Well this just became a little more interesting.
So a market is rising and you can "very easily" surpress it by putting in some fake orders in the other direction. No sorry that wont work
I was not suggesting that spoofing could solely be used to suppress the price, but I was suggesting that spoofing would affect market psychology and contribute to directional moves.
The transcripts in the links you posted on page 2. Talk about prices being pushed up AND down
I can't find any chats referring to buying the market when the market moves down. Again, I've made no claim that spoofing could be used to suppress the market long-term, only that it could to contribute to directional moves and could be used WITH high volume trades to help push the price down.
Ive also outlined that supply and demand fundamentals of the physical metal is critical to the price suppression theory.
Yes buy a central bank. No investment bank has the resources. But the Central bank could not simultaneously buy a market and suppress it. Central Banks. For what reason would a Central Bank do this?
Well it's interesting that you say that. President Johnson said this when signing the 1965 coinage act. It shows that governmemt had every intent and means to suppress the price of silver.
"If anybody has any idea of hoarding our silver coins, let me say this. 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. There will be no profit in holding them out of circulation for the value of their silver content."
https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/remarks-the-signing-the-coinage-act
If you look at the silver surveys prior to 2014, "government sales" were used consistently to boost supply when physical demand exceeded annual supply.
https://www.silverinstitute.org/all-world-silver-surveys/
If banks had massive short positions in the silver market, they would have to buy large numbers of futures contracts to cover their position and buy the physical metal to deliver it or roll their positions, buying expiring contracts and selling the next one out.
Yet they do hold massive short positions and very few participants stand for delivery. They also have the physical metal to be able to place the orders they do.
That theory can be proven by looking at the behaviour of contracts approaching expiry. As Keith says in this article
https://monetary-metals.com/thoughtful-disagreement-with-ted-butler/ (for which I did the number crunching when I worked for Monetary Metals):
"We just need to look at the data, to determine which theory is true:
- If each basis skyrockets as the contract heads into expiry, then short speculators dominate the market. This is because short speculators must buy the futures contract, as they cannot make delivery.
- If each basis falls into the abyss, then it must be long speculators who predominate. This is because they must sell, not having the dollars to pay to take delivery of the silver."
To-date Ted Butler has not responded to this post, nor anyone else pushing the "banks suppress the price shorting futures" theory.
Thanks for providing the links. The proposal that banks are market arbitragers makes perfect sense. The article by Keith does a decent job at providing an alternate theory to the speculative position of the banks, yet it far from disproves the price suppression theory - It only addresses the speculative position of the banks.
I'm also not entirely convinced the data presented relating to trader behaviour and contract expiry proves anything other than: Those who are long the market are largely speculators who have no interest in standing for delivery or holding their contracts to expiry.
To-date Ted Butler has not responded to this post, nor anyone else pushing the "banks suppress the price shorting futures" theory.
That's incorrect. Chris Powell from GATA has addressed both Keith Weiner and Steve Saville, and raises some very interesting points.
http://www.gata.org/node/17707
"Weiner's technical analysis is no refutation of silver market manipulation, for even if JPMorganChase is just doing arbitrage in silver, a judgment on manipulation would require knowing for whom the investment house was doing the arbitrage....
....Anyone who wants to engage in honest argument about gold and silver market manipulation needs to address a few simple questions:
1) Are governments and central banks active in the monetary metals markets or not?
2) Are the documents asserting such activity genuine or forgeries?
3) If governments and central banks
are active in the monetary metals markets, is it just for fun or is it for policy purposes?
4) If such activity by governments and central banks
is for policy purposes, do those purposes involve the traditional objectives of defeating an independent world currency that competes with government currencies and interferes with government control of interest rates, objectives documented at length by GATA here?:
http://www.gata.org/node/14839
Of course if largely surreptitious intervention in the monetary metals markets by central banks and governments is ever acknowledged, technical analysis of those markets is meaningless, which may explain why technical analysts like Weiner and Saville avoid the crucial questions and just sneer at those who raise them."
@wrcmad Your comments about there always having to be a buyer and seller of every side of a contract conveniently disregards interest. I don't know why you feel it necessary to press on that point when it has absolutely no relevance to market movements.
