Use access key #2 to skip to page content.

L0RDZ (81.98)

HILARIOUS - JPMorgan Silver Manipulation Explained

Recs

12

April 19, 2013 – Comments (21) | RELATED TICKERS: JPM

http://dailybail.com/home/hilarious-jpmorgan-silver-manipulation-explained.html

 

21 Comments – Post Your Own

#1) On April 19, 2013 at 4:56 PM, L0RDZ (81.98) wrote:

http://silverdoctors.com/the-secret-world-of-gold-cbc-documentary-to-take-metals-manipulation-mainstream/

Report this comment
#2) On April 19, 2013 at 6:36 PM, Valyooo (99.60) wrote:

Wheres the evidence?  All I see is news sources I have never heard of making unbacked claims

Report this comment
#3) On April 19, 2013 at 7:15 PM, L0RDZ (81.98) wrote:

If the  government  was  to  do  its job and  actually  investigate  maybe  we  would  have not had Bernie,,  who by  the  way  utilized JPM,  who  knew  he  was a shame,  but  of  course the  word  among   many many individuals  is  that  JPM  is just a  lackey  of   the  FED  and  they  have  a  rather  incestuous relationship.

The  evidence  will never  come  to fruition,  wanna  guess why ? because no  one will  be  willing  to investigate  and  if  there ever  was  to be an  investigation or  heaven  forbid some kind of  accountability or  oversight   it would be deemed  that  any manipulation is just good  business ( legal for  some  ~  illegal  for  most others).

I  know I may not  understand all  the intricacies about  the markets,  the futures,  but I  do understand  and  I can see a  rip  off  in  the making.

Just look at JPM's  relationship  with MF  global  ~  and how  customer funds  ~  just magically  disapeared.

As I understand things, JP Morgan (and many other banks, but mostly JP Morgan) has many clients who want to be long silver, in the OTC or "Over The Counter" market and LBMA market, up to perhaps $100 billion to $200 billion worth of "silver" in "accounts".  But JP Morgan (and other western banks) never went out and bought this silver in the first place, because there does not exist $100 billion to $200 billion worth of silver to buy in a world that produces and mines only about $6 billion (at $10/oz.) to $21 billion (at $30/oz) worth of silver per year.  This puts JP Morgan (and other banks) in a natural short position, as they owe their clients 10-20 times more silver than the world produces annually.  JP Morgan thus has this massive natural silver short exposure.  To protect the bank from the silver short position, JP Morgan must cap silver prices, by shorting silver on the COMEX, where prices are set.  Otherwise, as silver prices rise, the bank loses more and more on the silver they are supposedly holding for their clients.  Only in that sense, does JP Morgan have "offsetting positions"; in other words, shorts on COMEX to back up or shore up JP Morgan's other losing short positions (client long positions)!

JP Morgan cannot offset such OTC positions in the OTC market.  Except, in the sense I just explained, every single additional "sale" of silver in the OTC market protects and hedges every other sale, as all sales of "silver" in "accounts" to customers have the cumulative effect of preventing people from buying and taking delivery of real physical silver which would drive the silver price up.

The key reason why the London LBMA and OTC silver selling is so successful is that nobody ever asks for delivery of the silver, because there is a 20% tax on silver delivery in London.  See here:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silver_as_an_investment#Taxation

Report this comment
#4) On April 19, 2013 at 8:44 PM, Valyooo (99.60) wrote:

So youre completely convinced of something that you just admitted theres no evidence of?  Why JPM?  WHy not BAC with a huge naked short on copper?

Report this comment
#5) On April 19, 2013 at 9:32 PM, Starfirenv (< 20) wrote:

at ~ 4:20-  "silver is skyrocketing towards $29. A 30 yr high..."  should have told you this is more than  a couple yrs old when sil was pushing $40.  Also, silver to $500?  This puts gold at $8000. We'll see. 

It's a commercial for a dealer.  Glad it helped your understanding to the point you could "explain" things.

