PDA

View Full Version : FED Manipulating the Market


twindragons11
09-23-2010, 02:16 AM
How are they doing this?? Both gold and silver market. Im just curious.

thanks

Got Goldies
09-23-2010, 02:40 AM
The rumor at the huffington post is they are selling 100 times more Silver than they got in possession. The people who purchases this stuff never intend to take delivery and so nobody misses any inventory.

About AG
09-23-2010, 06:52 AM
The rumor at the huffington post ...

Gotta love them rumors!

krugger2
09-23-2010, 06:57 AM
I heard from my friends sister's boyfriend, that it's true.

jeffersonian
09-23-2010, 11:15 AM
Gotta love them rumors!


Really, and your an expert on this I assume? Sorry, no rumors. There has been plenty of talk and orgainizations like GATA and whistleblowers that have come forward. Do your homework before you go off rambling about something you no nothing about.

J.P Morgan holds majority of short positions. List goes on and on. I'm not sure if your comment was sarcastic or nice, but it sure seemed sarcastic. Correct me if I'm wrong.

ajwgator
09-23-2010, 11:23 AM
Really, and your an expert on this I assume? Sorry, no rumors. .

Hey there, lighten up.... we are all in this together and friends to boot....

RFID trumps
09-23-2010, 11:37 AM
I'm still wondering about that $1 Trillion sent to the PIIGS??? That's a lot of instant money! Same amount that was lost days before in a flash crash. $1Trillion in the push of a button and the velocity of it had to have a ripple effect in QE and inflation where? How much has the Iraq war and occupation cost up to this point? Taking money from the taxpayers to shore up banks overseas seems funny enough. As for the 100:1, paying people off in cash equivalents is an option they have I think. So paying people off with a dollar declining as well as QE slapping it down from time to time. It seems to me whoever bought in with a strong dollar and are forced or willing to accept more worthless dollars in settlement is counter intuitive in their thinking. When enough people ask for the physical and the demand side is outstripping the supply side, when the last guy in line is told, sorry, none to be had but there is a fresh supply of paper coming in....

About AG
09-23-2010, 01:46 PM
Really, and your an expert on this I assume? Sorry, no rumors. There has been plenty of talk and orgainizations like GATA and whistleblowers that have come forward. Do your homework before you go off rambling about something you no nothing about.

I guess you don't know much about the homework I do -- I'm just about the only one who understands the whole "100:1" figure that has been incorrectly spreading like wildfire since March, 2010.

I haven't heard anyone -- except GG -- suggest that the Fed has silver on hand, and that they are selling 100x what they have.

What I have heard is that some people believe that the Fed is somehow involved in (allowing, authorizing, or controlling JPM's silver/gold positions). But that is a very different story.

FYI, the 100:1 figure everyone quotes was really "100s:1", the ounces of paper TRADED for every ounce of physical traded. It was not "100:1", and it is something we knew before the CFTC meeting. The unexpected outcome of the CFTC meeting was the unallocated accounts are not close to fully backed with metal (that few people knew or talked about before the CFTC meeting) -- but that's a ratio that varies a lot from company to company, anywhere from perhaps 20:1 to 1:1.

J.P Morgan holds majority of short positions. List goes on and on. I'm not sure if your comment was sarcastic or nice, but it sure seemed sarcastic. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Yes, it was intended to be sarcastic. I'm tired of repeating, re-repeating, and re-re-repeating the whole deal about "100:1".

jeffersonian
09-23-2010, 02:26 PM
FYI, the 100:1 figure everyone quotes was really "100s:1", the ounces of paper TRADED for every ounce of physical traded. It was not "100:1", and it is something we knew before the CFTC meeting. The unexpected outcome of the CFTC meeting was the unallocated accounts are not close to fully backed with metal (that few people knew or talked about before the CFTC meeting) -- but that's a ratio that varies a lot from company to company, anywhere from perhaps 20:1 to 1:1.


So I'm uncertain of what your trying to say? Your saying it's 100's:1 ratio instead of 100:1, or are you trying to say that it's opposite? If you feel like you repeat this over and over, then direct me to the thread or link which you are talking about. I'm just not quite sure what your trying to say here.

I've heard 100:1 and that was my believe from what came out of the CFTC meeting. I watched parts of the interviews that were recorded, and the stories to follow.

gunDriller
09-23-2010, 03:22 PM
How are they doing this?? Both gold and silver market. Im just curious.

thanks

the short answer is, they are selling lots of paper silver & gold which represents a much smaller amount of physical silver & gold.

long answer ... might take 6 months to partially understand it.

for example, read Harvey Organ & look especially at his blog in times of historical interest. e.g. Andrew Maguire in his interview with King World News talked about his communications to the CFTC about market manipulation. Harvey then comments about Maguire's description of market manipulation (large naked short positions).

the CFTC hearing was March 25, 2010.

the specific manipulation mentioned by Maguire - you already watched it if you bought silver in Feb. 2010, when it was about $15.

so guys like Harvey & Ted Butler comment on the market & interpret the Commitment of Traders report -
http://www.cftc.gov/dea/options/other_lof.htm

/\ CoT report for metals, through September 14.

the market is complicated & the market manipulation is complicated too.

it also helps to look at historical prices and to ask what was happening at market lows (March 2009, April 2008, Feb. 2010, 2010 after March 25 hearings).
http://www.kitco.com/charts/historicalsilver.html
http://www.kitco.com/charts/historicalgold.html

About AG
09-23-2010, 03:23 PM
So I'm uncertain of what your trying to say? Your saying it's 100's:1 ratio instead of 100:1, or are you trying to say that it's opposite?

