loi Dodd Franck/CFTC/ limitations de positions

Il a l'air d'y croire...

Perso, je suis de moins en moins impressionnable en la matière, après, il faut l'admettre, m'être plusieurs fois laissé convaincre pour, le plus souvent, sinon chaque fois, retomber plus bas dans la confiance que m'inspirent toutes ces autorités corrompues par les Cabalas associates.

Victoire ! Miracle ! Triomphe ! Justice !


Enfin, la CFTC tire les conséquences de la manipulation odieuse et avérée des marchés en décidant...

... de ne rien changer.



Chris Martenson - "JP Morgan Wins: CFTC Position Limits
Do Not Apply (To Them)"

Speaking of changing the rules...

Gold and silver are now down hard over the past two
days, and the reason may have something to do with the
fact that the CFTC utterly caved to JPM in their
long-awaited decision on position limits in a 4-1 vote.

(article mailé par le Metropole à ses adhérents).


Allez, encore un ou deux petits tours de manège avant de fermer.

Salut Pascal, il semble que cette analyse date de juillet dernier.. voir l'article complet

Citation :

On July 21, 2010, the Congress passed the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. Among other things, the Dodd-Frank Act amended the Commodity Exchange Act to:

• Require the Commission, as appropriate, to limit the amount of positions, other than bona fide hedge positions, that may be held by any person with respect to commodity futures and option contracts in exempt and agricultural commodities traded on or subject to the rules of a designated contract market (DCM).
  
• Require the Commission to establish position limits, including aggregate position limits, for swaps that are economically equivalent to DCM contracts in exempt and agricultural commodities (collectively, economically equivalent swaps). Such limits must be imposed simultaneously with limits on DCM contracts.
  

http://www.zerohedge.com/article/guest-post-jp-morgan-wins-cftc-position-limits-do-not-apply-them

selon les derniers articles parus sur le site du Gata, les choses sont toujours en pourparlers entre Bart Chilton, qui veut faire avancer les choses, et les autres ..

Possible Marie, auquel cas tu peux effacer mon post qui n'a effectivement plus lieu d'être, mais ce n'est pas exactement ce qu'écrit ZH qui se réfère au "background" de l'affaire pour citer la date du 21 juillet dernier. Il est vrai qu'il n'y a pas de date précise dans le mail reçu hier du Métropole qui présentait l'info comme une nouvelle.

A vérifier, tout de même.

est tu certain qu'il s'agissait d'un mail du métropole?
j'ai rien reçu de tel, personnellement ..

je relis l'article .. et tout les commentaires st relatifs à ça ..
d'ailleurs, tu vois bien en lisant la file dédiée à Bart Chilton .. que les négociations / tractations sont toujours en cours depuis cette date ..

https://000999.forumactif.com/t11828-bart-chilton-s-enerve-plaintes-contre-jpm-et-hsbc-en-class-action

Oui Marie, reçu hier "Dim 16 janvier 2011, 15h 39min 56s".

Il a peut-être mis six mois pour arriver mais bon...et il fait référence à la "kiki table" du Métropole Café (intraduisible pour des raisons évidentes).

Comme on ne me demande pas de cliquer sur un lien et de communiquer mes coordonnées bancaire, ou qu'on ne me propose pas de partager 50.000.000$ sur un compte bancaire détenu à Londres par l'héritier improbable d'un ressortissant d'un pays plus ou moins exotique, je pense qu'il s'agit d'un authentique mail du Métropole, mais bon, de nos jours, il faut s'attendre à tout.

marie a écrit:

est tu certain qu'il s'agissait d'un mail du métropole?
j'ai rien reçu de tel, personnellement ..

je relis l'article .. et tout les commentaires st relatifs à ça ..
d'ailleurs, tu vois bien en lisant la file dédiée à Bart Chilton .. que les négociations / tractations sont toujours en cours depuis cette date ..

https://000999.forumactif.com/t11828-bart-chilton-s-enerve-plaintes-contre-jpm-et-hsbc-en-class-action

tu as raison,Pascal, toutes mes excuses ..
je viens d'aller sur Kiki table et je découvre dans cet article, la dernière déclaration de Bart Chilton .. datant du 13 janvier dernier, très alambiquée..où il déclare en final, que ni lui, ni les 8 sénateurs qui lui ont écrit.. ne vont renoncer à mettre en place ces limitations de position ... en dépit de l'obstruction visible de la commission ..

Statement of Commissioner Bart Chilton at the 9th CFTC Public Meeting on Rulemaking under the Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act


January 13, 2011
As regulators, I think we have one key mission. It is embodied in the Commodity Exchange Act. We have a singularity of purpose to ensure efficient and effective markets and to prevent and deter fraud, abuse and manipulation. Quite frankly, I think we can do better. We can because the new Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act requires that we develop what many of us consider to be some fairly precious parameters.
Today, I am hopeful we will move forward to propose a position limits rule, a most precious parameter that we should have proposed much earlier in a way that would have implemented the provision as Congress intended. That's not happening.
Yesterday, eight U. S. Senators told us to move forward on limits. That follows two other senatorial letters from last month.
This is a Commission of five individuals, a group of people who make these decisions. That pretty much ensures no individual will get their way all the time. I'm certainly not getting my way on position limits, nor are the Senators who wrote to us.
I am thankful that we will have position points in place as a kind of glide path to position limits. As I've said repeatedly, points are not limits. However, they will help us learn more and do better as we go forward in further developing important—and precious— parameters.



