Tuesday, March 30, 2010

Silver Stock Report: CFTC Hearing; Poised to Act!

God Bless You!
 
You may unsubscribe if you no longer wish to receive our emails.

CFTC Hearing; Poised to Act!

(CFTC aiming to regulate silver market!)

Silver Stock Report

by Jason Hommel, March 30th, 2010 
 

I was pleasantly surprised by the CFTC meeting in Washington DC on March 25th, it was much better than I expected.  I think the CFTC is likely to do something to help stop the excessive and concentrated short position in silver at the COMEX, and there are many reasons why, as I detail below.    

I was very impressed with the quality and intelligence of the questions asked by the CFTC commission members.  CFTC chairman, Gary Gensler continually brought up issue of the large silver concentration as being a potential problem to deal with.  The main questions seemed to be "how to deal with it", and "what would happen"?  I don't think he would ask that, unless he knew there was a problem that needed to be fixed.

Chairman Gensler specifically thanked Bart Chilton for bringing these issues up repeatedly to the CFTC; everybody there seemed to know him the best, and was recognized by Chairman Gensler as their leader on these issues.  I believe we ought to pray for all of the commissioners at this point; for their safety, that they are given Godly courage, and continue to gain wisdom and insight into the nature of the silver fraud, and how to best stop it.

There were 5 commission members of the CFTC, who asked questions from panel members that they invited to speak on their panel discussions.  They covered almost everything you could imagine, and asked nearly all the questions I would ask, they were that good.  Unfortunately, the CFTC did not ask the public anything, so I did not get to say anything.

The full event is now online, and available here:
http://www.capitolconnection.net/capcon/cftc/webcastarchive.htm

These are my notes that I took with pen on paper, then typed up later.  I sat in the back, did not take notes on everything, and I hope I don't mis-attribute things said to the wrong person, if my notes are not clear, I'll try to write, "someone said".

Panel members each had 5 minutes to read an opening statement or testimony, and questions and answers were to be limited to another 5 minutes.

The main points in my notes are as follows. The commission members asked many good questions: 

Opening Statements by Gensler, Dunn, and O'Malia:
http://cftc.gov/ucm/groups/public/@newsroom/documents/speechandtestimony/genslerstatement032510.pdf
http://cftc.gov/ucm/groups/public/@newsroom/documents/speechandtestimony/dunnstatement032510.pdf
http://cftc.gov/ucm/groups/public/@newsroom/documents/speechandtestimony/omaliastatement032510.pdf

Panel 1:

They started out asking Steve Sherrod, of their own Division of Market Oversight (DMO), in the CFTC, and Dan Berkovits, General Counsel of the CFTC, some key questions.  They also covered the history of position limits at the CFTC which I don't cover here; it was a chart, hard to read.

There were several opening statements by CFTC commissioners, see CFTC.gov.

1.  A CFTC commissioner asked:  Why are there exemptions to position limits granted to "bona fide hedgers"? 

2.  CFTC asked:  What is the difference between a bona fide hedger and a speculator, when one reason to hold gold and silver bullion is to hedge against the inflation of the dollar?

The day started with a startling admission:  There is no enforcement of position limits unless they are excessive, which is defined if there are "sudden and unwarranted changes in the price".  CFTC asked their own DMO if that has happened, and the answer was, "Yes, it was volatile in 2008", I believe in reference to silver.

3.  Even more shocking:  CFTC asked:  If an entity has an exemption to position limits, and they are under "accountability levels" then what happens when they exceed those accountability levels?  (Answer, the Division of Market Oversight (DMO) does nothing, and nor does it sanction such activity by doing nothing.)

4.  CFTC asked, "What justifies exceeding the accountability levels"?  The CFTC's DMO answered, "nothing".

5.  Bart Chilton even said that hiding the names of the large traders that have such exemptions leads to less transparency, which is not the goal.

6.  It was pointed out that revealing the names of market participants is prohibited by statute.

7.  But Chilton pointed out that if they are so large that it reveals who the trader is, then that kind of proves that there is an "issue"!  I almost applauded.

8.  Chilton pointed out that current position limits appear to be like speed limits on a dark desert highway that nobody enforces.

9.  The DMO pointed out that the largest ETFs do NOT hold futures contracts.

==========

Panel 2:

Tom LaSala, of the CME Group, who owns the COMEX, said there are hard position limits on the spot month, and accountability levels in other, future months.  He said the CME polices itself, and issues "reduce position" instructions to market participants when necessary.  Tom specifically said that GATA lacks evidence and theory.  He claimed that inventories and hard position limits are all ok.  He said that position limits will drive trading elsewhere, (which seemed to be a big discussion point of the day).  He pointed out that LME gold trading exceeds COMEX.  (COMEX silver trading exceeds LME?)  Driving trading away from the COMEX would cause a loss of transparency, and the other theme of the day is that transparency is good.

=====

Jeremy Charles, HSBC Bank, USA, their global metals trader, said they hedge "long London" with a short COMEX.  He said limits are unnecessary and dangerous to USA markets, and lead to a lack of liquidity.

=====

Mark Epstein, a private trader, who is a member on several exchanges, said many good things.  He pointed out the danger of the relative size of the silver open interest, and that it is "too big", "irresponsibly large" and a default could destroy the COMEX.  He said that there are often suspiciously large sell orders that knock the price back too much, too fast, for example, someone sold 2000 gold contracts for about $215 million in 1 millisecond which knocked the price back about 1%.  Such things disrupt the price.  And in silver, only just over 200 silver contracts can knock the silver price back 1/2 of 1%.  He sounded like me, rattling off numbers of the size of the open interest, up to 700 million oz., which appears much too big in relation to the metal on deposit in the warehouses, which is about 120 million oz., only 50 million oz. of which are registered for delivery.  Mark was one of the guys who took delivery of silver off the exchange, and sent it to refiners to make 100 oz. bars to sell into the spot market when silver spot was $2-3/oz. above exchange prices, in 2008.  He called it an "arbitrage opportunity".
 
=====

Jeff Burghardt, of Luvata, a copper company with 6000 employees, said he did not like high copper prices, which cause higher inventory costs.  He would want to limit long speculators.  He complained that copper prices doubled while warehouse inventories also doubled!  His suggestion was to impose higher margin limits, and said that would be better than position limits.

=====

Diamurd O'Hegarty, of the London Metals Exchange (LME) testified next.  Apparently, he said nothing noteworthy.

