Do you think golds story is different? Replace SI with GC in the urls, compare and conclude. Or, if you like figures (some don't haha) just directly visit http://www.cftc.gov/dea/futures/other_lf.htm and http://www.cftc.gov/MarketReports/CommitmentsofTraders/HistoricalViewable/index.htm for older. Gold and silver and palladium and others are shown in a same page. As I said and explained: a focus on short positions by commercials is totally useless. A seller implies a buyer. Every short has a long against it. Usually, the large and small traders classes form the initiative-taking side, the commercials just follow. They have to. How on Earth can a short position continue to exist if its long counterparty disappeared, and thus no dollars to draw from or move to? And, what I say is as clear as mud as the ctfc site and other sources explain it. Apparently, their definition of 'mud' differs from yours. What I noticed is that some don't like to see certain things explained in detail. I think that vested interest in zero sum markets never likes. Then, your question (woohoo!). Where you're waiting for the answer (woohoo!) Well, answer it yourself, the links are right above here. GOLD - COMMODITY EXCHANGE INC. Disaggregated Commitments of Traders - Futures Only, April 21, 2015 Producer/Merchant/Processor/User Long: 21,523 Short: 75,074 > Net: -53,551 (minus, so net short) Disaggregated Commitments of Traders - Futures Only, April 14, 2015 Producer/Merchant/Processor/User Long: 23,642 Short: 83,946 > Net: -60,304 (minus, so net short) So question: "Commercials have been increasing short contracts against gold in the past week?". Answer: "Yes". The used terminology (commercials, noncommercials, etc) is btw outdated. Explanation here: http://www.tradingmarkets.com/emini...ment-of-traders-report-cot-part-1-800675.html I've a question too: do you like mud?
As usual Pirocco you give half the picture. Firstly and most importantly ignored by you in all your misinformation is the -8872 in the short commercial positions. That is a larger fall,than the -2119 under the longs for the so called commercials. For an ignorant sod like myself -8000 is a bigger fall than -2000. Also which group do the commercial banks fall into. From my understanding they are spread across several categories. Yes for every long there is a short the question is who holds the positions. When you have something that is clear unambiguous and can be interpreted by mere mortals please post it. Also you continually quote only some data missing out important and key points.
By the way where is Leon ???? That was the point of this post ??Now you have all seen the COT report what is Leon going to say ? I have only 1 word TROLL
I gave you the picture that was your focus. I said, many times on this forum, that a focus on short or long, on supply or demand, is a selection, that thus left out the rest of the picture. That's why I use the total net position, supply side and demand side equal and inverted, so applying to both, simply because a sold ounce requires a purchased one . And now you "blame" me that I gave half the picture. It started from your selection, so please check the mirror. I have for you the same word you used for the topics author: TROLL ! An honest discussion is one that addresses a same subject. You selected different. Bah?
Pirocco as usual a clear and succinct explanation. We now all understand........Sorry the number speak for themselves. By the way where is Leon ??
Ronnie 666, Read the detailed CFTC report here: http://www.cftc.gov/dea/futures/other_lf.htm Swap dealers are heavily shorting the gold; their short/long ratio is about 2:1
So Pirocco, to over simplify a bit, would it be safe to say that when the green trendline is below zero spot is likely to continue in a downward pattern and when the green trendline is above zero its likely that spot will be going up?
Leon am I missing something or can't you see the report 4 posts up. I dont need you to post it again ? To make it easy I highlighted the changes in the shorts and longs. So according to you as you originally posted - Let me remind you of your exact words "Latest weekly gold COT report showed Commercials have been increasing short contracts and reducing long contracts, both aggressively the banks piled into the shorts and reduced their longs. WRONG !!!! according to the COT report they didn't. I am done discussing this with you as any 5 year old can read and know that -8000 is a bigger fall than -2000. Work it out yourself.
Ronnie, you did miss the very important thing, SWAP DEALERS! They're the market-makers, i.e. banks. You elderly need a magnifying glass
Not so fast Leon..... As I said several posts ago banks can fall into several categories - this is the definition of traders from the cot. Content of the Disaggregated Commitments of Traders Report Producer/Merchant/Processor/User A "producer/merchant/processor/user" is an entity that predominantly engages in the production, processing, packing or handling of a physical commodity and uses the futures markets to manage or hedge risks associated with those activities. Swap Dealer A "swap dealer" is an entity that deals primarily in swaps for a commodity and uses the futures markets to manage or hedge the risk associated with those swaps transactions. The swap dealer's counter parties may be speculative traders, like hedge funds. Money Manager A "money manager," for the purpose of this report, is a registered commodity trading advisor (CTA); a registered commodity pool operator (CPO); or an unregistered fund identified by CFTC. These traders are engaged in managing and conducting organized futures trading on behalf of clients.
Ronnie, you seriously need to do some homework here. Plot Swap dealers' position vs gold price first, then do the same for money manager. Do this in a two year time frame; and show us what you got. Gee, am I in a kinder garden.
Leon you are the last person on the SS forum to advise on doing homework. You constantly blurt out the same drivel over and over and over again in multiple posts without any substance. Keep up these great posts we are all learning how smart you are .......not.
Leon this post is getting a bit long in the tooth why don't you write a new post - prices are falling. You can add that to your last 10 posts - prices are falling ......just so us old folks won't miss your great insight into the workings of the financial markets. You know us old guys can miss stuff, if you don't post the same thing over and over and over again.
I was just going through old COT reports and came across this report from the COT 2011 http://www.gotgoldreport.com/2011/0...ks-cover-shorts-swap-dealers-hammer-gold.html This is the area of interest underlined) From the disaggregated COT data, it is pretty clear who was behind this week's weakness in the gold bullion market, and it wasn't the big U.S. reporting banks this time. Indeed, as spot or cash market gold was moving 1% lower for the week (Tuesday to Tuesday), the category of COMEX commercial traders the CFTC classes as Producer/Merchant/Processor/Users (PMs); the category of traders that we believe includes the largest U.S. bullion banks, covered or offset 16,173 contracts of their existing net short positioning, moving from 149,434 to 133,261 lots net short. So Leon according to the COT themselves the Bullion banks are represented mostly on the category of Producer/Merchant/Processor/Users not in the swap dealers as you maintain..... So Leon I did my homework and found you wanting. Yes as Oz puts it a troll !
Ronnie, you did NOT do your own homework; instead, you just copied somebody else's. And COT at 2011? why don't you copy someone recent homework, ? Which is worse in humanity, stupidity or laziness?
You are joking aren't you - the Cot has changed since 2011....lol I read through about 6 months of report to find this reference. Laziness hahaha Leon you should start with someone else as you have no idea who you are dealing with. No one takes you seriously so find another forum to troll
As your argument is blown out of the water you then attack the messenger. You impart no knowledge only vitriol. When your lack of understanding is shown to others, you attack to cover and distract. You have not answered a simple question, you give no explanation except to call me stupid and lazy. Leon you are done. No one cares what you say or what you post. You actions have shown who you are. If you believe that others on this forum who know me, think I am stupid or lazy then you seriously underestimate them.
