Think about it, you make people believe that the prices are low because of this fix and once the fix is gone.. it's victory for us!! LOL the banker's make laws, they make the rules, it is easier to destory a worthless fix and make people believe that it was the problem then keep running the fix and getting fines and complaints from every silver stacker.. Anyone can make a "fix" go and buy silver for 50 dollars an ounce, say you will sell your silver for 50 dollars and I promise you, no one will listen to the london fix.. obviously you need a deep pocket for this but if everyone did this and if everyone went to there local silver store and asked them if they would raise the price then we could all be going to the moon together! Good video, watch. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s9Pcf9SHy-Y
Like it is now, the price 'fixers' are holding up the price. The big hedge indicates this. The forward price component in the spot price is big, and since futures contracts nearly never end in delivery (purpose is compensating for price changes, not buying silver as such), that forward price component goes as easy as it came. I think this strategy would make things even worser. If you want to make life of manipulators / the milking club harder, taking care of which price you pay, gives them more problems lol.
To be fair, the London fix is not transparent and will be improved but most posts on this topic miss the point. The fix is more a snapshot based on the current spotmarket prices where parties agree to buy and sell orders they have to fill. Eg you are overseas and have the local currency but want to trade back to your currency as you are going home while you friend has none and need local money because they have just arrived in the country. You both look at the current rates provided by money changers and agree on a rate close to this avoiding the money changers buy and sell spread. I feel this is a simplified but accurate representation except for in the London fix the parties involved are taking orders on behalf of their clients rather than for themselves. The fix mechanism is not manipulative in the larger scene of spot prices and it's removal will not in itself effect market prices. Ben
Let's maybe illustrate this other perspective of manipulation along this analogy: An auction site, something for sale. 4 people place bids. The seller receives the highest bid Y. The highest bidder receives what was for sale. versus An auction site, something for sale. 4 people phone eachother and agree to not bid more than Y-X. The seller receives X. The 4 people receive what was for sale, and divide Y-X between eachother. Which "transparency" can revert situation 2 to situation 1? Cut the phone lines?
And btw, that analogy can be reversed too, being the 4 people selling something, and agree to not ask less than Y+X from the buyer(s). Two directions.
Ok I understand the analogy but with the fix there are no third party receiving bids. The four parties are all net buyers or sellers. The fix they use is very close to the market spot rate (say comex kitco or other spot mechanism). True, they can act against their customers interests or spike the price to win a side bet but the parties involved in the fix price trade will match their buy or sell trade with an opposing one unless speculating. Eg HSBC takes order to sell 50000 oz to a smaller dealer. HSBC buys at the fix, sells to the dealer and take a commission. The dealer buys on the fix and either sells to clients on fix or manages their exposure with an over the counter trade or otherwise.
A spot price fix is not a problem. Without a fix, things would get very ugly and many people would get hurt....far more than today I believe. What I think might be a problem is that the fix is not transparent enough perhaps. Maybe the entire conversations to settle the fix ought to be recorded and made public after the fix. Your thoughts.... .
The third party from the analogy are those customers. The price fixers can do opposing trades, and can not do opposing trades. It's just their choice. As you say yourself along that 'unless'. Speculation starts with risk. Speculation stops with removal of risk (partly or entirely). Price agreements do exactly that. It's their very reason. Remember, this is not about a price agreement between a buyer and a seller. It's a price agreement between a group of buyers (sellers) to inflict a counterparty a lower (higher) price. The bigger that group is, in terms of ounces, the more they can control that price. It's not price fixing as such that is a problem. I didn't say that, mmissinglink. Price fixing is just an agreement about a price, between a buyer and a seller, a certain time span before the trade. Without the ability to fix a price, financial planning would be much harder. Price fixing is being sure of the price to pay, or to receive. In my auction site analogy, the moment that the seller agrees with a bid, he essentially fixes the price for himself and for his bidder. Price fixing is normal. The subject here, is NOT this price agreement. It's the eventual price agreement between the bidders. To inflict the seller a lower price (or everything reversed, a higher price to pay). In this silver price fixing, this group of big bullion banks/dealers, can, and does have, a common interest. Their profit is based on what end-users / customers pay or get paid. If this group receives reports that end-users / customers want to sell alot silver back to dealers, then they can agree an 'extra' lower price. If this group receives reports that end-users / customers want to buy alot silver from dealers, then they can agree an 'extra' higher price. That 'extra', is the Y from my analogy. Now, what is, or what should be, the goal of a more open / transparant price fixing: giving anyone, including those end-customers, insight in the negotiation, in the price agreement / fixing. Just like they would be present in the same room, and see and hear the negotiation / all the talk. Byebye the private phone lines from my analogy. Because that 'private' is exactly where the problem starts. If the seller from my analogy, that would get inflicted the Y lower price, would be able to spy upon the phone lines of his bidders, and hear it, he would ofcourse refuse that highest bid they agreed. I don't think this is hard? That's why I used the analogy, to make things clear.