=====

Gensler had a question about concentration in silver, for Epstein. 

Also, what does it mean when HSBC "hedges client activity"? 

=====

Epstein said that large trades move markets.  $5-10 million would cause a massive disruption in silver prices.

=====

Jeff Burghardt complained that in copper, they now see daily price moves that would normally take a year to happen.

=====

Michael V. Dunn, CFTC commissioner, asked, "What would happen if COMEX was drained of silver?"

I believe it was O'Hegarty, of the LME, who replied, "It would fill back up." 

=====

Jill Sommers, CFTC commissioner, asked something like, "How do we know if hedge exemptions to position limits are legit or not?"

I believe it was Jeremy Charles, HSBC, who danced around the issue, and repeatedly said things like they hedge "exposure" and "have exposure".  It seemed to me he was being truthful but evading, or trying to mislead while remaining truthful.   I note he did not say they "have metals", which I believe he hoped he was interpreted as saying.  Thus, it seemed to me that he was saying that they were hedging their own short activity over at the LME with further shorts at the COMEX, but not actually admitting that, but trying to make it sound like they were hedging "long client positions", which also did not make sense, as you don't need to hedge client positions, as client positions are held for clients, and thus, don't have risk, unless they owe silver to clients, and they don't want the silver price to move up, in which case they would hedge their obligations to clients by shorting, to manipulate the market!

=====

It was pointed out that there were 28 internal actions taken to prevent excesses in futures, taken by COMEX, as noted by Chilton,

=====

Charles, of HSBC, pointed out there is no shortage of metal in London, and that they can deliver bars within 24 hours.

=====

I believe someone suggested the CFTC use "position management" to protect against a short squeeze.

Gensler, CFTC, asked, "How often does the COMEX exchange (CME) talk to the "large 4"?

Answer, "where necessary."  Clarify.  "Not daily."  Perhaps once a month or every few months.

=====

Gensler tried to get them to clarify this issue of shorting futures at COMEX to hedge "long cash" in London?  Again, it seems as if Gensler caught on to their evasiveness.  Again, it appears as if they are describing LME activity as if HSBC is describing their own "long metals" positions by using the term "long cash".  But it appears you could use that same term "long cash" to describe that they owe cash, based on silver prices, to their clients in London, while that was not specifically admitted, of course.

(As an aside, I'll note that if they have long positions in London, and short positions at the Comex, to balance out, that is manipulative.  You can't manipulate the price down at COMEX with shorts, to buy silver elsewhere based off the low COMEX prices!  (We can take legally take advantage of the low price to buy silver, but not the ones shorting silver!) Furthermore, if they have short positions in London, and short in COMEX to prevent their London shorts from blowing up, that's not a hedge, that's manipulation, and exactly the type of fraudulent and risky behavior that needs to be stopped!)

(My broker forbids me from holding both a short position, and a long position at the same time.  Why do these guys act like that's no problem, and a valid explanation?)

=====

CFTC commissioner Dunn said he understands that it is common to hold silver as a hedge for inflation. 

=====

Jeff Burghardt, copper guy, said that futures are used for price discovery!  He complained that manipulation moves prices more than real world events.  For example, prices moved less after the Chile Earthquake than when big guys trade, and obviously it should not be like that.  Chile produces most of the world's copper.

=====

Chilton complained that it's amazing that the CFTC cannot reveal who has an exemption to the position limits.

=====

Question was asked, are there multiple claims on silver?  The LME guy said "no".

The LME guy also said that it's wrong of analysts to compare, or "balance", futures with physical supply, since futures can extend 5 years out, and shorts will always "cover later" as the time to delivery draws near.

=====

Scott O Malia of the CFTC said that "higher margins ~ good", and seemed to back up what the copper guy was saying and asking for.

Epstein said that the largest traders have no capital constraints (I believe he was alluding to firms like JP Morgan with an excess of $1.8 trillion in base capital and who can receive Fed bail out money or borrow directly from the Fed discount window).  Thus, it seems to me that he felt that higher margins would not affect, or constrain, the largest traders at all, and obviously it's the largest traders that are the problem.

Another said that higher margins would disadvantage US markets.

CME opined "no" for higher margins; that they do already raise margin requirements as they feel necessary.

LME opined that higher copper prices may be bad for the Copper company that has to inventory it, but higher copper prices are good for other market participants such as the miners.

=====

Chairman Gensler, CFTC, said he wants to bring price discover to the OTC markets.  (Currently, when things trade on the OTC, nobody knows what was traded or at what price.  Kind of like in our coin shops, thus, they cannot accurately function as a price guide, like the COMEX prices can.)

=====

Commissioner Dunn said things are "too 'loosey goosy' on accountability".  (Laughing, saying "loosey goosy" is a technical term.)

=====

CME guy spoke on "concentration".  He appeared to be dancing around the issue.  Said the big companies would look at limits as a nuisance, or barrier.

LME guy preferred "lending guidelines" instead of position limits.

It was pointed out that it's the price 3 months out that drives markets.  Most futures contracts are for in the period about 3 months out, and are continually rolled forward to the 3 month out period.

=========

Panel 3:

Tom Callahan, NYSE Euronext
Dr. Henry G Jarecki, Gresham Investment Management
John Lothian, John Lothian & Co.
Bill Murphy, Gold Antitrust Action Committee
Kevin Norrish, Barclays Capital


Tom, of NYSE, said limits could be a danger to drive liquidity overseas.  They could be a particular danger to emerging markets, such as the NYSE Euronext.

Index investors help to drive stability, as they buy low, and sell high.

Jarecki noted that the futures markets are one of the safest markets out there, as prices are always "marked to market", unlike in the housing market. 

He quoted in Latin, "It takes great courage to do nothing in times of crisis."

He had 4 recommendations:

1.  Position limits will force trading to other markets.

2.  CFTC should get data on who, as necessary.

3.  If a company is a benefactor (of manipulation?), the CFTC should figure it out.

4.  Don't say you can't find out who is doing it.

=====

Lothian called us, GATA, and me, & long physical investors, who believe in conspiracy theories, and distrust the markets, "political parasites" and worse!?  I was a bit outraged, of course.

He said accountability should increase, perhaps hinting that we should be held accountable somehow.

(I personally had a chance to speak to him a bit at the break.  I asked him about the huge gap between physical and the amount of paper sold, and was it not dangerous?  He replied he thought "of course not".  Then I asked him at what level would it be of a concern?  Would it be ok to sell 100 times more silver on paper than the physical?  A 1000?  A million times as much?  Where do you draw the line.  At that point, he seemed confused and flustered, and it appeared time to get back to the event.)