Report this comment
#6) On April 20, 2013 at 9:10 AM, MoneyWorksforMe (< 20) wrote:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hZzlz8GlX-c

Q.E.D

Report this comment
#7) On April 20, 2013 at 12:17 PM, Valyooo (99.60) wrote:

I don't see what's wrong with "manipulating" the price of silver. When has cornering a market ever worked? It hasn't. So let them bare the brunt. Why is it unlawful to buy as much of something as you want? Placing restrictions on silver buying and selling is the complete opposite of a free market

Report this comment
#8) On April 20, 2013 at 1:53 PM, awallejr (81.13) wrote:

Well it certainly worked for John Rockefeller with oil.  And he made even more when he was forced to break up his monopoly.  Personally I don't believe there can ever be a true free market.  And if you do allow an individual or entity to "corner" a particular market well then again you would no longer have a "free" one for that market.

P.S.,  enjoyed that video in #6 ;)

Report this comment
#9) On April 21, 2013 at 11:44 PM, Valyooo (99.60) wrote:

It is free in the sense that one cannot simply "corner" a market, without the intervention and force of government.  If one were to "corner" a market, in a free market, they would have to do so through buying the entire supply from willing sellers.  If a seller had a whif of the cornering, they would charge insane prices so that the corner-er did not profit.  And yes, breaking it up did help Rockefeller....so, trying to stop it is pointless, as the cornering itself never works out, therefore the free market takes care of the "threat".

However the government has no problem cornering a market in policing, militia, organized sports, social welfare, lottery games, etc with the force of imprisonment and violence if one does not comply with the contract that one did not sign to be involved with this cornered market. 

Report this comment
#10) On April 22, 2013 at 12:11 AM, awallejr (81.13) wrote:

Except silver was cornered decades ago.

Report this comment
#11) On April 22, 2013 at 12:16 AM, awallejr (81.13) wrote:

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=hunt%20brothers%20and%20silver%20market&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CDAQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FNelson_Bunker_Hunt&ei=Lrl0UerYFIfq0gHKtIGwCQ&usg=AFQjCNFh8uGwjJh91100h0r8_aBcvdEyOw

Report this comment
#12) On April 22, 2013 at 12:54 PM, Valyooo (99.60) wrote:

Except it wasnt, because it failed miseeably, and the hunts brothers lost their inherited oil fortune....did you actually read about them or did you just do a quick google search and assumed you knew the story?

Report this comment
#13) On April 22, 2013 at 12:57 PM, Valyooo (99.60) wrote:

Notice how the price of silver skyrocketed during the attempt, so he had to pay more and more each time, screwing himself

Report this comment
#14) On April 22, 2013 at 1:51 PM, awallejr (81.13) wrote:

I lived through it so don't be a wiseguy. I was responding to this comment of yours:

It is free in the sense that one cannot simply "corner" a market, without the intervention and force of government.

What did the Hunt brothers in was the change in the margin rules for silver.  Since they were massively leveraged that changed crushed them.  The government had nothing to do with any of this. They are a classic example of the dangers of playing with high leverage.

Report this comment
#15) On April 22, 2013 at 5:28 PM, L0RDZ (81.98) wrote:

Well the  gov-ment  was   pretty good  but  really ugly  at cornering   the  gold  market...    I  remember  something  about a family  sending their  gold coins to be  appraised and  the  gov-ment decided to keep  them because  they  should  have  been  confiscated  by  the  gov-ment  when  the gov-ment decided  it  was  a  good  idea  to take  all the gold away  from  the people.

Funny,  did  they  take  gold bars  from  the  really rich ?  and  give  them  fiat currency  to  replace  the gold ?

Franklin D. Roosevelt
President of the United States of America
April 5, 1933

What is it about  Democratic  presidents  and  their  propensity  to dip   their  sticks  into places they  shouldn't ?

