silver manip / reponse de Bart Chilton

**marie** Skipper Inscription : 05/02/2005 Messages : 20140

on notera qu'il élude pas mal ..en dépit d'une bonne volonté affichée ..
le fait que les 4 plus gros hedgeraient leurs shorts positions sur des marchés encore plus opaques, ne fait qu'aggraver leur concentration !

de plus, la CFTC n'a aucun moyen de controler les déclarations des 4 plus gros, qui sont faites à cet égard ..

bref, je vous laisse lire le topo ...

mais on apprend tout de même un truc, c'est que les 4 plus gros shorts silver sont tous membres du LBMA et ont des positions sur les autres métaux .

The CFTC's Bart Chilton responds...
Thank you for your e-mail regarding silver. As many know, I called for an open hearing, and then for the investigation, which was announced last September. This is the first such investigation in many years. It is detailed and deep, looking at many aspects of the markets. The Commission has been briefed periodically on the investigation and I have had many additional meetings on the matter. We are making progress and I am pleased that the investigation is ongoing. That said, some believe that this is an open-and-shut matter, which can be resolved in days. They are incorrect. One thing I have repeatedly said is that I don’t want this to be a waste of taxpayer dollars. That means getting it right and doing a thorough job – a job that if need be can be taken to court and successfully prosecuted. I’m not suggesting we are going to file any charges—only that these are important matters and they need to be addressed in a comprehensive and professional manner.
I view my job as having a primary purpose—protecting consumers—all else follows. I’ve tried to do all I can in that regard, most recently calling for criminal authority to put folks who violate the Commodity Exchange Act in jail and trying to alert people to the large number of Ponzi and Ponzi-like schemes out there.
With specific regard to the commentary article from March 3^rd that many have written to me about, I want to make several points.
First, the commentary refers to the concentration levels of the net shorts. These positions that the CFTC includes in our Commitment of Traders report (COT) do not take into consideration all the positions held by the shorts that maybe used to hedge positions that they have with their customers—e.g. swaps, physical forward positions, lease positions, option contracts, etc. Thus, it is not as if the short futures position represents the single position of a large trader, but rather represents a position taken as a result of looking at an aggregation of many trades—on and off-exchange.
Second, the commentary makes an attempt to calculate a "true net" concentrated short position for the top four largest net short traders. The calculation was based on the COT (dated February 24). The COT reported a concentration ratio of 46.7% for the top four net short positions for futures only. Staff has examined the calculations and has noted that the basic premise of the commentary is to inflate the reported ratio of 46.7% to "72.5% to 76%." It appears that this was basically accomplished by subtracting non-commercial and estimated commercial spread positions from the overall open interest (futures only). The main argument of the commentary to be that "four or fewer traders controlling 72.5% or more of either the long side or short side of any regulated commodity futures market is a de facto manipulation."
Again, I called for the investigation and I want ensure we are protecting consumers, but we also need some reality here and not spin things out of proportion. Specifically, there is no strong reason to look at only the aggregate concentration percentage of the top four net short in isolation to determine whether or not there is a "manipulation." Looking at the aggregate percentage of a group of independent large commercial owners in isolation does not immediately imply there is manipulation unless there is some evidence that all of these four traders are acting in collusion and trading together to influence the direction of the market.
Don’t get me wrong, I am still concerned about concentration. That is why I think we need some mandatory hard cap position limits for traders. Currently we have only accountability levels. These levels (which can be abrogated, and in fact are run through frequently) merely mean that the traders above the accountability levels are looked at more carefully. I think we need to do more, and have said so publically. I have taken the liberty of also pasting a recent news article on this matter for you further information. It is interesting to note that all four of these commercial traders are members of the London Bullion Market Association and are established traders in the silver and other metal markets. The positions represent not only proprietary positions but also customer positions as well.
Additionally, the percentages used in the commentary are for futures only, which was 46.7%, but if one were to look at futures and option positions combined the percentage was lower at 36.8%. There is no real economic justification for subtracting out the spread positions from the total open interest other than to inflate the reported concentration ratio. Again, we need to look at facts here. Stating a number much larger than the reported 46.7% and labeling that as the "true net" concentration position is misleading, especially since the commentary’s derivation is largely based on making some questionable assumptions in addition to using an estimated commercial spread number. With regard to the commercial spread number, since our COT report does not report commercial spread positions, only non-commercial spread positions, the commentary makes an attempt to calculate it. The commentary also notes a caveat that "(p)lease remember that this methodology is peculiar to silver and is not applicable to all other commodities . . . ." However, our staff ran the data to calculate the actual commercial spread, in addition to finding some minor mathematical errors when replicating the calculations, our staff found that the actual number was lower than the commercial spread estimated in the commentary. Therefore, even if one were to accept that spread positions should be subtracted from the total open interest in calculating concentration ratios, the concentration ratio of the top four commercial net short was lower than the commentary’s estimation.
All of that said, I still believe that there are many areas of inquiry that the CFTC needs to focus on—including but certainly not limited to concentration issues. While I can’t give you details of our investigation, I can tell you that it is thorough and that we are making progress.
Thank you again for your e-mail.