I noted at one point that CFTC Commissioner Dunn noted that he was a long time personal friend of Lothian.

=====

Murphy was up next.  He read his paper.
GATA Chairman Murphy's planned testimony to the CFTC
http://www.gata.org/node/8442 

See also the video here:
Bill Murphy of GATA Speaks to CFTC
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9wIMpe9SjfQ

=====

Chairman Gensler brought up again, the problem of the "large concentration in silver".  It was a real WOW moment for me.

He asked, "Help us understand how it impacts fair and orderly prices".

Someone said that "greater transparency can offset concentration".

In the stock market, the SEC requires that at 5% ownership in a company, you have to reveal disclosure of who owns it.  There seemed to be no valid challenge to applying this rule to the futures markets.

=====

Dunn (CFTC) asked, "Will position limits drive trading to OTC opaque markets?

Jarecki:  Yes, its a risk.  He said, "don't hamper the weak and small copper market".  (The COMEX copper market is about 10% of world trade, not a major world copper market, unlike in silver and gold, where COMEX trade is either first or second in world trade.)

Jarecki said that, historically, the silver markets move away from areas of excessive regulation.

=====

(At this point, I'm thinking, "Is it even a market?  Is fraud a market?  And "why keep fraud here at home, if its not a market?  Nobody's mentioning this perspective.")

=====

Someone said Shanghi is already 40% of global metals trading.  (This did not appear on the charts shown earlier, which showed LME and CME (COMEX) dwarfing world trade in precious metals, being one and two, and totaling up about 80-90% of world trade.)  Perhaps this is the difference between physical and paper?  Were the charts earlier only tracking paper trading, and not physical?

=====

Chilton said it's "silly fears" if position limits are very high, it's not going to drive trading away.

Asked, What's "too much" concentration?  Unanswered.

(I'd note that every trader is a "bona fide hedger" since it's perfectly fine to hedge away your risk of holding dollars, by being a long holder of physical silver and gold, or even futures contracts.  But that's not what they mean by "bona fide hedger" which qualifies for the excemptions; they mean if you "have a long risk" that you can offset it with shorts in excess of the position limits.  But I'll also note that nobody is forcing these banks to buy long gold and silver, and if they don't want that risk, they simply don't have to take it!  But I also believe these banks are certainly NOT holding excessive amounts of gold and silver like they claim; they don't have enough to back all their client accounts; as can clearly be seen in the BIS reports where they have over $200 billion in "other precious metals" notional value of OTC derivatives, that's about 12 billion ounces of silver, or 24 years of mine supply that they owe, and cleary cannot have; that's their risk!)

CFTC question:  What will be the effect of position limits on the price?

Jarecki:  All prices are up already anyway.  He opined that exchanges themselves lower volatility in price.  Therefore, position limits would theoritically increase volatility.

Lothian:  "Friction retarts markets?

Gensler differs on that.  Regulation is good.

CFTC has got position limit authority; this was granted as early as the 1930's.

CFTC:  There is a raional way to deal with leverage, and wants to regulate the OTC market, too.

Hedging vs. Speculation.  Hard to tell the difference!!!

Question, repeated:  Can a firm separate their own risk and accounts from client accounts?  Some said it was hard or impossible.  Chilton said it must be possible.

I note I cannot separate out the two, except on the large trades, and even then, not always on the entire trade, but only a part of the trade sometims.  I note that part of the service I provide is to break down order sizes into smaller orders, thus, not ever order or customer trade can be immediately covered at the prices sold.  I have to aggregate many trades together, over time, into one trade, to reach the minimum order size to repurchase, or "cover".  In other words, not every customer order is for 5000 oz. of silver.  But this is on the opposite side of the spectrum.  That's one contract, we could get it close as one contract, of course, easily.  Thus, not being able to separate these apart is no justification for exceeding position limits.

=====

Chilton:  Is there Evidence of complicit COMEX activity?

GATA answers "YES, whistleblower testimony fingers JP Morgan". 

Bill Murphy of GATA Reveals Whistle-Blower in Gold Price Suppression
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e9bU0r6JP4s

A few days later, they elaborate, here:

Andrew Maguire & Adrian Douglas
Tuesday, March 30, 2010
http://kingworldnews.com/kingworldnews/Broadcast_Gold+/Entries/2010/3/30_Andrew_Maguire.html

=====

CFTC noted that buyers could get around position limits by buying large positions into many different funds; thus, they appear useless, or only a hurdle.

=====

Jareski:  preventing fraud is GOOD.  Said it was the first time he heard the 5% rule, that at 5% concentration you have to reveal who you are, sounds good.  Regulations, like stoplights, are good.

===========

Panel 4:

Richard Straight, Triland USA, a Division of Mitsubishi Corporation
Simon Grenfell, Deutsche Bank
Mike Masters, Masters Capital
Harvey Organ, Individual Investor
Jeffrey Christian, CPM Group

(Before I start, I should note that Jeff Christian should be nominated both for the Moron of the Year Award, and also for the "worst and most unconvincing liar award."  I note he claimes to have helped pioneer the invention of the futures contract, so it seems like he's trying to protect his baby from criticism.  He also gathers the industry statistics on silver supply/demand, which is what you would need to walk this tightrope of trading futures safely, and yet, while the fundamentals appear wildly bullish, it appears he earns his money from the short side of the street, working for the shorts, and being one of their apologists.  Clearly, they can afford to pay more.  If you could say the silver market fraud is not a conspiracy, but rather it must be the actions of one insane main, it would be him -- but he's probably not short himself, but long.  I think he's both a deceiver, and a rather deceived and pathetic character in this amazing drama of our age.)

Richard Straight:  On the issue of position limits?  NO!

Masters:  Passive specs, the "massive passives" the fund investors who are always long, are a problem.  They reduce liquidity.  (I note that while that might be accurate, that's not a problem! As if people should be forced to trade more?!)

Harvey Organ:  (GATA)  Produced GREAT statistics, the BIS report!  He requested a 40% margin of physical silver, as a solution.

Jeff Christian (CPM):  Position Limits would do nothing.  Or they would risk driving trade away.  Position Limits on non-commercials are good.  (What?!)  Funds pose risks by buying longs, and selling too fast.  Passive Funds create the risks.  Arbitrage happens fast.  Position limits would be bad, "like Sarbanes Oxley".

