Wednesday, October 01, 2014
   
Text Size

Search our Site or Google

How Leveraged Is JP Morgan?

Articles & Blogs - Silver Commentary

User Rating: / 93
PoorBest 

As investor enthusiasm soars in the silver sector, and more and more writers offer their views on this sector, we are now seeing a down-side to the increased “buzz”: we are seeing the over-zealous and/or under-informed begin to make wild assertions about this market – which seriously impairs the ability of more sober voices to make themselves heard.

As is often the case in such scenarios, we start with a piece of concrete information, and then pile atop that fact some sloppy arithmetic, and highly dubious “logic”. The result is nothing but outrageous rhetoric, rhetoric which the anti-precious metals cabal of bankers can use (and has used) to discredit the serious commentators in the sector.

What I refer to in particular are the “reports” from several commentators that JP Morgan is “short 3.3 billion ounces of silver”. Were this true, it would indeed be major “news” – given that best estimates are that the total, global stockpile of silver is roughly one billion ounces. Sadly, this "3.3 billion" number has no more relevance than the numbers released by the U.S. government which it calls “economic statistics”.

To illustrate the absurdity of this claim, we must see how that number was produced. As I said earlier, we started with a fact: that JP Morgan is short more than 300 million ounces in the Comex futures market. While this has never officially been announced, it is a conclusion which is the process of simple, straightforward deductions (and known CFTC data).

Taking that number, the zealots then added another fact: the claim by Jeffrey Christian that the world’s  bullion markets were leveraged by approximately 100:1. Here is where their analysis totally falls apart. To begin with, the “100:1” number itself is not a “fact”. It is treated as such because (to use some legal terminology) it is “an admission made against one’s own interests”, and as I have explained before, our legal system (justifiably) attaches a high degree of credibility to such admissions.

However, two points must be made immediately. First, this was just a rough estimate, not a precise statistic. Any reputable commentator utilizing such a number must account for the fact that it is only an approximation. In this respect, a number of commentators failed miserably.

The “3.3 billion ounce short position” which some commentators were practically shouting from the rooftops was arrived at by taking JP Morgan’s (known) short position, multiplying that by 100 (i.e. the 100:1 leverage) – and (after some creative arithmetic) arriving at a total of 3.3 billion ounces.

It’s hard to know where to start in criticizing this figure. To begin with, given Christian’s crude estimate, there is no way that the calculation could (justifiably) be expressed as “3.3 billion”. This implies a degree of precision here which simply doesn’t exist. I should also point out if we opt for a similar (but simpler) calculation, and merely multiply the (known) 300+ million ounces which JP Morgan is short by 100 (100:1 leverage), then that calculation produces the number “30 billion ounces”.

The same “logic” is being used, merely a slightly different calculation. Obviously if anyone would have claimed that JP Morgan was short 30 billion ounces of silver, the author of such an estimate would have been greeted with laughter. Simply playing-around with these numbers to produce a slightly more plausible number doesn’t change the entirely faulty premise on which this calculation is built.

The “leverage” in the derivatives market is “paper leverage”. Indeed, the very definition of a “derivative” is that it is a paper proxy for something which exists in “the real world”. Thus, the entire premise of multiplying a known, real short position by the paper leverage of the derivatives market – and then expressing that result as a measurement of silver is simply ludicrous.

In other words, when we multiply JP Morgan’s (real) short-position by its leverage in the derivatives market, the “answer” is not a measurement of silver, but a measurement of leverage.  It is in this respect that some commentators have turned into a flock of Don Quixotes – tilting at windmills.

We have no need to pump-up the real obligations of JP Morgan in the silver market. With current silver inventories well under 200 million ounces, the 300 million ounce short position of JP Morgan is both outrageously manipulative and plenty large enough to ensure its bankruptcy. Most importantly, it is not JP Morgan’s short position, per se, which is going to bankrupt this Oligarch – but rather the leverage on that short position.