Marie
Pas de copier-coller: merci de faire un lien vers ce post.
Suivez Hardinvestor sur Twitter et sur Facebook
silver manip / reponse de Bart Chilton Sign-m10

silver manip / reponse de Bart Chilton Sign-m10

**phv** Barreur Inscription : 02/03/2009 Messages : 245

Ce qui est extraordinaire, c'est que le type se sert du fait que l'esentiel des informations n'est pas fourni au marché (noms des banques détenant les positions, ni le détail des "commercials") pour faire sa démonstration, alors que le scandale commence précisément par là !

tain, on est pas rendus...

**marie** Skipper Inscription : 05/02/2005 Messages : 20140

hé oui Prv ... mias même avec le peu de données que l'on a .. on arrive tout de même à le mettre dedans ..
CF l'excellente réponse de A Douglas .. qui revient sur les 97% du marché des dérivés otc métaux précieux que détiennent JPM et HSBC..

https://000999.forumactif.com/les-hard-investors-f7/derives-gold-scoop-t9244.htm

on est bien d'accord ... Chilton, en se défaussant sur le soit disant hedge sur d'autres marchés.. ne fait que mettre d'avantage en valeur .. la concentration phénoménale des maffieux

Adrian on Bart Chilton…
Bill,
I was astonished by the reply of Bart Chilton posted in the Midas of March 23, 2009.
This investigation of the gold and silver markets has been going on by the "Enforcement Division" for 6 MONTHS. We are told they are making progress! What is so difficult? We are talking about 2 or less banks and the CFTC has the power to go and ask all the questions they need to of these banks?
The main issue that the CFTC has to look at is how can 2 or less banks sell the equivalent in short contracts of 25% of annual global silver production and 10% of annual gold production in July 2008 without this being manipulation? Why does it take 6 months to find that out?
Why is it that Chilton comments on Ted Butler’s calculations on silver market concentration? Let’s just look at the CFTC numbers and we don’t need to argue about Ted Butler’s methodology.
From the CFTC Silver COT report of March 17 (http://www.cftc.gov/dea/futures/deacmxlf.htm) the Commercial LONG is 29,155 the Commercial SHORT is 64,915 so the total Commercial NET SHORT position is 35,760 contracts. From the Bank Participation report
of March 3, 2009 (http://www.cftc.gov/dea/bank/deamar09f.htm) the position of TWO US Banks or less is ZERO LONG positions and 30,838 SHORT giving a NET SHORT position of 30,838 contracts. This means that TWO or less US Banks have 86.2% of the Commercial Net short position. Mr. Chilton this is from your own reports this is not "spin", it is not subject to argument over methodology; it is just dividing one number by another! I would guess that after 6 months your staff have found time to divide these two numbers also. Is your position that two banks or less controlling 86.2% of the commercial short position is not manipulative?
Chilton tries to put up a smoke screen that obliquely suggests that the outrageously large concentration may be legitimate because it hedges positions else where:-
QUOTE
These positions that the CFTC includes in our Commitment of Traders report (COT) do not take into consideration all the positions held by the shorts that maybe used to hedge positions that they have with their customers—e.g. swaps, physical forward positions, lease positions, option contracts, etc. Thus, it is not as if the short futures position represents the single position of a large trader, but rather represents a position taken as a result of looking at an aggregation of many trades—on and off-exchange.
END
Well, Mr. Chilton considering you brought up the issue let me bring to your attention the Derivatives report from the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency for Q3 2008.
http://www.occ.treas.gov/ftp/release/2008-152a.pdf