Chairman Gensler retorted, "I helped to co-author Sarbanes Oxley", and think it's a good thing.  Funny moment.

=====

Straight:  Said the Clearing Houses know and clear both OTC trades, and COMEX, thus, it should be possible to regulate them.

Why and How are position limits on one, and not the other?

DUNN:  Is there a need for another market in silver, say, for 100 oz. bars? 

Straight, or someone said:  No, probably not enough demand.  (Let them think that!  On the other hand, demand for 100 oz. bars has gone dramatically down since late 2008 and mid 2009).

Regarding Platinum and Palladium; they are strategic metals, and thus, it's "insane" to let investors stockpile them.  (Like whoever said that has absolutely no concept of freedom!)

Someone asked, "Why does the SEC have jurisdiction over the ETFs and not the CFTC?"

Masters:  "Massive Passives" consume liquidity.  (As if liquidity is a goal, and not freedom?)

Chilton retorted:  It's impossible to limit longs by category like that; how do you limit it; do you limit the old, or the new, or do you make the old sell to the new, or do you limit new longs in that category; it's just impossible to figure out how to regulate a category like that.

Masters sumbitted a 55 page paper.  If there are limits; it should apply to the paper he sent in to the CFTC, (laughter).

Masters said, "to hedge dollar decline, the currency markets for the Euro and Yen are perfectly acceptable alternatives.  (As if he did not know that gold and silver have outperformed all currencies and are in bull markets in all currencies over the last ten years.  What an idiot.)

CFTC question:  "Can the shorts deliver?"

Jeff Christian attempts a 3 point answer:

1.  They have never defaulted in the past.

2.  There is a cash delivery settlement option.

3.  They hedge OTC longs.

=====

Harvey (GATA):  Says there is huge risk!  China and Russia can take and clean out COMEX!  TheY, COMEX, WILL have a failure!

Adrian Douglas (supporter to Harvey) piped in, and was almost shut down by Gensler, as he was not slated to testify, but in the public audience, but had a microphone.  Gensler said "No" a and then clarified with, "No, I don't know who you are."

Adrian:  $5.4 trillion in London Gold; that's NOT METAL; it's a fractional only system.  The LBMA admits this is "unallocated" and that it's "unsecured".  It's not physical, they can't hedge, it's paper hedging paper, nothing but a Ponzi scheme!

(Big truthful testimony after a day of lies, half truths, and willful obfuscation.)

Jeff Christian tried to retort, admitted that there is 100 times as much paper as physical, and seemed to get confused at one point.

=====

Chilton (CFTC)  "Migration of markets, your take?"

Masters:  It's an "Empty Threat".  Would markets go to Dubai?  Why, they failed!

=====

Gensler & Dunn (CFTC) to Christian:  "How would a short to cover a sale?"  (This appeared to catch Christian, almost.)

"What are they hedging on the other side?"  (Question nailed it!  I was impressed.)

Christian also tried to pull out the "I'm a Goldman Sachs alum" card with Gensler.

Gensler retorted:  "A lot of people worked for Goldman Sachs, and I don't agree with you."

(It was another pathetic moment for Christian, and one of the highlights of the event!)


Christian:  Says "Look at their gold book; it's gold from miners, jewlers, producers sell immediately before smelting & refining, so they, the bullion banks, short it to "cover" the long purchase.  Fund longs are hedged with a short!  (?? does this admit manipulation ??)

Christian says "we" (implying him and the CFTC) don't help explain, and we are confusing to investors.

This last part of the testimony is reviewed here:

Former Goldman Commodities Research Analyst Confirms LMBA OTC Gold Market Is "Paper Gold" Ponzi
http://www.zerohedge.com/article/former-goldman-commodities-research-analyst-confirms-lmba-otc-gold-market-paper-gold-ponzi#comment

==========
end
==========

End of my notes:  My further observations.

(Christian nearly reveals the manipulation several times with his "garbled comments".)

What's ironic about Jeff's comments is that the gold books of the bullion banks are NOT public information; and probably not even the CFTC commissioners can get a good look at them.  Furthermore, it's ludacrous to think that miners have hedged silver 24 years into the future, as an explanation for the $200 billion OTC market size in "other precious metals", as reported by the BIS, the Bank of International Settlements.  If Jeff has even seen a gold book, that shows who he is the apologist for; those doing the manipulation: namely, JP Morgan.

=====

People and opinions change slowly sometimes.  I have changed my opinion of the CFTC; they are awakening and becoming the good guys.  I felt that they would have apolgized for prior CFTC commission members lies about the silver market, perhaps if only they knew what the lies were.  But this was better; they admitted their own fault, that they currently "do nothing" when position limits and accountability limits are exceeded!  Wow!

=======================

Gensler kept asking two questions.

1.  How are we going to regulate this oversized silver position?

2.  What will our regulations do to the market?

This was great, because I don't think Gensler would ask those kinds of questions unless he really sees a problem and really wants to do something about it.

If you look up Gensler's wikipedia bio, under his career, it's revealing.  Every time he regulated, it resulted in good.  The times he did not, resulted in blowups.  This man has been taught by personal experience to be a regulator!  He wants to regulate, knows he needs to regulate, and I think he will.

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

After the event, I ran back to get my coat, and noticed Gensler speaking to a small crowd.  I listened in.  He said he learned a lot from the event.  He refused to sum up.  He said that it would be easy to act, as it's simply the five of them that can come up with solutions.  He was asked, "Is Dunn the swing vote here?, which implies that the reporter who asked, noted that between Gensler and Chilton, they needed a  third to get something done.  In a break in the questions, I asked him if I could take 60 seconds to give the answer to the two questions he was asking all day.  I was told, perhaps by a reporter, this was a meeting for reporters only, and I was told I could wait outside.  After a few minutes I left.

======

The main answers that kept coming back, to Gensler's two big questions, mostly from industry insiders, were "you can't do anything; limits would do nothing", and "if you try, you will drive markets overseas".

Chilton noted that those answers are just not true, it's kind of an empty threat.  At some point, you could set position limits so high that there would be no effect.  Thus, at some slighly lower reasonable limit, could only help the market, add legitamacy to it, and not destroy it.

One of my readers already noted that if you drive fraud overseas, that's not a bad thing; we don't need fraud here, and we should not confuse "fraud" with "markets". 