It is common knowledge that JP Morgan began to build its short position with silver at $4/ounce. With silver currently dancing around the $30/ounce level, while no one outside of JP Morgan can know the precise magnitude of the losses it is sitting on, as a matter of simple arithmetic it must be in the $billions – with current losses between $5 and $10 billion seeming to be a good “ball-park” figure (at least for this author). Multiply that real loss by 100:1 leverage, and that implies that JP Morgan’s silver liability is pushing toward $1 trillion today.

I would argue, however, that this is likely to be a conservative figure. In listening again to Jeffrey Christian’s CFTC testimony (the source of the “100:1” revelation), Christian was using that number to represent “bullion” (i.e. an average of the leverage in the gold and silver market). However, we have very good reasons for believing that bankster leverage in the silver market is much greater than that in the gold market.

As a recent article by Eric Sprott observes, if we compare the size of the short positions in gold and silver with current bullion stockpiles, the silver short position is approximately 25 times as large. This is not surprising. We know from the inventory fraud being perpetrated in the silver market that the silver market is much closer to default/implosion than the gold market – precisely because the amount of “physical” bullion in existence is relatively much, much smaller.

Thus, because the short position in silver is so much larger, and because there is even more desperation to attempt to ‘keep a lid’ on this market (Comex “margin” for silver traders was reduced yet again yesterday), there is every reason to believe that JP Morgan’s leverage in the silver market (via derivatives) is much greater than 100:1. If I were to use the simplistic approach of the commentators who have been touting the “3.3 billion ounce short position”, I would simply assume that silver leverage was at least 25 times greater than gold leverage in the derivatives market – and end up concluding that JP Morgan was leveraged by well over 1000:1.

I won’t go there. Again, we on the “long” side have no need to engage in hyperbole to make our case. And as I pointed out earlier, such ridiculous rhetoric hurts all of the serious voices in this sector.

This still leaves unanswered the question: how leveraged is JP Morgan in the silver market? To narrow-down this number further, I would suggest we look at the credit default swap market. CDS contracts are the most-leveraged form of derivative in existence, which is why it’s the most popular “financial weapon of mass destruction” with Goldman Sachs – the same weapon it used to bilk AIG out of more than $10 billion.

We got a glimpse into the leverage of that market in a bankster-versus-bankster lawsuit between Morgan Stanley and Citigroup. Regular readers will remember that even after Morgan Stanley liquidated the collateral which supposedly “backed” this contract, it was facing a pay-out of approximately 300:1. Including the collateral (which was likely very minimal), total leverage was well over 300:1, but still nowhere remotely close to the 1000:1 number I tossed-out previously.

This provides us with both upper and lower parameters for the actual leverage of JP Morgan in the silver market. Its leverage must be much higher than the 100:1 average for gold and silver together, since the leverage in the silver market is much greater than leverage in the gold market. At the same time, we can safely say that it almost certainly must be lower than the 300:1 leverage we have seen in the credit default swap market.

It is the banksters who continually try to represent their “paper bullion” products as being the same thing as real, “physical” bullion. In order to elevate ourselves above them, we must avoid engaging in the same sort of rhetoric/hyperbole for which we criticize them so severely: talking about paper as if it were real metal.

Ultimately, the bankruptcy of JP Morgan will be a “paper event”: even with all the countless billions it has been allowed to pillage from the U.S. economy, the $1+ trillion obligation which it will be facing when this market implodes (at some price well above today’s price level) is more than sufficient to ensure its bankruptcy.

Ted Butler has devoted more than 20 years to his quest to bring truth (and transparency) to the silver market. Throughout those years, he never attempted to simply attract attention to himself by throwing around wild accusations and dubious calculations. Rather, his approach has always been very conservative – erring toward understatement rather than hyperbole. Ironically, it is his data which this latest crop of internet “shock jock’s” have plugged into their own dubious calculations.

Similarly, GATA has devoted a decade to exposing precious metals manipulation, and (as with Ted Butler) they have been very careful to avoid making claims which they couldn’t back-up with persuasive documentation. It was the efforts of these pioneers in the sector which has finally begun to convince growing numbers of mainstream investors that precious metals manipulation is fact, not fantasy.

The last thing which these people need (not to mention all of us precious metals investors) is to have all of this hard work and dedication sabotaged by a bunch of poorly informed “Johnny come lately’s” – making ridiculous claims which the bankers’ apologists in the mainstream media have no problem in discrediting.