I'm saying a few things.

First, that there is no "100:1" ratio (or if so, someone is making it up in this thread). The "100:1" that has been repeated ad nauseum since the CFTC meeting in March is almost always taken out of context.

Second, the ratio of paper TRADED to physical traded is almost certainly 100s:1.

Third, the ratio of paper metal in unallocated accounts to physical metal (on average) is nowhere near 100:1 (some unallocated accounts, such as those at Kitco and the Perth Mint, claim to be 100% backed with metal).


I've heard 100:1 and that was my believe from what came out of the CFTC meeting. I watched parts of the interviews that were recorded, and the stories to follow.

Looking at a transcript, Mr. Christian said "Precious metals are financial assets like currencies, T-bills, and T-bonds; they trade in the multiples of a hundred times the underlying physical." Note that he did not say "a hundred times", it was "multiples of a hundred times" (I.E. 100s:1).

Also, he is referring to how much is traded, and says nothing about unallocated accounts there. For unallocated accounts, the best information we have is again from Mr. Christian, from a report in 2000, where he claims some unallocated accounts use 5:1 to 10:1, with the highest he was aware of at 40:1 (and a defunct bank used 100:1).

For more details, http://www.lmgtfy.com/?q=site%3Akitcomm.com+%22100%3A1%22+%22about+ag%22 .

Got Goldies
09-23-2010, 03:26 PM
Its almost like what the banks did with Silver 100 years ago?

They printed Silver certificate for (100 million oz) but only had 10 million oz of depositor Silver in the vault. This is an age old game called musical chairs.

Concerned
09-23-2010, 03:35 PM
I'm still wondering about that $1 Trillion sent to the PIIGS??? That's a lot of instant money!

Correction: Sent to the banksters who lent money to the PIGGs :mad:

DagnyStalker
09-23-2010, 03:41 PM
About AG -- Correct me if I'm wrong here.

You are trying to say the VOLUME of silver traded daily is much less (hundredSSS) of times less, then the actual metal that is held.

E.g. I am a market maker. I have 100 ASEs... I make 100 ASE certificates (please notice that that is a 1:1 ratio), and start 'exchanging' them. Someone likes my ASE certs, and buys all 100 of them on the first day. But then quickly has buyers remorse, and sells 50 of them to someone else, that day. Then, silver goes down, and ALL of those certs get sold, in a panic, to one person that has gone bottom fishing.

The daily volume on my exchange is now 250 trades, of the 100 ASE certs I have created. 2.5 times the silver backing the certs. 1 cert to 2.5 TRADES. There is still 1 cert per PHYSICAL ASE though.

Not sure if that is clear, or correct. Just tryin' to help AAG out, like he does for us... all the time :)

*please note:: I am NOT saying that the LBMA & COMEX are not shady. I made know qualitative judgment here... Just trying to clear up what I believe was ment by the CFTC quote that is all over, as I understand it from the CFTC hearing, AND AAG's explanation.

--Max

Got Goldies
09-23-2010, 04:52 PM
This how they get away with it.

They have 10 speculators for every 1 legitimate buyers at the Comex. Logic dictates you only need 1 oz per contract.

JoeTiger
09-23-2010, 05:21 PM
About AG -- Correct me if I'm wrong here.

You are trying to say the VOLUME of silver traded daily is much less (hundredSSS) of times less, then the actual metal that is held.

E.g. I am a market maker. I have 100 ASEs... I make 100 ASE certificates (please notice that that is a 1:1 ratio), and start 'exchanging' them. Someone likes my ASE certs, and buys all 100 of them on the first day. But then quickly has buyers remorse, and sells 50 of them to someone else, that day. Then, silver goes down, and ALL of those certs get sold, in a panic, to one person that has gone bottom fishing.

The daily volume on my exchange is now 250 trades, of the 100 ASE certs I have created. 2.5 times the silver backing the certs. 1 cert to 2.5 TRADES. There is still 1 cert per PHYSICAL ASE though.



I believe it has more to do with the fractional-reserve banking we see with cash.

In that system, I deposit $100 with my bank. I still "own" the $100, but the bank now holds it. The bank takes a portion of that $100 (say, $90) and loans it out to someone else. The second person takes this $90 and deposits it with their bank--who then loans out another portion to someone else (who makes a deposit, and so on). This method creates multiples of the original $100 I deposited.

If my understanding is accurate, the bullion banks do something similar. They receive $100 in bullion from a depositor. The depositor "owns" the metal, but the bank holds it as an asset. From there, they can sell various derivatives on the open market. These sold derivatives are also counted as assets by the new owners. These new assets are then used (again) as the basis for creating yet more derivatives--which are then sold on the open market. This process can repeat over and over until the total paper being traded is hundreds of times larger than the actual metal being traded.

AboutAg -- Please keep me honest if I missed the mark on this. I'm still trying to learn the dynamics myself . . .