The problem with position limits are that, first of all, they are almost ignored by market participants and the CFTC as it is, and second, they are only a hurdle.  There are ways around them, as multiple dummy corporations could be set up overseas to take on the short position.  Or, it was also pointed out, that a long investor could set up 5 funds, and each fund could buy up to the position limit, and thus, evade and exceed the limits.  Thus, position limits are only a good first start.

Another solution would be to reveal the identity of any trader who has a position that exceeds 5% of the open interest.  It was pointed out that this is the situation when you buy a stock, so why not apply it here?  Nobody objected. 

The problem is that the statute currenly says that the CFTC cannot reveal names of traders.  Problem is that statutes can be wrong, and can contradict other law.  For example, there are also other laws called "obstruction of Justice" and "misprison of treason" that should not be violated, such that if you know there is a crime taking place, and if you do nothing, then you can be held to be guilty as an accomplice, by being complicit in the crime by doing nothing.

I think the CFTC now knows there is a crime taking place, a crime that is a direct threat to the nation, one that may require a massive bailout if it is not corrected, and, thus, the CFTC will try hard to avoid doing nothing. 

What they should do exactly, well, that's still another question entirely.

I believe that regulations to end the fraud of excessive short selling will make our markets more fair.  If fraud in silver stops here, and goes overseas, then USA silver prices might be slightly higher than world silver prices.  This would have the effect of luring silver here, from overseas, which, in light of the silver shortage, can only be a good thing.

Some at the CFTC said they wanted to avoid creating an "arbitrage opportunity" between markets.  But if fraud is limited here, and unlimited elsewhere, there will be an arb opportunity; prices for silver will go up here. 

As it is, gold prices are nearly always higher in India than compared to world market prices, and this is what it takes for India to import from 250 to 800 tonnes of gold per year.  That's not a problem that needs to be fixed, that's how markets work and should work.

The "arb opportunity" is how the free market corrects imbalances.  This is why the manipulation is global; they have massive short positions in the OTC, and they hedge their short liability with further shorts to manipulate and keep prices down.

Again, the BIS numbers say the "other precious metals" notional liability is $203 billion, which, in silver terms, is about 12 billion ounces.  This means they lose $12 billion for every dollar that silver prices rise.  This means they stand to lose $120 billion if silver prices rise $10.  They stand to lose $203 billion if silver prices merely double, and if no new buyers enter the market, and that could result merely from their own short covering.

=====

As I walked through the halls past many congressmen's offices, I learned a few things.  Staffers are so young, maybe aged 25-35, or younger.  Usually, you have to book an appointment in advance, if you want to get somebody to hear your concerns.  But not always. 

Some of them would say, "Understanding this is beyond my pay grade."  Perhaps meant to be a joke, or just said to get me to shut up, I'm not sure.

Understanding the problem is not beyond anyone's ability.  Understanding the solution, that's a bit more difficult.

Understanding the personal solution, that's easy.  Buy real physical silver, the kind you lift, and carry home.  Call us at the JHMINT.com to order bullion.  (530) 273-8175 

And what is the national solution?  Well, they'll have to figure that out for themselves, won't they?

But, the CFTC is on record saying they want YOUR HELP to figure out the solution.  My dad and I used to sit around and moan about the stupidity we saw in Government and big finance, and we would laugh and conclude with a loud ironic sigh, "But they didn't ask us, did they?!"  But now they ARE ASKING.  Deadline for comments from the public is April 30th.

Never has the CFTC been so open to hearing our cause for honest markets.  Now is the chance.  Now is the time.

Send your comments by mail, fax, and email, to:

Written materials should be mailed to the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, Three Lafayette Center, 1155 21st Street, N.W., Washington, DC, 20581, attention Office of the Secretariat; transmitted by facsimile at 202-418-5521; or transmitted electronically to metalshearing@cftc.gov.  Reference should be made to "metals position limits."

=====

A few days later:  Not sure if the CFTC is warming up, or what. 

CFTC Charges Ohio-based Defendants Enrique Villalba, Jr., and Money Market Alternative, LP, with Operating a Multi-Million Dollar Futures Ponzi Scheme
March 29, 2010
http://cftc.gov/newsroom/enforcementpressreleases/2010/pr5801-10.html

To continue to follow this saga, see:
http://www.gata.org/taxonomy/term/2
http://cftc.gov/

=========

I strongly advise you to get real gold and silver, at anywhere near today's prices, while you still can.

Price Board:
http://jhmint.com/cgi-bin/ssrbidask

Our Coin Shops are open 10AM to 5PM Pacific, Monday to Friday
100 oz. silver minimum, USA shipping, wire transfer only! 
Janelle (530) 913 0553 silver_support1@vzw.blackberry.net

JH MINT & Coin Shop, Grass Valley, CA 
(530) 273-8175
http://www.jhmint.com/

Rocklin Coin Shop, CA, 15 min north of Sacramento
http://rocklincoinshop.com/

Or visit www.momsilvershop.com
(Mom will ship in lots of more or less than 100 ounces of silver, and overseas, and take credit cards or pay pal.) 



Sincerely,

Jason Hommel

In case you miss an email, check the archives:
http://silverstockreport.com/ 


 


If you found this email useful, please Forward this email to your family and friends.

Safe Unsubscribe
This email was sent to silverstockreport@gmail.com by j@silverstockreport.com.

silverstockreport.com | 13241 Grass Valley Ave | Grass Valley | CA | 95945

Wednesday, March 24, 2010

Silver Stock Report: CFTC Webcast Link, & More

God Bless You!
 
You may unsubscribe if you no longer wish to receive our emails.
silverstockreport.com
silverstockreport.com Newsletter
 
CFTC Webcast link & More!
March 24th, 2010
In this issue
Attn CFTC Commissioners:
Article Headline
Article Headline
Dear Reader,

Here is the link to the CFTC hearing webcast for March 25th, Thursday, 9am Eastern to 3pm:
http://www.capitolconnection.net/capcon/cftc/032510/CFTCwebcast.htm
 
The CFTC is asking for comments from the public about the issue of position limits to limit excessive speculation (fraud) in the futures markets.  They want to hear from the public until April 30th.  Please send your comments to:

Written materials should be mailed to the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, Three Lafayette Center, 1155 21st Street, N.W., Washington, DC, 20581, attention Office of the Secretariat; transmitted by facsimile at 202-418-5521; or transmitted electronically to metalshearing@cftc.gov.  Reference should be made to "metals position limits."
 