In this report we find that the total OTC derivatives in gold of a maturity of less than 1 year have a notional value of 94.589B$. Of this total JPMorganchase and HSBC hold 94.014B$ which equates to 99.392% of all gold derivatives held by US commercial banks and Trust Companies for maturity of less than 1 year. I haven’t done any arithmetic that the CFTC might argue with; this is straight from the report. I would think that controlling 99.392% of any market could only be considered manipulative and it didn’t take me 6 months to work that out! In the "precious metals" category which is not defined but is probably mainly silver the same two banks control 88% of the less than 1 year maturity derivatives. The notional value of gold derivatives that these two banks control represents 150% of annual global gold production. Now if you control 99.4% of a derivatives market that is 150% of the ENTIRE underlying physical market what do you think will happen next? When we look at the COMEX we find out; according to CFTC latest reports 3 banks or less control 62% of the commercial net short position (without subtracting spreads). What a surprise! I would be willing to bet that it is actually less than three banks, I would also be willing to bet that it is two banks, I would also be willing to bet that the names of the two banks are drum roll please…JPMorganChase and HSBC.
If I am correct that the "precious metals" category is predominantly silver then the position of JPM and HSBC represents 176% of total annual global production of silver. On COMEX we find that two banks or less control 86.2% of the commercial silver net short position. I would also be willing to bet that the names of the two banks are also JPMorganChase and HSBC.
I don’t know if Mr. Chilton has noted that silver has been in mild backwardation for 43 days. This is unprecedented in history and suggests a coming physical shortage in the wholesale market that has already been present in the retail market for over 12 months, yet the price of silver can not seem to rise above its cost of production (no mining company is making any profit worth talking about). I would suggest that with massive positions being held by two entities on the COMEX and the OTC derivatives market there is a very good reason for that. Price discovery of silver is controlled by the massive over-supply of paper substitutes for silver and NOT by the supply and demand of physical silver. This can continue only as long as there is no shortage in the physical market that exposes the obvious fraud. The backwardation is indicating that the day of reckoning is coming where Samsung will have to find a way to make cell phone batteries out of Paper-Mache! Time is running out for the CFTC to solve this crime before it becomes obvious to everyone.
Adrian Douglas
Adrian sent this to Bart Chilton who responded very cordially, inviting future dialogue.

Marie
Pas de copier-coller: merci de faire un lien vers ce post.
Suivez Hardinvestor sur Twitter et sur Facebook
silver manip / reponse de Bart Chilton Sign-m10

**marie** Skipper Inscription : 05/02/2005 Messages : 20140

hihi, et pourquoi pas un freedom information act, pour avoir tout les détails sur l'identité et les transactions de ces 4 plus gros?