Last Updated: January 13, 2011




http://www.cftc.gov/PressRoom/SpeechesTestimony/chiltonstatement011311.html

c'est donc en effet un victoire.. provisoire pour JPM .. qu'il a immédiatement mis à profit avec le raid de ces derniers jours ..
ceci étant dit .. le marché l'aura quand même au tournant .. et il sera éventuellement pris au piège de ses soit disant hedge .. car il ne devrait pas pouvoir proposer en lieu et place de ses livraisons, un cash settlement ( cad payer en $ et au prix fort- majoré- son obligation contractuelle )..
ce qui montrerait à l'envie ( et à la CFTC) qu'il n'a aucune longue position en contrepartie de ses shorts

intégralité de l'article paru sur kikitable est en lecture libre chez zero hedge

http://www.zerohedge.com/article/guest-post-jp-morgan-wins-cftc-position-limits-do-not-apply-them

Harvey Organ, s'énerve et à juste titre à son tour.. contre les 4 régulateurs ( sur 5 , le 5eme étant Bart Chilton, seul contre les 4 autres.. dont le plus "gradé G.Gensler ex GS ) de la CFTC

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_Gensler


From: harveyorgan@rogers.com
To: GGensler@cftc.gov, somalia@cftc.gov, MDunn@cftc.gov, JSommers@cftc.gov
Subject: Position limits and elimination of exemptions. Date: 1/20/2011 9:40:56 P.M.
I am rather disappointed that you have allowed the major banking short interests to continue with their fraudulent and manipulative practices in the precious metals. You have allowed another 60 days of massive shorting by the bankers to allow for yet another public input. The public for the past 2 1/2 years have bombarded you with millions of emails with the hope that you will see the light and put position limits on silver and eliminate the phony exemptions. Mr O'Malia was the lone dissenter on your latest vote voicing his concern that the swap books on JPMorgan once opened would be a shock and that the CFTC would not know how to handle the situation. It has been my contention all along that the major short, is in reality the Chinese government who lent their hoard of silver in support of the suppression of gold. It would be difficult to suppress gold while allowing silver to advance in price. The gold was supplied by central authorities. The USA ran out of silver in 2003 and in order to receive most favoured nation status, the Chinese have done a swap with the USA with a date certain to re-swap. It is quite conceivable that the Chinese have asked for their silver back but were refused as global supplies for silver are vanishing.
Yesterday, the USA Mint announced a record 4.6 million oz of silver eagles sold in the first 3 week period of January which is a record. The USA produces 40 million oz from their mines so for the first time, the USA must import silver from the rest of the world to satisfy the mint's requirements.
The comex is witnessing massive movements of silver into and out of registered vaults signifying turmoil as this silver is putting out fires in other jurisdictions. In gold we are witnessing the opposite. How on earth is gold being settled?
What is even more troubling to me is this:
How could you even discuss position limits and the elimination of exemptions without first telling us what happened in July 2008 which caused you to bring in the enforcement division of the CFTC? Mr Chilton has decided to act unilaterally in proclaiming one trader, JPMorgan, with fraud, and from his statement to the press, major class action law suits have been initiated and filed.
It is frustrating to many of us who witness time and time again massive un-backed paper driving the commodity price of silver and gold down like today. I guess the CFTC's motto that the futures market is a price discovery mechanism is out the window. Mr Dunn has stated that he needs more manpower to try and catch manipulation. Yet when a whistle blower is presented to you and this person describes in detail the accounting of how the crime has been committed in the past and how it will happen in the future and yet you refuse to listen to this gentleman.
Mr Sprott of Sprott Asset Management is having a tough time trying to find any physical silver for his silver fund and yet the bankers massive sell huge amounts of paper silver. The SLV also has liquidated massive amounts of "paper silver". The real stuff is difficult to find in quantity.
Sooner or later, this fraud will end and I guess there is going to be a lot of explaining to do.
I urge you to do the right thing and order JPMorgan and friends to stop this massive fraud and manipulation immediately.
Harvey Organ.