If you don't know what to say, please re-read my latest commentary:
Metals Position Limits
http://silverstockreport.com/2010/cftc-letter.html

Here is what the best silver researcher and expositor of silver in history had to say:

wow!  Your March 23 release shows why you're frequently cited as the best in the PM community.  I want to re-read it twice in the AM.  Best, Charles Savoie

=====

A few people, including Bart Chilton, have again asked about motive.  "Why would anyone want to keep precious metals prices down?" 

GATA explains why the government admits it would be good policy:
http://gata.org/node/8462

In sum, by keeping precious metals prices down, they can keep interest rates down, and strengthen the dollar. 

In math terms, since the dollar exists, they can print up $3 trillion per year to fill the deficit, by faking out the bond market, with artificially low interest rates.  That's $3000 billion.

By contrast, the entire world's annual gold output is $80 billion, and the entire world's annual silver mine output is $11 billion.  By keeping metals prices low, and manipulated, they keep the currency alive.  With the currency still viable, they earn far more than stealing many times the world's gold mine output, in terms of value.

Other comments follow:
Attn CFTC Commissioners:


Jason Hommel could not have defined the ongoing PM futures fraud & looming COMEX Default Crisis any better.  The CFTC supposedly exists in the public interest, to detect and stop illegal price manipulation, especially so blatant.
Thank you for finally taking the Precious Metals Manipulation Fraud seriously enough to have a public meeting on it.  We will see if appropriate action is taken based upon the decades-long growing mountain of manipulative evidences.

If the CFTC does not formulate and quickly implement an "exit strategy" for heavily leveraged concentrated short position manipulation immediately, the increasingly acute physical silver shortage and impending free market "correction" will most likely result in the complete destruction of the USDollar, possibly almost overnight, as well as the overall US economy in times of increasing massive bailouts and new and growing entitlement spending.  If American and USDollar Destruction and is not the secret goal of appropriate long-overdue regulatory action, then in the interests of the public the CFTC is supposed to protect, please formulate and implement such a strategy immediately.

Continued complicity by the CFTC, especially as it relates to the blatant Silver Price Manipulation which the general public is becoming increasingly and incremenetally aware of would constitute or at least present the extremely strong appearance of dereliction of duty on behalf of the public trust, if not playing the role of enabler in the apparent ongoing fraud, by the likes of JPMorgan and other "Bernie Banking" institutions, which under TARP and FED Actions in continuing "crises" have become even "too bigger to fail", thus enabling them to continue to make increasingly risky speculative "bets" with very heavy leverage, and almost certain guarantee of continued monolithic bailouts in the event of inevitable failure... which combined with continued massive paper "money" printing at THE FED, is a recipe for INSTANT HYPERINFLATION.

Thank you for taking into serious consideration the extremely important regulative mandate of the CFTC, and ramifications of continued complacency and inaction regarding the blatant ongoing fraud, US Currency and economy. 

Most Sincerely,
Lenny Arendt
 
China manipulates it's own currency, USA manipulates gold and silver.

Dear Jason, In today's Sun-Sentinel paper, article headlines "Imbalance in China trade saps U.S. jobs". This cost the United States 2.4 million jobs between 2001 and 2008. The article goes on to say "The Institute wants Washington to press China to raise the value of its Yuan currency so Chinese goods become more expensive. It accuses China of " CURRENCY MANPULATION" to keep the Yuan as much as 40% below its real value to artificially fuel exports"

Maybe this could be mentioned somehow at the CFTC meeting Thursday.  We the U.S. don't like how China manipulates it's currency, but it's ok for us to manipulate gold and silver prices?!  Silver and gold bugs are sitting on a lot of " Consumer Confidence" meaning we can jump start the economy thru purchasing STUFF, only when the price goes where it naturally should go!  Otherwise WE ALL will just sit on it until who knows when??? Good Luck at the meeting, my prayers are with you.
 
Attn: CFTC Commissioners:

If it is in-fact futile to try to properly regulate commodity futures markets, as CFTC Public Hearing panelist Tom LaSala plans to argue, due to the claim that it will only push illegal price manipulation schemers offshore, then perhaps the CFTC should just concede to his argument that the ongoing and increasing decades-long fraud in Precious Metals Price Manipulation is unavoidable, recommend that the massively leveraged theft be legalized, and disband itself immediately.

The exact same reasoning has been used to legalize casino gambling in states across the nation after Los Vegas, butt... The High Stakes risks of allowing "too bigger to fail" financial institutions to continue betting against an increasingly imminent COMEX Silver Futures Default amidst an the increasingly acute Silver Shortage dwarfs prior global crisis,
and jeopardizes entire American economic "recovery" & the USD Paper Currency (FED'$ gross national product).   

If this flawed fig-leaf reasoning is used for cover to somehow "justify" allowing the increasingly massive fraud & theft scheme to continue, robbing Americans and USDollar holders globally of their savings, why wait?  Just recommend that the US Treasury Dept declare the "Farce de Majeure" immediately, default on all that beastly growing USDebt, and aid the global elites and global central governments to hasten their move away from USDollar hegemony towards a NWO Global Super-Currency, by necessity of course, in an otherwise avoidable new crisis of much greater magnitude.   
         "Never waste a good crisis." -An Administration

Alternatively, the CFTC may suggest moving back to Constitutional Money, Gold & Silver, prior to Total Collapse... 

Sincerely,
Lenny Arendt
A Concerned American

Related Articles on illegal PM Manipulation: 

CME Against Position Limits @ CFTC Meeting in DC Tomorrow:
http://www.reuters.com/article/idAFN2415669820100324?rpc=44
 
Quick Links... Products:  Silver and Gold, available at the JH MINT!

Contact Information to order silver and gold from jhmint.com
phone: (530) 273-8175
Join Our Mailing List
Safe Unsubscribe
This email was sent to silverstockreport@gmail.com by j@silverstockreport.com.
silverstockreport.com | 13241 Grass Valley Ave | Grass Valley | CA | 95945

Tuesday, March 23, 2010

Silver Stock Report: Metals Position Limits

God Bless You!
 
You may unsubscribe if you no longer wish to receive our emails.

Metals Position Limits

(To the CFTC!)

Silver Stock Report

by Jason Hommel, March 23rd, 2010


To the CFTC:

RE: metals position limits

Regarding the Dire Necessity of Imposing Metals Position Limits on the Shorts

Others have written to the CFTC as if they assume the CFTC is made up of good people who would enforce position limits if only they knew that the markets were manipulated; and thus, two others have written the CFTC to show the current manipulation in progress.