Trackback(0)
Comments (30)Add Comment
Jeff Nielson
...
written by Jeff Nielson, December 04, 2012
I just stumbled upon a newsletter on MilesFranklin by David Schectman, where he seems to add fuel to the "debunking silver manipulation" side.
He writes:
"Whereas Ted Butler focuses on JP Morgan and “the Big Four Commercial Banks,” and their perpetual “short” position in silver (and gold), I don’t recall him ever suggesting that they actually own the physical silver to offset their short positions.
My friend Trader David R flatly states that this IS the case; he has seen the silver with his own eyes in London. In fact, he asked me to come with him last year and told me he would bring me to the vaults and personally show me the silver. Last winter he emailed me and said, “I will be going to London in May; if want to come along, I am sure I can get you a tour of a few of the major banks vaults (JPM included) and you can see all of the gold and silver for yourself ?”"
May I ask some comment on your part?



Charlybrown, I'm always somewhat mystified when commentators make statements like this -- since they IGNORE literally half the equation.

What must never be forgotten is that JP Morgan has TWO, massive silver obligations: its unprecedented short position AND the mountain of silver it SUPPOSEDLY holds on behalf of SLV unit-holders.

To the best of my knowledge, NO ONE in the known universe has seen enough silver to back BOTH those obligations. Indeed, by remarkable coincidence JPMorgan's short position tends to be roughly the same size as its custodian obligations.

Let me suggest some reading of my own:

SLV And Silver Manipulation
http://www.bullionbullscanada.com/silver-commentary/22646-slv-and-silver-manipulation

P.S. The even FUNNIER argument is to imagine JPMorgan holding a mountain of silver and NOT leveraging it. What kind of bankster are they...?
charlybrown
...
written by charlybrown, December 04, 2012
hi jeff, I just stumbled upon a newsletter on MilesFranklin by David Schectman, where he seems to add fuel to the "debunking silver manipulation" side.
He writes:
"Whereas Ted Butler focuses on JP Morgan and “the Big Four Commercial Banks,” and their perpetual “short” position in silver (and gold), I don’t recall him ever suggesting that they actually own the physical silver to offset their short positions.
My friend Trader David R flatly states that this IS the case; he has seen the silver with his own eyes in London. In fact, he asked me to come with him last year and told me he would bring me to the vaults and personally show me the silver. Last winter he emailed me and said, “I will be going to London in May; if want to come along, I am sure I can get you a tour of a few of the major banks vaults (JPM included) and you can see all of the gold and silver for yourself ?”"
May I ask some comment on your part?
Thanks a lot
Jeff Nielson
...
written by Jeff Nielson, March 15, 2011
...which begs the question: "why are you here?"

Unlike other readers, you have concluded you have nothing to learn here. So why come back at all?

To "waste" your time AND be subjected to (what you claim is) unfair abuse on this site, and yet to keep coming back for more would obviously suggest that you are either a "troll" or an "idiot".

I was just trying to be kind...
colchure
...
written by colchure, March 15, 2011
A 'paid troll' eh Jeff?! Do you not realise how ridiculous comments like this sound. I wish i was paid to ask questions, I would be a rich man (and then i'd invest it all in Gold).

You however seem stuck in limbo. You don't ask questions. You don't answer questions. You just rant.
Null
...
written by Null, March 15, 2011
colchure, there is no question these markets are manipulated.

https://marketforceanalysis.com/articles/latest_article_081310.html
Jeff Nielson
...
written by Jeff Nielson, March 15, 2011
Coclchure, I responded in a hostile manner to your comments for two, specific reasons.

One, when I posted several links which provided DETAILED replies to your original points/questions, it was obvious you did NOT bother to read-through those links - since your follow-up remarks/criticisms clearly indicated that.

The second reason I responded in a hostile manner was your misrepresentation of the facts (whether intentional or accidental): that my commentaries "could not stand up to the scrutiny" of an audience such as that at Seeking Alpha.

In fact, as my LONG history at that site clearly indicates, I have responded to any and all challenges at that site - and emerged with an UNBLEMISHED record. Yet AGAIN you refuse to do any "homework" to verify this obvious fact.