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Roosevelt reportedly had affairs outside his marriage, including one with Eleanor's social secretary Lucy Mercer which began soon after she was hired in early 1914.[35] In September 1918, Eleanor found letters revealing the affair in Roosevelt's luggage, when he returned from World War I. According to the Roosevelt family, Eleanor offered Franklin a divorce so that he could be with the woman he loved, but Lucy, being Catholic, could not bring herself to marry a divorced man with five children. According to FDR biographer Jean Edward Smith, it is generally accepted that Eleanor indeed offered "to give Franklin his freedom."[36] However, they reconciled after a fashion with the informal mediation of Roosevelt's adviser Louis McHenry Howe, and FDR promised never to see Lucy again. His mother Sara also intervened, and told Franklin that if he divorced his wife, he would bring scandal upon the family, and she "would not give him another dollar."[36] However, Franklin broke his promise. He and Lucy maintained a formal correspondence, and began seeing each other again in 1941—and perhaps earlier.[37][38] Lucy was even given the code name "Mrs. Johnson" by the Secret Service.[39] Indeed, Lucy was with FDR on the day he died. Despite this, FDR's affair was not widely known until the 1960s.[40] Roosevelt's son Elliott stated that Franklin also had a 20-year affair with his private secretary Marguerite "Missy" LeHand.[41] Another son, James, stated that "there is a real possibility that a romantic relationship existed" between his father and Princess Märtha of Sweden, who resided in the White House during part of World War II; aides began to refer to her as "the president's girlfriend",[42] and gossip linking the two romantically appeared in the newspapers.[43]

The effect of these flirtations or affairs upon Eleanor Roosevelt is difficult to estimate. "I have the memory of an elephant. I can forgive, but I cannot forget," she wrote to a close friend.[44] After the Lucy Mercer affair, any remaining intimacy left their relationship. Eleanor soon thereafter established a separate house in Hyde Park at Valkill, and increasingly devoted herself to various social and political causes. For the rest of their lives, the Roosevelts' marriage was more of a political partnership than an intimate relationship.[45] The emotional break in their marriage was so severe that when FDR asked Eleanor in 1942—in light of his failing health—to come back home and live with him again, she refused

Report this comment
#16) On April 22, 2013 at 6:38 PM, Valyooo (99.60) wrote:

If the government had nothing to do with it (dont beleive that) then silver price fell because cornering doesnt work and you prove my point anyway...

Report this comment
#17) On April 22, 2013 at 8:19 PM, awallejr (81.13) wrote:

It didn't work because the rules were changed on them.  Read the link, it is why I posted it. And as I said Rockefeller cornered the oil market successfully. As other examples, look at early MSFT or GOOG or Old Ma Bell, they were all trying to "corner" their market.  It took the Government to break them up or put in restrictions.

What stops any market "cornering" today are Governmental restrictions.  AT&T had no shot at merging with T mobile (why the CEO is still in office after having thrown away literally $4 billion is shameful).

Report this comment
#18) On April 22, 2013 at 9:39 PM, Starfirenv (< 20) wrote:

Andy,  interested in your thoughts here.  Would you think an argument could be made that "controling" a market could qualify as "cornering"?  Or, say, if an entity controlled demand or price, could it also be considered as having "cornered" that market?  I'm playing with the thought that a market could be "cornered" in ways other than the traditional sense of exclusive ownership of supply.  Simply put, wouldn't a manipulated market  be a  "cornered" market- beyond the verbage?  Legally,  or realisticly, and hypothetically, of course?

Report this comment
#19) On April 23, 2013 at 12:42 AM, awallejr (81.13) wrote:

Star you ask an excellent question, since in either case the end result could be the same. But on the other hand manipulating is trying to make the market do somewhat what you want it to do whereas "cornering" gives no leeway.  A fine distinction in the end I suppose.  Kudos on the comment.

Report this comment
#20) On April 23, 2013 at 1:15 AM, Starfirenv (< 20) wrote:

Thanks for the kudos but not what I'm looking for. Just working on a brain fart and hoping for clarity from one with a legal mind.. thanks for you thoughts.   Best.

Report this comment
#21) On April 23, 2013 at 1:26 AM, Starfirenv (< 20) wrote:

you= your

 

Report this comment

Featured Broker Partners


Advertisement