http://www.roadtoroota.com/public/504.cfm


CFTC Delays 60-Day Notification To Assist Manipulators


Bix Weir




OPEN LETTER TO THE CFTCJanuary 25, 2011Commodities Futures Trading Commission3 Lafayette Center1155 21st St. NW Washington, DC 50581Re: CFTC Delays 60-Day Notification To Assist ManipulatorsCommissioners:On
January 13, 2011 the CFTC held a hearing on the Implementation of
Position Limits for the Dodd-Frank Act that was mandated by the US
Congress to be implemented on January 17, 2011. This meeting was a
continuation of the same meeting held in December on the same topic. As
of today, January 25, 2011, Position Limits have NOT been implemented
and thus the CFTC is currently in violation of the laws of the United
States Congress. The reasoning behind the current delay? "There must be a
60 day notice period"...SO WHERE IS IT? WHERE IS THE 60 DAY
NOTIFICATION ANNOUNCEMENT? WHY WON'T YOU START THE CLOCK TICKING EVEN
THOUGH YOU ARE IN VIOLATION OF THE LAW?Are you stalling to
let the GIGANTIC silver short escape from their manipulative short
position because THAT'S WHAT THEY ARE DOING WITH EVERY SLAM! Just look
at your own Bank Participation Reports:Here's the US Bank Silver short contracts for the last 2 months:11/2/10 = 30,76012/7/10 = 26,3321/4/11 = 22,658Why
can't you see manipulation when it is directly in front of your face.
Do you plan to let them make up more false reasons for the public to run
away from silver so they can fully cover up their crime?Silver Investors: Pick Your Poisonhttp://www.roadtoroota.com/public/498.cfmTruthfully, Silver Investors have been dealing with this for so long we've grown numb to it all and that is very sad. The
January 13th meeting SHOULD have been the beginning of the 60 day
notification period that would have ENDED on March 14, 2011. Please
advise the public as to WHY this notification has not been posted and
WHY there is no comment section on your website even though rule
proposals held later ARE POSTED:http://comments.cftc.gov/PublicComments/ReleasesWithComments.aspxNow,
I'd like to address a very remarkable statement that was made at the
beginning of this meeting that was as SHOCKING as anything I have heard
from an official at the CFTC. The Statement was made by Commissioner
Mike Dunn and it was regarding what he deemed to be false accusations by
the press on what "the problem" is. Here is a link to the hearing and
his quote is at the very beginning after being presented with an plaque
for 25 years of service.http://www.capitolconnection.net/capcon/cftc/011311/wmarchive.htm"It
is too often in the press today that folks have said 'the Government is
the enemy or is the problem' it then is shifted not from the Government
but to the men and women who work day to day in Government as a
problem...AND THAT'S JUST SIMPLY NOT TRUE."Excuse me Mr.
Dunn but Silver Investors are not the kind of people to shift blame just
to find someone to fault for our misfortunes. If we "get it wrong" and
have made a poor investment choice because of faulty analysis or an
overzealous "bubble mentality" we are more than willing to take our
licks in the free market.BUT when YOU CIVIL SERVANTS sit on your
hands and stand by as the obvious manipulations take place THAT'S WHERE
WE DRAW THE LINE! Mr. Dunn we have something very important to say to
you and you'd better listen this time...YOU, AS AN EMPLOYEE OF THE CFTC WORKING DAY TO DAY, ARE THE PROBLEM!You
are EVERYTHING bad about our once great nation and WE will not rest
until justice is served. Both for the perpetrators who pull off the
market rigging on a day to day basis AS WELL AS the massively
incompetent or massively corrupt civil servants. For over 10
years silver investors have been yelling and screaming at the CFTC to do
their job and stop the obvious manipulation in the COMEX silver market.
We have supplied you with irrefutable evidence from your own data, the
names of the perpetrators, the timing of their manipulative actions and
EVEN A BONAFIDE WHISTLBLOWER THAT HELD YOUR HAND DURING ANOTHER
MANIPULATION but STILL you allow the daily manipulation of the COMEX
silver market!Mr. Dunn, one of your OWN JUDGES blew the whistle
on the corrupt CFTC in his resignation letter. This PROVES we have been
correct for the past 20 years that the COMEX has been RIGGED!

baroud d'honneur de Butler et Bix Weir pour imposer une limitation à 1500 contrats silver, sans compter l'exception injustifiée des bullions banks

modéle de courrier à envoyer à la CFTC

http://www.roadtoroota.com/public/532.cfm

marie a écrit:

baroud d'honneur de Butler et Bix Weir pour imposer une limitation à 1500 contrats silver, sans compter l'exception injustifiée des bullions banks

modéle de courrier à envoyer à la CFTC

[url=http://www.roadtoroota.com/public/532.cfm

http://www.roadtoroota.com/public/532.cfm[/quote[/url]]

C'est peut-être une erreur technique Marie, mais pour l'adresse à laquelle écrire moi j'avais

CFTC
c.o. Santa Claus
- 00000° C
North Pole

Bon, tout ça pour dire que les efforts consentis jusqu'à présent ont été remarquablement utiles et ont probablement débloqué la situation auprès de nombreux investisseurs qui ont pris conscience de l'ampleur des manipulations du marché. C'est ce qui les a conduits à modifier leur attitude et probablement a fait participer d'autres intervenants, d'où l'évolution du cours du silver notamment.

Mais sur un plan juridique et réglementaire, je ne suis pas certain que la CFTC elle-même accepte de changer quoi que ce soit comme elle a d'ailleurs encore récemment refusé de le faire (je suis même à peu près sûr qu'elle ne le fera pas, en tout cas pas sérieusement tant que les intérêts des commerciaux seront en jeu).

Certes, écrire ces lettres démontrera encore un peu plus l'asservissement volontaire de cette noble institution, mais à mon sens aujourd'hui la vitesse acquise est suffisante sur un plan économique pour que le véritable enjeu soit devenu : LMBA et plus COMEX, mouvement qui est apparemment en train de se produire à la fois sur le pétrole et sur les MPx comme remarqué sur une autre file.

La CFTC laissera ce marché mourir et, si elle le peut, JPM et ses sbires sortir au mieux et truander à l'envers le marché du cuivre comme elle a laissé shorter le gold et le silver pendant 30 ans plutôt que d'en faire un marché juridiquement transparent et valablement réglementé. Il n'y a plus guère de doute sur cette question. Et c'est probablement sur un autre plan, économique, accessoirement médiatique, et non juridique, que le combat a été engagé aujourd'hui et qu'il est d'ailleurs en train d'être gagné.

faut pas être aussi cynique, Pascal.. sur ce sujet en tout cas ..

on n'imagine pas à quel point les pétitions successives organisées par Ted Butler ont produit leur effet ..
sans elles, y'aurait tout simplement eu ni enquête officielle sur la manipulation du marché de l'argent, ni auditions cftc en mars dernier sur le dossier argent ... et personne n'aurait jamais entendu ce que Andrew Maguire avait à révéler..

ce genre de pétitions a au minimum un effet médiatique indiscutable..( donc une forme de pression extrémement importante )

marie a écrit:

faut pas être aussi cynique, Pascal.. sur ce sujet en tout cas ..

on n'imagine pas à quel point les pétitions successives organisées par Butler ont produit leur effet ..
sans elles, y'aurait tout simplement eu ni enquête officielle sur le silver, ni auditions cftc en mars dernier sur le dossier silver ... et personne n'aurait jamais entendu ce que Andrew Maguire avait à révéler..

ce genre de pétitions a au minimum un effet médiatique indiscutable..( donc une forme de pression extrémement importante )

Oui Marie,

C'est en effet bien ce que j'écrivais.