Part of the reason I urge you to read previous commentaries is that you obviously have a "learning curve" ahead of you to catch-up to the other readers at this site - and elevate the level of your questions/comments.

If you continue to show yourself unwilling to do such "homework", then I can only include that my original suspicion is true: that you are a paid-troll.

P.S. The line about being a "long-term silver bull" really doesn't work around here - since I have already discussed (on many occasions) the "Nadler persona": the "long-term bulls" who (by remarkable coincidence) ALWAYS believe that silver is going lower in the short term...so you can stow the rhetoric about your "love" for silver.
Brian Boutilier
...
written by Brian Boutilier, March 15, 2011
Colchure, it seems that this topic holds your interest, and that you are capable of adding to the conversation. So far, it appears that a battle of wills has taken over a constructive exchange. My bit of sarcasm wasn't helpful. If your intention is educational and for the public good, then may I suggest another path?
At this point perhaps a personal message, and an exchange of information may achieve what you are looking for. You are right, publically discrediting each other isn't educational, nor helpful.
colchure
...
written by colchure, March 15, 2011
paxjds, thank you for your comment. At least someone on this website is able to comment in balanced language without 'catch-all' statements.

As I keep repeating, I am not arguing with Jeff's overall opinions/predictions, in fact I share a lot of them. What I am questioning is his methodology and how this is presented in the form of various articles. Look over my comments, i have asked him to explain a few concepts in his article (concepts which anyone writing such an article should be able to detail with ease) and he has simply thrown back a couple of cryptic comments and then told me to read more. With leadership comes responsibility and if Jeff wants to be a 'leader of opinion' then he also has a responsibility to ALL his readers (not just those who blindly accept everything he says) to explain his thinking in more detail when asked.

In the days of Galileo his concept that the earth was not the center of the solar system caused outrage. However Galileo was a talented astronomer and i am sure that anyone who challenged his methodology would have been richly rewarded with clear evidence and facts as to how he reached his conclusion.

As a side issue I am also questioning why Jeff seems to lash out with phrases such as 'troll' against anyone who disagrees with him. Such outbursts belong in the playground and only serve to make Jeff seem overtly insecure about his views.

Silver has dropped in price today. Is this because of 'banksters' and 'trolls' manipulating the market? Of course not. It simply reflects a loss of appetite for more volatile assets (such as silver) in the face of a geopolitical crisis in Japan. Does this mean Jeff is wrong about Silver's future? No it doesn't; I am sure silver will rebound and head upwards. But on its volatile journey many factors will affect it and these should not be grouped under the category of 'manipulation'. This is just lazy thinking, the world is bigger and more complex than that.



paxjds
...
written by paxjds, March 15, 2011
colchure, SA is a well read site, but to assume but dont put all its writers and blog responders on such a high pedestal, as most are out of the finnancial services industry. The term Banksters apply to many and most of them IMHO.
In the current go around 2008-2011 we can thank them for trillions in losses in the crooked CDO's to XYZ's financilm products you talk so much about. Least we not forget their influence in the trillions of bailouts and deficit spending by the governments around the world. If you pay homage to such aholes, then perhaps a web site like SA suites your personality and belief system correctly. SA does more than its fair share of praising the financial industry.
Let us not forget the Savings and loan fiasco, their real estate bubble, and on... back to 1913 when our Stupid politicians created the Federal Reserve Crooked Bank(I think I spelled that correctly).
By the way, when Jeff was writing a lot on SA, his thumbs up approval rating was around 90%. All you have done here is point out that you are one of the 10% at SA in critiquing Jeff.
Brian Boutilier
...
written by Brian Boutilier, March 14, 2011
Yes, Jeff, more balanced would be good...
Every now and then, you should say, Bankers are people too...
Perhaps backpedal, and put out: Derivatives(products) have been wonderful for the economy, and have created the bubbles we have all prospered in.
Or Gee, I wish I was an Options trader, so I could understand leverage better, and be more complementary when writing about institutions that are perpetuating Ponzi schemes.
You really should soften your message, you risk alienating the "sofisticated" financial sector folks.
Jeff Nielson
...
written by Jeff Nielson, March 14, 2011
...and yet another 'troll' slinks off with his tail between his legs.
colchure
...
written by colchure, March 14, 2011
I am a ling term gold and silver bull. I don't work for any corporate bank, nor have I in the past. I believe the printing of money will cause a collapse of fiat currencies the world over- hardly the views of what you term 'a troll'.