I'm not so gracious, as I have written to the CFTC before, and I know that the CFTC has always evaded the issues.  Therefore, I must assume the CFTC is made up of people who only think they are doing good, who assume that letting big banks get what they want is somehow compatible with free market theory, and thus, not regulating the bankers' position limits is somehow good, and that hiding the truth is somehow good for the nation.

Thank you, Bart Chilton, for writing that "he does not think his fellow commissioners are currently willing to support a move to curb speculation for metals contracts" so that we can help to persuade them.
http://www.reuters.com/article/ousiv/idUSTRE62L3YP20100322

I believe that the CFTC commissioners are either deceived by a faulty philosophical foundation, or willingly in on the manipulation.

Alan Greenspan admitted his concepts of free market theory were flawed.  I believe that his flaw was that he did not seem to realize that debtors are like slaves, and that slavery is not compatible with freedom, nor with free market theory.  Futures contracts are like a debt, and require enforced performance, which enslaves the participants to the margin clerk. 

Greenspan Misapplied Free Market Theory  October 23rd, 2009
http://silverstockreport.com/2009/greenspan-misapplied.html

When the CFTC enforces position limits on longs, but lets "commercial" banks short unlimited and excessive amounts, that's not compatible with free market theory!  When big banks can use government force against their trading counter parties, that's not compatible with free market theory!

The fundamental philosophical problem is that a slave trading market is not a "free" market, and there should not be a market for slaves at all.  Similarly, the market in futures contracts is not a "free" market at all, it's a slave market of enslavement contracts, not a market of products.  There can be no such thing as a "free" market of slaves; it's a contradiction in terms!

The CFTC must regulate; it cannot sit back and do nothing.

If nothing is done, it threatens the freedom, prosperity, and way of life of all Americans.

The CFTC has a duty to act to prevent the current fraud in progress, that must be stopped, but it must be done wisely, so as to not suddenly disrupt all commercial life for all Americans.

In 1980, precious metals prices were running away to the upside, out of control, threatening the life of the dollar, and the entire financial system.
 
There were primarily two mechanisms that helped to limit precious metals prices.  The first, was letting interest rates rise in the bond market.  The second, was futures contracts that diverted investment demand away from physical, and into paper.

Please consider what will happen as the current bull market in precious metals matures, and when futures contracts default, and become discredited, and thus, lose their power to pull people back to paper?  A precious metals default will likely drive people into real tangible physical metals more fervently than ever before in the history of paper money in the United States, suddenly destroying the value of the currency, and ruining the entire economy of the nation, which could lead to a collapse of most commerce, which could lead to death and starvation on a massive scale.  That must be prevented through a smooth transition back to honesty in commerce.

The coming default in the precious metals futures markets is extremely dangerous for all people living in the United States, as it will inevitably lead to the crashing of the US dollar, or more accurately, Federal Reserve Notes.

The current state of the futures market in precious metals shows that it must end in default, which is to say, a failure or inability of the shorts to deliver the silver, as they have shorted too many contracts.

A futures exchange for precious metals is inherently manipulative and fraudulent by nature.

The public, in the real world, usually would laugh at a precious metals coin shop offering bullion for delivery "in a month or two", when a coin shop down the street can deliver immediately over the counter.  

At our coin shops, we only re-order bullion from bullion wholesalers who can deliver bullion with overnight delivery, or for delivery within a week, at the most.  Thus, we sell most bullion over the counter.

There is no legitimate reason for a futures exchange for precious metals.  Agricultural commodities have a harvest season, and for them, it might make sense.  But miners produce all year long, and so do refineries, thus, there is no need for them to lock in a price before any sort of harvest season.

It is claimed that miners need to lock in future prices in order to obtain debt financing.  But that's not true, for two reasons.  First, if a miner cannot produce metal without debt financing, perhaps they probably should not be producing metal at all.  There are other ways to finance; such as equity financing, bootstrap financing, or private capital deployment. 

Second, if debt is bad because it is like slavery and can lead to default, and if the CFTC is supposed to regulate markets to prevent default, then the CFTC should prevent the debt and leverage inherent in the futures markets.  In other words, debt cannot be used as an excuse to legitimize debt, as that is just circular reasoning.

But furthermore, excessively funding extra gold mining production is what excessive short sellers would need most, isn't it, so that's a poor justification for their activities.

A precious metals futures exchange is not a legitimate market for any major producers or users, not as long as it is used as a last resort, and not as long as approximately 1% of contracts result in delivery.  Why would I, as a dealer, ever buy in the futures market, when delivery dates are so uncertain and over such a long time frame?  And our organization buys up to 10,000 oz. of silver in one order!  Thus, a futures market simply encourages speculation, which is to say, it enables leveraged debt-based bets on which way prices will move between the present and some future delivery date. 

When investors feel they are able to get such leverage on price movements, it distracts them away from investing in the real thing, and thus, the existence of a futures market diverts investment demand away from real metal, thus depressing precious metals prices.

Bart Chilton wrote that "Three of the five commissioners -- Democrat Michael Dunn and Republicans Jill Sommers and Scott O'Malia -- have expressed concerns the energy proposal could drive trade to markets outside the CFTC's jurisdiction."

TOO LATE!  According to the Bank of International Settlements, the LBMA and other "over the counter" precious metals markets are already over 10 times larger than the COMEX futures exchange.

The BIS notes that "over the counter" "other precious metals" derivatives have exceeded $203 billion of notional value, which, at $17/oz., is 11.9 billion ounces of silver. 

See:
http://www.bis.org/statistics/otcder/dt21c22a.pdf

The total open interest in silver futures contracts is about 140,000, x 5000 oz. = 700 million.

The problem is that the "over the counter" markets are not transparent, and thus, cannot be used by any other market participants to set prices.  It is likely that the bulk of the other precious metals derivatives use COMEX pricing as the basis for the value of their derivatives.

If the futures markets in precious metals are fraudulent by nature, how in the world can mere position limits fix things?

First of all, let's note that currently, there are only position limits imposed on the longs, those who may stand for delivery of precious metals.  There are no limits imposed on the commercial shorts.

But that's backwards.  It should never be illegal for any investor in any market to buy what they want with their money.  There should never be any limits on longs.  Thus, all longs should be exempt from all limits.

But it's the shorts who can manipulate markets by depressing prices by selling what they do not have, which creates the possibility for default, which must be regulated, and limited.