Mais maintenant, je ne suis pas certain qu'il soit encore très utile de se battre sur ce terrain là puisque tout a été dit, que le message est passé auprès des pros et que de toutes façons la CFTC ne bougera pas tant que JPM et Cie ne le lui ordonnera pas. Je pense que maintenant c'est vraiment ailleurs que ça se passe.

I may be wrong...

plus il y aura de tapage médiatique, mieux ce sera .. , Pascal

ça coute rien de mailer la cftc.. et ça peut pas faire de mal ..
donc je vais pas décourager nos lecteurs, de le faire

le papier de Ted Butler sur ce sujet .. avec là aussi , un modéle de courrier à mailer

http://news.silverseek.com/SilverSeek/1298557244.php

je modifierais comme suit sa dernière phrase .. puisque cette limitation de positions, doit bien évidemment s'appliquer à tout le monde .. et pas uniquement à ceux qui sont classés en specs ..
c'est évident, mais ça va mieux en le disant




Please institute a 1500 contract (7.5 million ounce) position limit for silver. for any single trader.. commercial or speculator

arf ... nos braves gens du world gold council s'opposent fermement à toutes limitation de positions sur les futures métaux précieux..
le boss du WGC s'est donc fendu d'une lettre à la cftc que vous trouverez ici

ttp://www.gata.org/files/WGCtoCFTC-03-28-2011.pdf

les arguments avancés sont typiquement ceux des bullions banks, positions hedgées en dérivés,
cad dire pérennité et protection d'une offre fictive et illimitée de papier or, argent ou autres métaux précieux.

http://www.gata.org/node/9754

World Gold Council to CFTC: Don't mess with paper gold


Submitted by cpowell on Tue, 2011-03-29 03:18. Section: Daily Dispatches
11:28p ET Monday, March 28, 2011
Dear Friend of GATA and Gold (and Silver):
Thanks to Zero Hedge's pseudonymous Tyler Durden tonight for unearthing the long statement submitted this month by World Gold Council CEO Aram Shishmanian to the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission in opposition to the commission's proposal to impose limits on traders' positions in the precious metals futures markets:
http://www.zerohedge.com/article/cftc-position-limit-response-period-ove...
The council's objection to position limits involves to a great extent their potential to interfere with the derivative instruments that have diverted monetary demand for gold away from real metal and into paper promises of metal that suppress gold's price but can't be fulfilled, and the potential for position limits to interfere with hedging by gold miners, another price-suppressive practice.
In essence, the council's statement is a defense of an unlimited supply of paper gold issued by the several big international banks that control the gold and silver markets, paper gold being the enemy of real metal priced in a free market as well as the enemy of accountability for government currencies.




Shishmanian tells the CFTC:
"The current proposed definition of 'deliverable supply' includes the quantity of the commodity meeting a contract's delivery specifications that a market participant could, with 'prudent planning,' procure during the relevant time period from available local supply, deliverable non-local supply, and comparable supply (based on factors such as product and location). The World Gold Council believes that the CFTC should update its definition of 'deliverable supply' to account for changes in the commodity markets over the last 20 years which have increased the complexities and products within the commodity markets.
"For example, 'exchanges for related positions' ('EFRPs') are transactions used by market participants in the futures exchanges to accommodate more flexible settlement options for physically settled commodity transactions. An EFRP consists of two discrete but related simultaneous transactions. One party to the EFRP must be the buyer of (or the holder of the long market exposure associated with) the related position and the seller of the corresponding exchange contract. The other party to the EFRP must be the seller of (or the holder of the short market exposure associated with) the related position and the buyer of the corresponding exchange contract. The related position (cash, OTC swap, OTC option, or other OTC derivative) must involve the commodity underlying the exchange contract, or must be a derivative, byproduct, or related product of such commodity that has a reasonable degree of price correlation to the commodity underlying the exchange contract.
"In the majority of circumstances, EFRPs (particularly exchange for physical transactions) make physical settlement of exchange-traded commodity futures and option contracts unnecessary, and therefore increasingly less common. Additionally, the exchange for physical transaction makes a commodity's futures contract substantially less vulnerable to a corner or squeeze because, in effect, the exchange for physical transaction has introduced flexibility to an otherwise limited physical settlement process.
"The World Gold Council encourages the CFTC to update the proposed definition of deliverable supply to reflect the more flexible settlement options for physically settled commodity transactions, and thereby expanding the definition of deliverable supply (and increase the applicable spot-month position limits). Furthermore, an updated definition of deliverable supply which accurately reflects the manner in which the current commodity markets function will reduce the threat of price volatility and manipulation, while promoting liquidity and encourage effective risk management.
"The CFTC's proposal to recalculate the position limits annually based on changes in open interest potentially may reduce the participation of market participants in the more deferred delivery months, particularly for long-term contracts that include positions in relatively illiquid deferred months.
"For example, a market participant may be wary of entering into a long-term transaction if the position limit that makes the trade permissible at one point in time may be reduced in the future. In order to secure financing for many mining projects, the World Gold Council’s members must be able to hedge price risk many years into the future. However, the uncertainty associated with floating position limits may inadvertently discourage market participants from providing the requisite long-term hedges which, in turn, would make it difficult for the World Gold Council's members to finance investments for crucial infrastructure projects. In general, the annual recalculation will make it difficult to hedge long-term transactions. This, in turn, likely will lead to more price volatility due to reduced liquidity."
The World Gold Council's letter to the CFTC has been posted at GATA's Internet site here --
http://www.gata.org/files/WGCtoCFTC-03-28-2011.pdf
-- but apparently not at the council's own Internet site. One has to wonder here whether the council is representing mining companies or their bankers instead.
CHRIS POWELL, Secretary/Treasurer
Gold Anti-Trust Action Committee Inc.