But, and it is a big but, you may be right about the future of silver and gold, but you expression of that belief in articles such as the above is clumsy, inaccurate in terms of basic financial concepts and expressed in cliches.

I suggest you read articles on seeking alpha by Avery Goodman. An analyst who shares all your views on silver and gold but has the intelligence and financial learning to express them in coherent and balanced way.

Many thanks for confirming that this is an unbalanced website and saving me form wasting any further time here.
Jeff Nielson
...
written by Jeff Nielson, March 13, 2011
Lol - Colchure!

I've had over TWO HUNDRED pieces published on Seeking Alpha - many of them with very similar content. Instead of shooting-off your mouth further, why don't you go there and do some READING, and SEE how much I get "ripped apart" by TROLLS such as yourself.

What you'll find is that even though I rarely send articles to that site to be published any more that I remain one of the TOP-RATED "commenters" on that site - with a large portion of that favorable rating coming from the troll-slaying I've done when I did visit that site regularly.

In one sense I'm "flattered": the fact that a "troll" has been dispatched to our site means we're obviously doing SOMETHING right!
colchure
...
written by colchure, March 13, 2011
Well in this niche website I am sure you attract readers who hang on your every word. i notice you sometimes publish selected articles on 'Seeking Alpha' a well respected, balanced, website that attracts professional investors/traders/fund managers who all understand the mechanics of financial products. I challenge you to publish THIS article on that site. If you do, i can guarantee that it will be ripped apart for its unclear sloppy reasoning, by people who understand financial products and are able to explain them clearly without resort to conspiracy/cliches/generalisations.

You still haven't answered my questions. Perhaps you are unable to? Telling me to read further is not good enough. You should be able to respond to questions about your articles without passing the buck.

Disclosure: Have worked on an options derivatives desk in a London market maker for many years.

As for all you readers, perhaps you need to challenge Jeff's arguments more- he doesn't respond well to it so far. Not a good sign.


Jeff Nielson
...
written by Jeff Nielson, March 12, 2011
Colchure, if you want your questions "answered" in greater detail, perhaps you should do more reading:

http://www.bullionbullscanada.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=category&id=49&Itemid=130

It is clearly you who does not understand this market if you cannot understand my reasoning - as it seems to be apparent to other readers.
colchure
...
written by colchure, March 12, 2011
Hi Jeff

thanks for responding so speedily, it shows a healthy website. As for your rhetoric, of course it doesn't automatically undermine your underlying message, but I feel it would be stronger without it. What does it add?

As for answering my other two questions, whilst I appreciate the attempt, your answers are too brief to be informative.

My first question asked about the motivations for JP Morgan to pursue a manipulation of the silver price downward. Why would they do this? You have answered cryptically " This allowed the banksters to DESTROY the global silver supply - the best way to get silver out of the hands of the ordinary person." Ok so if that is true, why did they do it? Why does an investment bank want to get silver out of the hands of ordinary folk? Surely they simply want to make money, why politicise their motives? Furthermore your logic seems flawed. If the global supply of silver is 'destroyed' then it would become rarer and according to supply and demand the price would rise. So JP Morgan would hardly want to destroy the global supply if their aim was to keep prices low.

More worrying is your answer to the second question as it is beginning to betray a lack of understanding to do with how financial products work. you write:


"First, it (JP Morgan) doesn't have nearly enough bullion to "cover" its short position AND its custodial obligations. This means it's facing large paper losses there, on top of the actual shorting losses.

Then, on top of that, it's leveraged this losing position by an insane level in the derivatives market. It's DIRECT losses on shorting alone will be in the $billions, and then MULTIPLIED by the 100:1 (+) paper leverage."

