|
Archives
TED
BUTLER'S ARCHIVES
TED BUTLER COMMENTARY
August 28, 2007
The Royal Scam
The most recent Commitment of Traders Report (COT) confirmed the epic
clean out of speculators in silver and gold, and a host of other
commodities in the dramatic sell-off centered on Thursday, August 16.
The COT, for positions held as of August 21, indicated dramatic
speculative selling and commercial buying in gold and silver, resulting
in unusually bullish set-ups in each.
In fact, even though I was not expecting it at this time, the clean
out suggests something to me that long-time readers will remember I had
written about. So severe was this recent sell-off in silver, and so
dramatic was the improvement in the COT market structure, that I believe
that this was the mother of all sell-offs.
What I’m referring to is my long-held theory that just prior to the
big move up in silver, we would likely suffer an unusually severe
sell-off. This final sell-off would clear the decks and enable the
dealers to buy as many silver contracts as possible. Then, if the
dealers refrained from selling into the next rally, prices would truly
explode.
While it remains to be seen what the dealers will do on the next
rally, there should be little question in anyone’s mind as to just what
occurred on the sell-off. Quite simply, the dealers forcibly liquidated
every leveraged long speculator they could possibly liquidate. I mean
this quite literally, as their brokers with little notice, or chance to
post additional margin sold out many long holders. This was not an
accident.
Please understand where I am coming from. I have never publicly
encouraged buying silver on margin. I have always written to buy real
silver for cash on the barrel. No one following my advice could have
lost his or her position in the sell-off of August 16 or any other
sell-off. Now, more than ever, that unwavering advice holds true. By
borrowing money to margin or leverage silver, you automatically turn
what is a great long-term investment into a speculation.
But, given my background and the realities of the world, I can easily
understand why someone would attempt to buy silver on margin. The
addition of leverage to what I believe is the worlds best investment
creates a powerful speculation. The problem is that silver is the most
manipulated market of all, and the treachery and control of the dealers
is too often under appreciated by silver speculators. Dealer-engineered
sell-offs are always more severe in silver than any other market, as the
dealers intentionally force long speculators out of the market. This is
what happened on August 16, as indicated by the most recent COT.
Some may question my take on this, because on the days of the big
sell-offs, the dealers are all buying while the speculators are selling.
So how could the buyers be causing prices to decline? As I have
previously written, the answer is simple – the dealers are colluding.
Either overtly or covertly, the dealers pre-arrange to withhold their
bids to buy at critical times, like on August 16.
The proof of this statement lies in observation and common sense.
Hundreds of silver speculators involuntarily sold on August 16, while a
dozen or so dealers, T. rex’s and raptors alike, voluntarily bought. The
speculators didn’t wake up that day with the intent or thought of
selling. The dealers did wake up with the thought of creating and buying
distressed sales. In fact, I am sure that the very dealers that were
doing the forcing bought some of the contracts of the speculators that
were forcibly sold. Talk about a rigged game.
While the speculative selling of COMEX silver (and gold) contracts
was wide and broad, the buying was concentrated by the Big 4 shorts and
the raptors. The T. rex’s and the raptors colluded in the hunting and
killing of the specs, each roughly accounting for half of the 11,000 net
contracts bought in the commercial category. It was near a record
one-week buying spree (actually one day) for each dealer group. The Big
4 bought back and covered 5500 net futures contracts, reducing their
short position by the most in more than a year. The raptors increased
their net long position to more than 22,000 contracts, a record since I
started following them.
In the case of the Big 4, I can’t help but think there may be a
connection with my recent efforts with ScotiaMocatta. Time will tell. If
I am correct in my thinking, there is an additionally troubling aspect
to their possible short covering under the circumstances of August 16.
If ScotiaMocatta has been a big short and participated in the
engineering of sharply lower silver prices of that day to buy back short
positions, it would seem doubly manipulative to me.
In the case of the raptors, they confirmed their behavior of not
liquidating to the downside in spades. The obvious message in this
strong and concerted buying by the dealers to the silver investor should
be crystal clear – if the dealers are so intent on buying as much silver
as they can, even to the extent of rigging the market down, so should
you be buying.