Le Worlg gold council, un ardent supporter de la manipulation des prix de l'or et de l'argent
comme vous l'avez vu plus haut, le WGC refuse toute limitations de positions sur les futures de l'or et de l'argent
Réaction et analyse de Bix Weir

ça n'est pas pour rien que G.Sandro avait baptisé cette organisme, censé représenter et défendre les intérêts des compagnies productrices d'or et d'argent métal : gros wagon des collabos

outre le fait qu'ils mettent toujours en avant la demande de bijouteris, qu'ils produisent des statisues bidonnées .. ils ont également comme principal partenaire, l'etf Or, GLD, un des principaux instruments de manipulation du marché de l'or. dont HSBC, l'un des plus gros shorteurs des futures or, est le gardien ...
sans compter l'etf argent SLV, dont JPM, suspecté d'être le plus gros shorteur sur les futures de l'argent métal, est le gardien

j'en profite pour saluer le travail du Gata à ce sujet ... qui dénonce WGC, depuis le début ..

http://www.roadtoroota.com/public/564.cfm

La WGC n'est qu'un "syndicat" et ne représente que lui même (ses bailleurs de fonds). L'entourloupe consiste à faire croire à la plèbe naïve et crédule qu'il aurait une quelconque représentativité globale objective.

Quand vous avez des gens corrompus au sein d'une organisation à vocation corporatiste , on ne peut pas s'attendre à avoir des avis-revendications honnêtes.

oui, Nofear .. en attendant les cies minières qui ne veulent pas se faire flouer devraient retirer leur adhésion .. et créer un autre syndicat ..

la CFTC repousse à nouveau la date du prochain meeting, qui était initialement prévue pour aujourd'hui 30 mars

CFTC cancels March 30 rule-making meeting
Mon Mar 28, 2011 5:26pm EDT
WASHINGTON, March 28 (Reuters) - The U.S. futuresregulator said on Monday it has canceled its latest rule-makingmeeting scheduled on March 30.
The U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission did not givea reason for the cancellation. The agency had planned tointroduce at its 13th rule-making session a measure for datarecordkeeping and reporting requirements for swaps prior to implementation of the rule, as well as transition swaps.
The CFTC is writing dozens of regulations to implement the Dodd-Frank law, which was enacted last July and gives the agency oversight of the $600 trillion global swaps market.
The agency also has scheduled a meeting on April 7 to introduce another batch of proposals. Measures including capital and margin requirements for non-bank companies, and a definition for the types of swaps that will be required to clear and trade have yet to be introduced.

limitations de position CFTC Vote fixé au 18 octobre prochain .

cette fois ci sera t'elle la bonne ?

on sait que le calendrier a été maintes fois repoussé ... bref, voici communiqué de Reuters



**************



http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/10/11/us-financial-regulation-limits-cftc-idUSTRE79A6GV20111011



CFTC majority is said to favor position limits rule


Submitted by cpowell on Wed, 2011-10-12 13:15. Section: Daily Dispatches
By Christopher Doering
Reuters
Tuesday, October 11, 2011



CHICAGO -- The head of the U.S. futures regulator has the support he needs to pass a long-awaited rule that would curb excessive speculation in commodity markets, a source with knowledge of the agency's rule-making told Reuters on Tuesday.

The U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission announced on Tuesday that it would vote on October 18 on a rule limiting the number of contracts any one speculative trader could hold in commodity markets.

The source said the agency was still making changes to the position limits rule and there was a chance changes could upset the balance of support among the five commissioners before next Tuesday.

"I think he does have the votes," the source who closely follows the rule-making process told Reuters.

The CFTC has postponed two scheduled meetings on the position limits plan, with the most recent canceled due to a lack of the three votes needed for its approval.

Curbing excessive speculation is part of the CFTC's efforts to enact sweeping reforms in the Dodd-Frank financial reform overhaul of 2010 that required the agency to regulate the $600 trillion over-the-counter derivatives market.

Gary Gensler, the chairman of the CFTC, told reporters on the sidelines of a Futures Industry Association conference in Chicago that position limits were next on the agency's to-do list, but he declined to say whether he had the support needed to pass it.

The CFTC has estimated it will cost the industry more than $100 million to comply with the position limits rule, Scott O'Malia, a Republican commissioner, told reporters after speaking on a panel in Chicago.

Most of the cost for the industry is expected to be soon after the rule goes into effect.

"You have to look beyond the implementation costs and look at the larger costs," Craig Donohue, chief executive of CME Group Inc, told Reuters Insider.