I have so many questions about your terms I don't know where to start. What do you mean by 'paper losses there, on top of the actual shorting losses'? You seem to be saying the same thing twice.

you then state 'it's leveraged this losing position by an insane level in the derivatives market.'

leveraged what in the derivative market? Its futures position? A future IS a derivative, the only derivative of a future is an option. Are you referring to options? Perhaps you are implying it has been leveraging its physical silver holdings by issuing futures against them.

You then state "It's DIRECT losses on shorting alone will be in the $billions, and then MULTIPLIED by the 100:1 leverage". Why do you think losses will be multiplied by leverage? Losses/gains are always stated in actual terms. Just because a company uses leverage to INITIATE a derivative this has NO multiplier effect on the losses/gains from that derivative. If JP Morgan have lost billions then they have lost billions- they haven't lost billions multiplied by leverage. Futures contracts don't work that way. The leverage is always in terms of margin, not P/L.


Whatever you are generally trying to say, it is not clear and I think you shouldn't write technical articles like the above piece with at best an inability to express financial mechanics clearly or at worst a lack of understanding of how these products work.

I admire your general passion for Gold and Silver investing but passion alone is not enough.

Jeff Nielson
...
written by Jeff Nielson, March 12, 2011
Hi Colchure.

The use of rhetoric is obviously a topic open to debate. I write "opinion pieces" and analysis, and I'm not a "news reporter". Thus the use of rhetoric does not AUTOMATICALLY undermine my message.

As for the particular colloquialism of "bankster", it is WIDELY used by the non-mainstream media, and is actually one of the least inflammatory aspects of my own rhetoric. These people are obvious criminals. Their "business" is obviously "organized crime".

In the Crash of '08 (engineered by these same criminals) we had a UN official noting that Wall Street had "increased" its laundering of drug cartel money dramatically. Note that he did not say "begun to launder".

When we have a group of banking Oligarchs with whom it is COMMON KNOWLEDGE that they have close "business" ties to international drug cartels (AMONG their criminal operations), then I have no hesitation in coining the phrase "bankster" to describe them.

1) Under-pricing of silver not only led to excessive demand (versus supply) but ALSO meant that very little "industrial" silver was ever recycled. This allowed the banksters to DESTROY the global silver supply - the best way to get silver out of the hands of the ordinary person.

2) There are two aspects to JP Morgan's silver liabilities: its 'straight' short position, and its RADICALLY leveraged derivatives (at least 100:1 leverage). JP Morgan's problems are two-fold.

First, it doesn't have nearly enough bullion to "cover" its short position AND its custodial obligations. This means it's facing large paper losses there, on top of the actual shorting losses.

Then, on top of that, it's leveraged this losing position by an insane level in the derivatives market. It's DIRECT losses on shorting alone will be in the $billions, and then MULTIPLIED by the 100:1 (+) paper leverage.
colchure
...
written by colchure, March 12, 2011
Hi Jeff

Just subscribed to this website. A couple of questions and points.

Firstly, do you not think your use of words such as 'bankster' is slightly silly considering you are presumably trying to be a serious financial commentator. Why use such emotive cliched words? JP Morgan are bankers- perhaps corrupt ones, perhaps ignorant ones, perhaps malicious, perhaps idiotic. Probably a little bit of all of these. But to define them by an umbrella term such as bankster seems lazy and blinkered. I Am a long term gold and silver bull, but the use of cliches such as 'bankster' only make valid arguments seem overzealous and unserious. Many of the public need to be educated about protecting their wealth through buying real money - ie gold/silver. I think any hint of zeal/conspiracy paranoia only weakens this education.

A few questions about this article:

1. Why were JP Morgan so keen to keep silver prices low? You state they began their short position at $4. JP Morgan are not stupid, obviously at this level the downside gain is far outweighed by the upside risk (for a short position) why were they so keen to go short? I am sure they only want to make money, so why the inference that they had an initial interest in low silver prices? If there is silver manipulation to keep prices low then we need a valid motive for the banks desire to keep silver prices low IN THE FIRST INSTANCE. Ie. not explained by the fact that they NOW have a large short position, therefore they need to keep prices low to protect the current short position. This is a circular argument and does not explain their initial or underlying motive for low silver prices.

