alike then to a $35 average in 2011), is ALOT less likely. At least in the same, real terms (without general price risings / inflation). So, today, a wait for a couple dollars lower, has a bigger chance on bingo. I give it a try, especially since my euro is a decade-weak sucker, as planned by the central planning over here. The currency based component within the silver price fluctuations, is not to ignore, and thus can matter different according to ones currency.
Edge Trader Plus Saturday 13 June 2015 http://edgetraderplus.com/market-commentaries/gold-and-silver-elite-nwo-checkmate-us-lacks-direction