"If we create an environment where people fundamentally can't manage within the constraints of the new position limit requirements ... that will result in much more fundamental costs to the industry in terms of their commercial activities."

O'Malia expressed concern the cost to comply with the rule could be too expensive, especially for bona fide hedgers, or companies that use physical commodities themselves and seek to lower risk by entering into contracts in order to guard against price increases.

"That would be expensive for them and I'm a little bit concerned about the burden that we're placing on commercial hedgers to justify why they shouldn't have limits," said O'Malia. "They have to have the compliance and reporting mechanism to show why they're not," he said.

The commission has never presented a unified front on position limits, one of the most contentious pieces of the financial overhaul for big commodity traders.

In January, Republican Commissioner Jill Sommers opposed releasing the draft rule for public comment, while Democrat Michael Dunn and O'Malia expressed skepticism on how effective the rules would be. Gensler and Bart Chilton have been staunch supporters throughout.

Some CFTC commissioners also are skeptical that the limits would prevent a run-up in prices. The agency's economists have not been able to find a causal link between speculation and price volatility. One study concluded commodity index traders are not causing price volatility and may actually help reduce it.

The Dodd-Frank legislation gave the CFTC the power to set position limits to curb excessive speculation in 28 commodities, including energy, metals and agricultural markets, "as appropriate."

The law required the CFTC to have position limits in place by mid-January.

les positions limite viennent d'être approuvées par 3 voix contre 2 ... et ce calendrier n'est certainement pas sans rapport avec la spectaculaire volatilité de la séance d'aujourd'hui sur l'or et l'argent

un dernier raid pour couvrir d'avantage de shorts et être à peu pres dans les clous sur les limitations de positions?

pas impossible !

on devrait le savoir très vite ds les séances qui viennent





www.lemetropolecafe.com





JUST IN…

14:12 CFTC votes 3-2 in favor of approving commodity position limits, as expected
* Vote in favor of reform was expected to pass by a 3-2 margin, with the CFTC's three Democrats forming the majority
* Reform will place limits on the size of positions in the futures and swaps markets
* Limits will first apply to spot commodity markets 60 days after the CFTC passes a separate rule that legally defines swaps.





***************

UPDATE 1-US cracks down on commodity traders; will it stick?

Tue Oct 18, 2011 8:01am EDT

* CFTC set to approve limits for commodity speculators
* Rule nixes class limits, aggregation fought by Wall St
* After years of debate, topic still contentious
* Legal challenge looms as financial industry fights back

By Christopher Doering and Jonathan Leff

WASHINGTON, Oct 18 (Reuters) - The United States set out on Tuesday with its toughest measures yet to curtail speculation in commodity markets, likely shifting the focus of a fierce four-year debate from the regulators to the courts.

In a measure decried by Wall Street and trading companies as a misguided political attempt to cap soaring oil and grain prices, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission set out its rule on "position limits" that will cap the number of futures and swaps contracts that any single speculator can hold.

The final rule, due to be voted on after the commission meets from 9:30 a.m. EDT (1330 GMT), will be a relief to many in the industry as it relents on several key provisions that were heavily criticized, as Reuters reported last month.

That included tough measures on whether separately controlled accounts must be aggregated and whether swaps and futures positions can be offset, so-called "class limits", the CFTC said. It also partly yielded to CME Group (CME.O) calls for equal treatment of cash and physical contracts.

But giving ground on those details will do little to temper deep frustration over a contentious plan that could force banks such as Morgan Stanley (MS.N) and industry traders like grains giant Cargill to scale back business, stemming an influx of investor capital. The CFTC estimated the measure would cost the industry about $100 million in the first year.

"The Wild West of exempting traders from any concentration levels whatsoever ends now," Bart Chilton, a CFTC commissioner and a staunch supporter of the limits, told Reuters.

A lawsuit to stop the measure coming into force seems likely, say industry experts and lawyers, one more hurdle for CFTC Chairman Gary Gensler, who is struggling against emboldened Republicans and a hostile Wall Street to put in place the rules required by the Dodd-Frank financial reforms.

After an eight-month battle, the Securities and Exchange Commission in July had its first Dodd-Frank rule overturned when a federal appeals court found the SEC had conducted a flawed analysis to support a rule that would make it easier for shareholders to nominate directors to corporate boards.

The position-limits rule may be challenged on similar grounds -- that the costs outweigh the benefits of a plan that many industry officials say will make markets riskier by driving trade to less-regulated overseas venues.

"We need to be very careful, but I believe we're on very solid legal ground," Chilton told Reuters Insider on Tuesday.

The limits could temper investors who have poured over $300 billion into commodity markets, often via index swaps with banks. Under the new rules, banks will no longer be given an exemption for such speculative swaps, although they will be able to hedge on behalf of corporate customers.

Gensler has worked tirelessly to win support from the commissioners. He is certain to have the backing of Chilton, a long-time advocate of tougher regulations, and likely will face opposition from Republican Jill Sommers. Michael Dunn, who is retiring, will likely be the pivotal vote.

Republican Scott O'Malia came out against the rule, saying the agency "overreached in interpreting its statutory mandate".

He said the CFTC had failed to provide the "empirical evidence" to substantiate the rule -- an argument similar to that put forth by industry officials who say that there no proof of the link between speculators and commodity prices-END-

Were gold and silver sent to the cleaners to give some more cover to the major shorts who have been reducing positions already? That fits right in too. As to whether this position limit thing is worth a darn, it all comes down to whether JPM is forced to verify that their hedged positions are backed by physical metal. There is disagreement in our camp as to whether that will occur. I know Bart Chilton is very aware that this is the key to this entire exercise. Only time will tell whether he is able to back up what he says the CFTC intends to do.