aaarf

Dave from Denver then weighed in with
A Modest Proposal
(which was sent to Bart Chilton)
CFTC official Bart Chilton openly responded to the complaints of Ted Butler and GATA of silver manipulation on the Comex by explaining that Mr. Butler fabricated and exaggerated his data to fit his argument.
Before I lay out a modest proposal to Mr. Chilton, I would like to say that based on Mr. Butler's 20-plus years of devoting his entire career to studying every aspect of the silver markets, I will assert that Mr. Butler's data and conclusions are far more worthy of respect and believability than are the empty accusations of a Government regulator who hides behind secretive data and untruthful assertions. In fact, I will go as far to say that Mr. Butler knows more about the silver market than any market professional knows about any market that I have ever studied, including my professors at the University of Chicago. Now, Mr. Chilton has openly asserted that there is conclusively no evidence of price manipulation in the silver market going on at the Comex. Let's look at the facts, and purely facts, as determined by price, supply and demand in the market.
We know that there is a shortage of physiclal silver preventing U.S. Mint from producing enough silver eagles products to supply the demand of the market (the same set of facts apply to gold). How do we know this? You can go to the U.S. Mint's website where they explain that they had to suspend production of all gold and silver eagle minted products except 1 oz. coins due to a shortage of gold and silver bars.
We also know that for over a year now, that there have been substantial premiums observed in the transactional market globally for gold and silver fabricated products (bars, coins, etc), well in excess of the transactional prices taking place on the Comex. This is evidence of extreme backwardation in the marketplace, which means that there is a severe supply shortage and the futures prices are way too low. Premiums of this magnitude point a massive demand well in excess of supply.
Now, by decree of the simple LAWS of supply and demand economics, the shortage of supply and the price premiums for the supply that does exist, the market price for silver is too low. How do we know this? Because when there is a shortage, buyers bid up the price to a level that induces more supply and reduces demand until the price reaches a point at which supply and demand are balanced. Price is the ultimate allocator in any economic model. It is an undisputed LAW of economics.
If the price of silver were allowed to rise to it's natural economic level in which supply and demand are balanced, the U.S. Mint would not have to suspend production, premiums on coins and bars would disappear, and the market would achieve a high degree of price/supply/demand balance.
Absent the existence of this natural economic balance, we can ONLY conclude that the price is too low, and that the mountains of evidence produced by Mr. Butler and GATA can only point to the existence of extreme price manipulation on the Comex. There is no other explanation. Rather than throw out patently false accusations unsupported with proof, I openly challenge Mr. Chilton to dispute the evidence and proof of the TRANSACTIONAL MARKETPLACE with all the data he can openly produce under the Freedom of Information Act.
His failure to do would only add to the proof as outlined above.

Marie
Pas de copier-coller: merci de faire un lien vers ce post.
Suivez Hardinvestor sur Twitter et sur Facebook
silver manip / reponse de Bart Chilton Sign-m10

**g.sandro** Captain Inscription : 04/02/2005 Messages : 14522

Citation :: If I am correct that the "precious
metals" category is predominantly silver then the position of JPM and
HSBC represents 176% of total annual global production of silver. On
COMEX we find that two banks or less control 86.2% of the commercial
silver net short position. I would also be willing to bet that the
names of the two banks are also JPMorganChase and HSBC.
I don’t
know if Mr. Chilton has noted that silver has been in mild
backwardation for 43 days. This is unprecedented in history and
suggests a coming physical shortage in the wholesale market that has
already been present in the retail market for over 12 months, yet the
price of silver can not seem to rise above its cost of production (no
mining company is making any profit worth talking about).

Perso, ça, ça me parle...!!!

Je ne suis guère convaincu par Chilton, je respecte beaucoup Adrian Douglas et j'attends avec impatience la réponse de Ted Butler

Silver is king, Go Gold !

G.Sandro
pas de copier collé: merci de faire un lien vers ce post.
Suivez Hardinvestor sur Twitter et sur Facebook

silver manip / reponse de Bart Chilton 2wecua10

silver manip / reponse de Bart Chilton 2wecua10

**phv** Barreur Inscription : 02/03/2009 Messages : 245

I mean, come on!

What do you expect the guy could possibly say, other than what he has said so far? (on the record !)

Struggle for life, it's called...

**marie** Skipper Inscription : 05/02/2005 Messages : 20140

évidemment Bix Weir a bien raison de soulever le point suivant :

les 2 bques us qui détiennent 97% de l'otc métaux précieux + les shorts positions sur le comex sont hsbc et jpm..
hsbc est le custodian ( gardien, mais pas propriétaire) de GLD
jpm est le custodian de barclays SLV

Bix…
Hi Bill -
It is easy to see that the huge derivative complex is controlled by JP Morgan and HSBC as per Adrian's comments today.

I would like to add that those two banks that dominate the gold and silver derivative positions are the "Custodians" of the two largest ETF's.