2. Your talk of leverage and liability seem a bit confused. When a future contract is sold short it is sold for a specific amount of silver ounces that must be delivered at a future date. This amount of silver is static. It does not change whatever the price action. JP Morgan (if we accept they are short futures) owe a distinct amount of silver for delivery. Whatever the price at expiration will define their liability in $ but this is completely seperate from the amount of silver (in ounces) they owe. The leverage is only important in terms of a deposit. I.e the amount of money they have to have available to cover the future. As anyone knows who trades anything short, a persons $ liability is theoretically infinite but their liability for the quantity of the actual asset never changes (it is the same as when they took out the contract). Therefore your article confuses $ liability (which is NOT $1trillion as you state but infinite) with quantity liability, which is of course known (perhaps not to us, but to the future buyer and seller). The point of your article should therefore be: Will JP morgan be able to satisfy an ever increasing margin requirement (as silver prices move against them) and therefore keep rolling over the futures contracts (hence delaying delivery) or will they be forced to begin delivering their contracts and their subsequent demand to obtain PHYSICAL silver (to honour the contract) cause the system to collapse. Seen in these terms, ironically a high leverage (the amount of margin required to maintain a futures contract) DELAYS the day of reckoning for JP Morgan as it reduces the amount of money required to service their futures contracts. I feel in your article the tail is wagging the dog.

i look forward to your response.
Jeff Nielson
...
written by Jeff Nielson, January 02, 2011
Yes Steve, there was several layers of manipulation: a general assault on commodities + the collapse of Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers allowed the surviving banksters to consolidate their stranglehold on metals markets even further.

So they did what they ALWAYS do when acquiring more leverage: drove the price so far below equilibrium that demand spiked immediately - and they have now totally screwed themselves because their physical bullion is gone, and you can't leverage PAPER.
steve555
...
written by steve555, January 02, 2011
Jeff,

What was the reason for silver's steep fall in 2008 financial crisis? Was it manipulation by JP Morgan?
Jeff Nielson
...
written by Jeff Nielson, December 24, 2010
Dlmaniac, I just thought it was very unfortunate to see commentators on "our side" basically just adding bullion and paper together, and then calling the total "bullion".

As I said in the commentary, that's how the BANKERS do their "math" in the bullion market. Sink down to their level, and then it is so much easier for them to brush-off everyone in the sector as "conspiracy nuts".
dlmaniac
...
written by dlmaniac, December 24, 2010
That 3.3B probably came from someone's guestimate off reading the BIS and OCC reports on over the counter derivative activities. I know Jason Hommel has been doing it for a while. Robert Kirby raised issues about it as well but the data is shrouded in secrecy so no one knows what's going on behind the door.
Jeff Nielson
...
written by Jeff Nielson, December 21, 2010
If my memory is correct, that was also posted on our forum a couple of days ago - but thanks for posting it here as well, since many of the people who read these commentaries don't visit our forum.

Yes, it's just a silly shell-game, EXACTLY what is being done with U.S. Treasuries when they trotted out "statistics" showing that "demand" for U.S. Treasuries had just (conveniently) spiked in the UK.

In the case of bonds, the U.S. government desperately needs to PRETEND that there are still "buyers" out there (whose name ISN'T "Ben Bernanke").

With gold/silver, these companies are FINALLY getting smart enough to move their gold and silver manipulation off of their OWN balance sheets (LOL!). In another indication of how stupid these bankers really are, apparently up until recently they had been keeping ALL of their games in the gold/silver market on their own balance sheets.

We KNOW this is the case, since otherwise the CFTC wouldn't be able to definitively point to the dominant short positions of "one or two traders".

So, since the banksters are now (desperately) trying to move what are now money-LOSING operations off of their own balance sheets, it obviously makes sense to set up FOREIGN dummy-entities as fronts for their operations.

It ALSO means that we will see these fronts operating in a totally 'Kamikaze' manner - since they have been CREATED to be vaporized when these sectors finally blow up. Thus, the "100:1" leverage which Jeffrey Christian told us about could easily become 1000:1 - and it won't matter in the slightest.