************



je ne sais pas exactement quelles limitations précises ont été votées ... ainsi évidemment que de savoir si la CFTC surveillera les soit disantes contreparties des prétendues couvertures de JPM, c'est comme cela qu'il baptise ses monstrueuses positions de vente à découvert sur les argent.comex, de la couverture / hedging

en tout état de cause, cette dernière analyse indique que les limitations votées seraient inférieures de 2 à 3 fois celles proposées par Ted Butler

Citation :

All the signs point to the fact that the CFTC is in fact preparing to approve position limits in commodities. Our sources are indicating that the limits will likely be approximately 3,000-5,000 contracts (roughly 2-3x the levels called for by Ted Butler of 1,500 contracts).
Gary Gensler's Congressional hearing for Oct 6th was likely cancelled with the understanding that the CFTC would finally get off their arse and get something done on the 18th.

http://12160.info/group/gold_silver_precious_metals/forum/topics/implications-of-today-s-cftc-vote-on-position-limits-in

limitations de position ( à l'exception de gaz nat qui obéira à des régles différentes)

Citation :

The rule limits traders to 25 percent of deliverable supply in the month nearest to delivery. The spot-month limits apply separately to physically settled and cash-settled contracts. Deliverable supply will be determined by the CFTC in conjunction with the exchanges.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-10-18/cftc-votes-3-2-to-approve-new-limits-on-commodity-speculation.html



http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204346104576638973617953958.html



The Commodity Futures Trading Commission on Tuesday approved a much-debated, long-delayed rule designed to curb bets on oil, gold, sugar, and other commodities.

The 3-2 vote -- cast along party lines -- illustrates how divided regulators remain over the role of government in the markets. The debate leading up to the vote also shows how even some CFTC commissioners supporting the rule think it may not have the desired effect.

Opposed by Wall Street, the rule aims to cap the positions firms can take in certain commodity contracts in order to curb sharp price increases. The rule gained traction in Congress during an oil-price spike in 2008, which some attributed to excessive speculation by short-term traders. Along with a number of other rules, it was mandated by last year's Dodd-Frank financial-regulatory overhaul even though commodity trading had little to do with the financial crisis.

In a series of phone calls, emails and meetings at the CFTC headquarters in Washington, commissioners and lobbyists haggled through the weekend over details of the rule. There were even conversations during the hearing Tuesday as the agency hammered out last-minute revisions.

Both Republicans on the commission, Scott O'Malia and Jill Sommers, voted against the rule, saying it represented an overreach of government powers and went beyond the mandates of the Dodd-Frank law.

Mr. O'Malia said the final rule assumes that "the government knows best." He also said the rule failed to adequately quantify the costs it will impose on the financial industry. The CFTC estimates it will cost the industry around $100 million in the first year of implementation.

CFTC Commissioner Michael Dunn, a Democrat, called the limits a "sideshow" that distracts from the commission's work of preventing another financial crisis.

"No one has proven that the looming specter of excessive speculation in the futures markets we regulate even exists," Mr. Dunn said in comments before voting for the rule Tuesday. Mr. Dunn said the rule could lead to higher prices because it could limit traders' ability to hedge positions.

CFTC Chairman Gary Gensler, who also voted for the rule, said in his opening statement that position limits "protect the markets both in times of clear skies and when there is a storm on the horizon."

But Bart Chilton, a Democratic commissioner and longtime advocate of position limits, said he would have preferred stricter caps. He said the agency would periodically reassess the limits, and they could be recalibrated as necessary. Congress mandated that the CFTC study the impact of the rules on the market 12 months after the limits are put into effect.

The CFTC has long curbed the positions firms can take on certain agricultural commodities. The new rule extends position limits to 28 contracts covering commodities such as natural gas and silver.

Limits on contracts for near-term delivery, as opposed to longer-dated futures, will restrict a firm from owning more than 25% of a commodity's estimated deliverable supply. Traders will be able to hold a smaller percentage of longer-term contracts, based on a formula.

The new caps are likely to take effect in 2012 and possibly as late as 2013.

The proposed rule inspired about 15,000 letters from interests varying from private citizens to giant oil and grain companies to U.S. senators. Supporters say it will keep large firms such as hedge funds and banks from piling into commodities and driving up prices. Critics say the rule will hamper traders and cause large compliance costs.

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I., Vt.) wrote in a letter to Mr. Gensler on Monday that the spot-month limits are too weak and "will do little or nothing" to limit speculative traders in commodity markets.

"At a time when the American people are experiencing extremely high oil and gas prices, this would be simply unacceptable," Mr. Sanders wrote.

Tuesday's vote offered another illustration of how divided regulators remain over how to implement Dodd-Frank. Last week bank regulators and the Securities and Exchange Commission approved a new proposal for the so-called Volcker rule, which will curb proprietary trading at banks. The proposal was met with disapproval from Wall Street as well as from Democrats who said it was watered down.

The position-limits rule met with similar complaints. Indeed, as they worked on this final version of the rule, commissioners struggled to come to consensus and canceled two recent votes on the issue.

Ms. Sommers said the vote was the most important one she has made since she started at the agency in 2009. She worried the commission would be blamed for future high commodity prices if the limits don't curb prices.