I agree totally here, this should be absolutely transparent, including volumes that are traded. I really hope this is what the replacement mechanism will achieve. Yes the third party customers are the ones who stand to lose when there is unscrupulous behaviour . However I do not believe removal of this mechanism will free metal prices to rise unfettered. Price suppression can still occur as long there is the ability to short or to supply large volumes of metal into the market.
I don't think anyone here said that metal prices would rise 'unfettered'. What I think is possible is that the price could be more stable, more trust, more money brought in, and a tilting up of the price trend relative to the fiatcurrencies. 'naked' (I assume that's what you mean here since short/long is just a hedging method essentially to a market with lotsa temp stockpilers) short ability has also a very temporary effect, and isn't the problem either. Same for large amounts (I don't use the term volume because it's often confused with trading volume) metal. It doesnt matter whether large or small. There is no problem with big players on a market, as long as they became big due to their customers being happy about their product and price. So no legal privileges / sponsoring / selective legal eye closed / etc. The problem is that some entities do have received such benefits. Buddies that keep an eye closed. Buddies that allow them but not others, to do/not do something. Alike 'exempted from reporting duties'. The only real solution to this locked door price fixing, is transparency. In this matter, transparency is publishing all the bids. Just like on an auction site. No real name tags needed, just tags that make clear for ex that bids 1 and 3 were from bidder A. In the end, that is what they know about us small fish that order at a dealer which in turn orders at a wholeseller which in turn orders at a bullion bank. It all comes together there, so they know all we do, yet we don't know a thing about what they do. And since those banks have huge legal privileges, we should. Because we are forced to pay State, that decides what legal is, and who gets punished, among many other things. Look at those dark pool markets. They exist because allowed by State. Even States own institutionals are 'king' there. And that's why I don't believe a penny that this new system will be really more transparent. Some scandals leaked out, and State agencies 'punishments' and 'measures' are just public soap, so that new system can only be soap too.
It depends on how you mean that "like". I like both for comical reasons. I like none because some people out there actually act what is suggested. The only positive thing I see is that, since price was "frantically sold down" from $50 to $20, these last will suffer LESS than then. Those doctors don't care, all they care is their sales figures, and if that needs constructing and spreading scam stories everyday, no problem. Customers good for their money and screw them for the rest. So I say this:
:lol: read the title again. there is no fix now, we get fixed already, price tank again what a bigger bargain awaiting ahead of us all SS
I see only one question: alot ounces were sold / bought less during the uptrend of past months. Will they buy back in / buy more again when the futures positions, that prevented these extra sales/lower purchases from driving the price down, get dumped (and they surely will since 99% of futures contracts do not end in delivery, this just isn't the purpose of a futures market) again? Back during 2009-early 2011, there was alot buying (ETFs building their stocks, coin sales increasing big time), and this made these hedgers to not dump their positions. What is it now? It's rather the opposite. ETF's ceased to add. Are coin sales still on the level of last couple years? I think US Mints last months sales were the poorest month since. It already wondered me that the positions were mostly held so far. Maybe they know something we don't, just like they clearly knew in 2009, where the position also shot up like a rocket. Last increase had a rate I never measured before. The chance is there, that they saw an opportunity for a longer term big frontrun. Remember just before the vertical position (and price) launch, the negativity here was so big that I created a topic to ask the doomguys that saw no future to just leave for the places/markets where they did see a future. See, that is how the professional guys (and those on futures markets are professionals), operate: they try to dump during positivity peaks, and buy during negativity peaks. Because these peaks allow them to withdraw/insert much more positions per price dollar.
Ladies and Gentleman, Londox fix now WAS a joke. We can now proceed on the business of the day. Coffee, milk and cookies. [ T H R E A D C L O S E D]