JP Morgan is the Custodian for SLV

and

HSBC is the Custodian for GLD

If the CFTC is justifying the short positions in gold and silver due to the "backing" of ETF metal they are 100% ignorant of what these two vehicles are.

1) The custodian is not the owner of the metal and has no delivery rights against COMEX short positions

2) Neither ETF has audited the warehouse metal and UNLESS THE CFTC HAS AUDITED THE INVENTORY THEMSELVES there is no way they should "believe" that the metal is even there.

3) Nobody knows how many different owners have claims on inventories supposedly in the ETF warehouses.

4) Nobody knows if the silver bullion is even .999 silver...they could be silver plated steel bars based on the Prospectus removing the word "bullion"

and

5) Even if the above panned out to be legitimate IT IS STILL ILLEGAL TO MANIPULATE THE PRICE OF GOLD AND SILVER no matter if you can back it with physical metal or not!

There should be no doubt that GLD and SLV are tools of the banking cabal used by JP Morgan and HSBC to rig the prices of gold and silver.

If the CFTC can't figure this out they are either IGNORANT or worse CORRUPT!
Bix

Marie
Pas de copier-coller: merci de faire un lien vers ce post.
Suivez Hardinvestor sur Twitter et sur Facebook
silver manip / reponse de Bart Chilton Sign-m10

**g.sandro** Captain Inscription : 04/02/2005 Messages : 14522

Citation :: either IGNORANT or worse CORRUPT!

j'ai les pires difficultés à les croire à ce point ignorants pour ma part...

de là à en tirer des conclusions...il y a un tout petit pas...
que chacun décidera de franchir...ou pas... r.ire

Silver is king, Go Gold !

G.Sandro
pas de copier collé: merci de faire un lien vers ce post.
Suivez Hardinvestor sur Twitter et sur Facebook

silver manip / reponse de Bart Chilton 2wecua10

**marie** Skipper Inscription : 05/02/2005 Messages : 20140

réponse de Butler

http://news.silverseek.com/TedButler/1238529622.php

Marie
Pas de copier-coller: merci de faire un lien vers ce post.
Suivez Hardinvestor sur Twitter et sur Facebook
silver manip / reponse de Bart Chilton Sign-m10

**g.sandro** Captain Inscription : 04/02/2005 Messages : 14522

excellent et convaincant comme je l'anticipais avec gourmandise...

j'ai particulièrement apprécié cet extrait encore plus savoureux que le reste de l'article qui, pourtant, n'a rien de fade :

Citation :: Commissioner
Chilton writes that the concentrated short position in COMEX silver
futures does not take into account any other off-setting positions away
from the COMEX. In essence, the concentrated short position might be
hedged elsewhere. In Chilton’s own words, "Thus, it is not as if the
short futures position represents the single position of a large
trader…"

I would contend that the only silver market in which the CFTC has strict
regulatory oversight responsibility and transparency, the COMEX, is
where the concentrated and manipulative short position exists. How
convenient it is that the non-transparent OTC market, now legitimizes a
real and documented manipulative position.
Usually it’s the other way
around, with the CFTC claiming they are powerless to monitor and
regulate what goes on in the OTC market. Now, when it suits their
purposes, they use the opaque OTC market as their defense of a very
real and visible manipulative position. I think the operative phrase
here is talking out of both sides of your mouth.
As
I wrote yesterday, all the evidence from the OTC market, as documented
by the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), indicates that
the big U.S. banks, led by JPMorgan Chase, had been heavily short
silver derivatives in the OTC as well.

Since when do you hedge a short position with another short position?

j'adore

Car Ted non !

bien au contraire chappo

Silver is king, Go Gold !

G.Sandro
pas de copier collé: merci de faire un lien vers ce post.
Suivez Hardinvestor sur Twitter et sur Facebook

silver manip / reponse de Bart Chilton 2wecua10

**Contenu sponsorisé**

» rien ne semble arréter la manipulation des marchés or et argent» manipulation des prix de l'argent / Butler vs CFTC» loi Dodd Franck/CFTC/ limitations de positions» JPM - HSBC / plaintes pour manipulation du marché de l'argent en class action» rv Bill Murphy / Bart Chilton, CFTC : compte rendu