"This agency is setting itself up for an enormous failure," Ms. Sommers said.

The CFTC also voted Tuesday to approve a rule laying out specifications for how organizations that clear derivatives trades will operate under the Dodd-Frank law. It also voted to push off the date that several derivatives requirements would take effect until July 16, 2012.

plus d'infos ce soir



www.lemetropolecafe.com





Bart Chilton on BNN yesterday…

http://watch.bnn.ca/#clip551797

***

http://silverdoctors.com/


Tuesday, October 18, 2011


Its All in the Fine Print: CFTC Ruling Gives Exemptions for Prior Positions Established in Good Faith, Final Position Limits Won't Be Determined for 12 MONTHS!


Before everyone gets too excited over today's 3-2 CFTC vote in favor of position limits in commodities, we need to examine WHEN the shorts will be forced to comply with the new rules, the size of the new position limits implemented, as well as what loopholes might be available to the cartel in order to continue business as usual.
Those who have been skeptical of the CFTC should enjoy this as we examine the fine print of today's CFTC position limits regulations.

Exemptions to be given for prior positions without describing how or who qualifies for exemptions: Check.
No defined date for required compliance to short positions: Check. (60 days from the time the term "swap" is defined)
No defined position limits to allow easy identification of whether an entity is in excess of said limits: and Check
Non-spot month position limits will be implemented AFTER ONE YEAR OF OPEN INTEREST DATA!?! Nice work guys!

So what are your thoughts Blythe, sure not as bad as that could have gone, huh?


Establishment of speculative limits on Referenced Contracts will occur in two phases:
o Spot-month position limits. Spot-month limits will be effective sixty days after the term "swap" is further defined under the Dodd-Frank Act. The limits adopted at that time will be based on the spot-month position limit levels currently in place at DCMs. Thereafter, the spot-month limits will be adjusted biennially for agricultural contracts and annually for energy and metal contracts. These subsequent limits will be based on the Commission’s determination of deliverable supply (developed in consultation with DCMs).

o Non-spot-month position limits (i.e., limits applied to positions in all contract months combined or in a single contract month). For the nine "legacy" agricultural Referenced Contracts that currently are subject to Commission administered limits, the new non-spot-month limits will go into effect sixty days after the term "swap" is further defined under the Dodd-Frank Act. These limits will be set equal to the levels described in the final rulemaking. For all other Referenced Contracts (that currently are not subject to Commission administered limits), the limits will be made effective by Commission order after the Commission has received one year of open interest data on physical commodity cleared and uncleared swaps under the swaps large trader reporting rule. The non-spot-month limits will be adjusted biennially based on Referenced Contract open interest.

Spot-month position limit levels will be set generally at 25% of estimated deliverable supply. These spot-month limits will be applied separately for physical-delivery Referenced Contracts and cash-settled Referenced Contracts in the same commodity.

Non-spot-month position limits (i.e., limits applied to positions in all contract months combined or in a single contract month) will be set using the 10/2.5 percent formula: 10 percent of the contract’s first 25,000 of open interest and 2.5 percent thereafter. These limits will be reset biennially based on two years open interest data.

Open interest used in determining non-spot-month position limits will be the sum of futures open interest, cleared swaps open interest, and uncleared swaps open interest.

Exemptions for bona fide hedging transactions based on the Dodd-Frank Act’s new requirements for such transactions. These exemptions have been broadened to include certain anticipated merchandising transactions, royalties, and service contracts in the final rulemaking to reflect concerns by commercial firms.
Exemptions for positions that are established in good faith prior to the effective date of the initial limits established by the regulations.
Establishment of account aggregation standards consistent with the Commission’s current position limits aggregation policy, including the Commission’s long-standing independent account controller exemption.

A position visibility reporting regime to assist the Commission in its surveillance program.

Acceptable practices for DCMs and swap execution facilities for setting position limits for the 28 Referenced Contracts, as well as position limits or accountability rules in all other listed contracts, including excluded commodities.

Full CFTC Decision can be found here:

Now that we have examined the fine print a little more closely, we welcome our readers thoughts and comments on what if anything the CFTC has accomplished today.

Posted by The Doc at 5:26 P

commentaire de Dan de thegoldentruth sur le vote CFTC des limitations de positions :



il rejoint l'avis précédent : en dépit des difficultés pour faire voter le texte, rien de bien révolutionnaire

les limitations sont faibles , et le régime des exemptions est fort large .. .on sait déjà qui va en profiter ...



http://truthingold.blogspot.com/2011/10/new-cftc-position-limits.html

Citation :

es limitations sont faibles , et le régime des exemptions est fort large .. .on sait déjà qui va en profiter ...

donc le résultat c'est concrètement RIEN de changé hormis une armée de PARASITES qui ont "bossé" (journaleux, légalistes , politipisseux , segrétaires , imprimeurs de papier etc etc ) bref du pseudo-travail inutile avec un cout exorbitant pour le mougeon * de la gabegie d'énergie globale. Pas très écolo tout ça lol , pendant ce temps vous payez des impôts-taxe pour payer des kapos à fouiller vos poubelles afin de vous faire aligner pour mauvais tri sélectif.

Quand vous cesserez de croire au père noël des lois (étatiques) pour régler vos problèmes alors seulement vous serez libres car vous ne serez plus une larve paresseuse à se complaire dans sa déchéance orgiastique biologiquement suicidaire.

* mougeon = contraction de mouton + pigeon, terme emprunté au blog des enculuminés merci à eux...