I want to thank all those who took the time to write to the CFTC,
COMEX, and Scotiabank. I am going to reprint an especially well-written
letter that a reader sent to me. Since I am aware of no official
response to date, I urge those who haven’t written yet, to do so. I am
also going to suggest some additional follow up questions for those who
already wrote in.
I have a sense that the regulators may try to trot out and recycle
the nine-page response from the CFTC back in 2004 to answer the current
questions on concentration. This would, obviously, be non-responsive
since the 2004 letter didn’t address the issue of concentration. I’d
like to prevent such a subterfuge by the regulators.
Since I believe the key to getting this manipulation issue resolved
is to ask questions that are as specific as possible, here is the
additional question I would direct to Mr. Richard Waugh, the CEO of
Scotiabank mail.president@scotiabank.com,
Did ScotiaMocatta buy back short positions for itself or customers on
August 16?
Additional questions for the CFTC and the COMEX would be;
What is the purpose behind the compiling and publishing of
concentration data in every market?
When does concentration rise to the level of manipulation?
These questions should be directed to the Hon. Walter Lukken, Acting
Chairman, CFTC wlukken@cftc.gov
and
Mr. James Newsome, CEO NYMEX/COMEX
jnewsome@nymex.com
Here is that well-written letter sent to me by a reader from Oklahoma
to the CFTC and COMEX that is slightly edited and minus his last name;
Dear Sir,
I am quite concerned with a situation that has been going on for
rather a long time on the COMEX. The situation is an extreme
concentration of silver futures contracts (net short) being held by
four or fewer traders. My concern comes from weekly examination of the
COT report put out by the CFTC.
I am not attempting to in any way interpret any COT report. I am
merely stating what the report itself says.
As an example, the 31 July 2007 COT for silver states that 4 or
less traders are net short 265,552,000 troy ounces of silver.
This an enormous amount of silver and dwarfs the amount of
concentration found in a COT report for any other commodity. This huge
amount is equivalent to over 150 days of silver production for the
entire planet. Whether one, two, three or four entities are short over
50,000 silver contracts, what possible commercial purpose could such a
position have except to attempt to manipulate the price level of
silver far below the price it would have in the absence of such a
concentrated short position. This amount almost equals the entire
silver inventories of the COMEX and silver ETF combined. I know of no
other market where the net concentrated short position, held by four
or less traders is greater than 150 days of global production of a
commodity.
I'm sure if four or less traders attempted to accumulate over
50,000 contracts net long that the CFTC would have put a stop to it
long ago as an obvious attempt to manipulate the price level of silver
far above the price it would have in the absence of such a
concentrated long position. If the Hunt brothers had tried their
shenanigans on the short side rather than on the long side, would
regulators have looked the other way? I don't think so. Perhaps it is
who the holders are rather than what they are holding or why. That
would indicate that regulatory officials regard certain entities as
above the law. I sincerely hope that is not the case. That is the sort
of thinking that led to President Nixon having to resign in disgrace.
As a citizen, taxpayer and voter, I am asking for a reply from you
specifically addressing the following questions:
1. Do you think it is proper that the identity or identities of the
four or less traders should be withheld from public scrutiny when a
prima facie case of market manipulation could be made based on the COT
reports issued by the CFTC?
2. If you think that the net short position of over 50,000
contracts, equivalent to over 150 days of silver production for the
entire planet, by four or less traders is not evidence of
manipulation, how large a position would it take to indicate
manipulation?
3. Are you aware of any markets where the net concentrated short
position, held by four or less traders, is greater than 150 days of
global production?
4. What possible commercial purpose could such an extremely
concentrated short position have except to attempt to manipulate the
price level of silver far below the price it would have in the absence
of such a concentrated short position?
5. What do you, in your official position, having been made aware
of this extreme concentration of silver futures contracts (net short)
being held by four or fewer traders, based on official CFTC reports,
going to do about it?
6. If you, in your official position, having been made aware of
this extraordinary situation, feel it is unnecessary to take any sort
of corrective action, are you willing to accept the publicity and
consequences that may result if, in the future, a case for attempted
manipulation is proven in a court of law?
I await you reply and thank you for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
David
|