The bottom-line is that there must be SOMETHING for the banksters to leverage. 1,000,000:1 leverage is utterly useless to them if it's 1 million X zero. When the "physical" bullion has been cleaned out, there game is over. Period. Forever.
steve555
...
written by steve555, December 20, 2010
Looks like they have outsourced their manipulation game.

http://news.silverseek.com/SilverSeek/1292901558.php
Jeff Nielson
...
written by Jeff Nielson, December 19, 2010
Thanks for the comments.

We can't talk about "promoting truth" at this site, and then allow propaganda (from our side) to go unchallenged.

And as I pointed out from a personal standpoint, when such outlandish "analysis" is published, it makes my job that much harder - because I (and others) get lumped-in with the people spraying around such numbers.
Marcocruces
...
written by Marcocruces, December 18, 2010
Well done Jeff!

We in the outer worlds read and listen, and try to make sense of all the numbers, and most times we take what we hear or read as gospel. We have to, unless we've learned better in a particular case or hold such numbers suspect. But it's difficult, people tell you what you want to hear, or we tend to listen to people that tell us things we agree with.

Thanks for the analysis and clarity, it's excellent.
Mark
steve555
...
written by steve555, December 18, 2010
Excellent article as usual.

With so many people coming up with their own numbers it was getting confusing.

Thanks for putting the issue to bed.
Jeff Nielson
...
written by Jeff Nielson, December 17, 2010
Null, yes, a silver default is a VERY possible catalyst for U.S. hyperinflation. As you say, not necessarily an IMMEDIATE "trigger", but certainly a major event which could (indirectly) set-off a hyperinflation spiral.

However, the real point here is we could examine MANY different facets of the U.S. economy right now, and point to them as "potential triggers" for hyperinflation. In other words, it's not so much that silver and U.S. hyperinflation are so closely connected, but rather that the U.S. economy is already so close to that hyperinflation spiral that here is but yet another potential catalyst.

As for JP Morgan and the copper market, that is not rumor but fact. The only thing which isn't known for sure is precisely how big a chunk of the market it grabbed. Yes, if it's too late for them to protect themselves in the silver market, and too late too load-up in the gold market (and the other PGM markets are too small), then it's no surprise that JPM would try to hedge its GIGANTIC silver losses with the next best metal they could latch onto.

They certainly aren't going to "hedge" that silver position by holding any of THEIR OWN paper!
Null
...
written by Null, December 17, 2010
Oh the other thing I forgot to bring up is that apparently JPMorgan has been trying to protect itself by controlling 80% of the London copper market. Do you know what this is about?
Null
...
written by Null, December 17, 2010
Jeff, I am wondering if you think the default in the silver market will be the trigger which starts the panic spiral of US hyperinflation. This would spook the bond market and the government / banks would quickly lose control.

Beyond this, JPMorgan would go bankrupt as a result of its silver short position, as well as its long and short bond swap activities designed to keep rates low. This would trigger a collapse of the whole banking sector and the only way to prevent that would be for the government to bail them out, but with the bond market seeming to be on the verge of collapse right now with no crisis.... doesn't seem to be likely.

So the question is, when will the silver market default? I was reading the other day on Eric King that there are large Asian buyers demanding physical and when they decide the time is right, they will just take down the market. I also read that China has apparently entered into some paper gold / US dollar hedge position in London which means that it can get out of its treasuries holdings and even if the dollar crahes it can still collect its physical gold after the crash (I don't quite understand how this works).

The whole deck of cards is now standing on a very weak leg. All it would take is a default in the silver market, and that could be happening very soon, even in a month or two?

I

Write comment
You must be logged in to post a comment. Please register if you do not have an account yet.

busy

Latest Commentary

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12

Latest Comments

Disclaimer:

BullionBullsCanada.com is not a registered investment advisor - Stock information is for educational purposes ONLY. Bullion Bulls Canada does not make "buy" or "sell" recommendations for any company. Rather, we seek to find and identify Canadian companies who we see as having good growth potential. It is up to individual investors to do their own "due diligence" or to consult with their financial advisor - to determine whether any particular company is a suitable investment for themselves.

Login Form