Given the huge size of the OTC positions, up to 12 billion ounces, which dwarfs the size of world annual production at 0.6 billion ounces, systemic default seems inevitable, and long past due.

The OCC report goes to show that JP Morgan dominates the gold derivatives trade, and thus, likely dominates the silver derivatives trade as well.

http://www.occ.treas.gov/ftp/release/2009-161a.pdf

The CFTC has continually lied to protect the excessive short selling in the market, by releasing reports that deny "manipulation" given the surface language, but admit manipulation if you know how read between the lines.

For example, the CFTC has stated that as shorts cover, and buy back positions, the buying back of a position pushes prices up, thus negating any negative price action.  But that admits that the market prices are lower than they would be, if the shorts are not covered and remain open, which they continually are, as they are always rolled over into future months.

As another example, the CFTC has stated that the market cannot be manipulated as long as there are no restrictions preventing participants from taking long positions, but there are position limits on the longs, which prove that the market is, in fact, manipulated.

As long as the CFTC continually lies and issues hypocritical statements, they lose credibility, and make themselves an accomplice to the ongoing fraud.  Perhaps the CFTC members today will be found to be guilty of obstruction of justice if a more honest administration is elected?

In school, they teach that the futures markets create more stable prices.  But it seems to me that futures markets create more wild price swings than there would be otherwise without futures markets. 

It was panic short covering, and panic over the dollar failing (and the dollar used to be a derivative of silver prices) that drove silver to $50/oz. in 1980. 

Futures markets make prices more volatile, more extreme, in my opinion.  They both allow the creation of prices that are manipulated too high, and too low, because they allow debt-enabled leverage trades on both sides of the market.

Default is ever more likely, and obviously looms.

Default, we can see, is already being prepared for, in advance, in three ways.

First, I see that there are cash settlement options for precious metals contracts.

Second, futures contracts can be settled via ETF shares.

Third, the COMEX went public, and was sold to the CME, another public company, and public companies have the protection of limited liability, as stock holders are simply not on the hook for any sort of debt liability at all, while the private owners of the exchange used to be ultimately liable, that is no longer the case.

I see that it has been proposed to impose position limits on the commercial shorts.

It has been proposed that no entity maintain any position larger than 5 or 10 percent of the open interest.

That's simply silly, as the largest traders could simply set up dummy corporations to continue to short all that they want, and how could anyone know?

Another alternative would be to maintain a certain fractional reserve percentage of metal on deposit, such as 40% backing, to help guarantee delivery. 

That's also silly, as there could be 100% backing on the COMEX, but the OTC market clearly shows derivatives that are over 10 times as large, and clearly cannot all be backed by real metal, so the overall fraud in the world silver market would continue!

But if the other derivatives in the OTC market are priced based on COMEX prices, because the COMEX market's prices are public, and thus looks to the COMEX for it's price discovery function, then it's all the more important that there be 100% backing for all precious metals contracts at the COMEX.  Furthermore, it must be insured that the metal that backs all futures contracts is not encumbered by other contracts, derivatives, ETFs or other obligations.

There are no solutions that are viable other than requiring a 100% backing of all short futures contract positions.  Nothing less would insure delivery, limit liability, and prevent default. 

What we are examining here is an exchange.  Longs put down money, a part of what they ultimately need to delivery, cash.  Similarly, shorts should be obligated to deposit silver, prior to delivery.  Each should make a deposit of 100% of the notional value of the contract. 

This should be the job of the CFTC regulators: to physically inspect bars on deposit, and to do the calculations necessary to insure that no futures contract is offered for sale unless there is a full 100% backing of metal on deposit to back the position, and that such metal cannot be used to back any other kind of short sale.

That would still not end the fraud taking place in the London market and in the OTC markets, or other markets overseas, but it would at least be a step in the right direction, as the COMEX pricing would at least more accurately reflect real prices for real metal.

All the gamblers would still have a place to go, but at least it would be an honest form of gambling, and not a rigged casino.

But a sudden ending, or destruction of futures market price rigging or manipulation could also lead to the destruction of the dollar.  The transition back to honesty and honest markets needs to be gradual so as to hopefully not upset everything.

As concentration in futures has reached levels of up to 40-90%, it needs to start out being slowly capped, and racheted down, step by step, following along a plan, going down gradually to the more ideal level of no more than 5% of the open interest.

Further, a precious metals backing needs to be implemented gradually.  Currently, with about 120 million oz. on deposit in the warehouses, and only 50 million ounces registered for delivery, which is used to back from 700, to 800 million ounces of futures contracts (which is about a 6% backing).  If such silver is also used to price, and back, up to 12 billion ounces of silver in the other precious metals over the counter derivatives (that would show about a 0.4% backing).  Thus, the deposit requirements must be increased gradually, over time, so as to not drive silver prices to $1000/oz. overnight, as such things can cause an economic crisis worse than that felt in Argentina, which is certainly counterproductive.

It is especially important for the CFTC to at least be seen as doing something to prevent default.  After all, why else should the CFTC exist?  And after all, this selling of silver that the commercials don't have is clearly manipulative, fraudulent, and is a hidden attack on the value of everyone's money as it is allowed to continue.  If the fraud is exposed suddenly and things go badly, the public may cry for blood, literally, as history has shown.  It will be important for the CFTC that the CFTC is not seen as being complicit, and not be seen as if they are aiding in the fraud, or hiding the fraud, which is the perception today.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complicit
An individual is complicit in a crime if he/she is aware of its occurrence and has the ability to report the crime, but fails to do so. As such the individual effectively allows criminals to carry out a crime despite easily being able to stop them, either directly or by contacting the authorities, thus making the individual a de-facto accessory to the crime rather than an innocent bystander.

A good first step for the CFTC, or at least, for some of the honest people working at the CFTC, is to admit that the excessive selling of futures contracts is manipulative, and that steps should be taken to limit this market manipulation. 

For more, see
http://silverstockreport.com/2010/cftc-meeting.html

If you support the statements and philosophy in this document, please send your own copy, with your own name, to:

Written materials should be mailed to the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, Three Lafayette Center, 1155 21st Street, N.W., Washington, DC, 20581, attention Office of the Secretariat; transmitted by facsimile at 202-418-5521; or transmitted electronically to metalshearing@cftc.gov.  Reference should be made to "metals position limits."



=========

I strongly advise you to get real gold and silver, at anywhere near today's prices, while you still can.

Price Board:
http://jhmint.com/cgi-bin/ssrbidask

Our Coin Shops are open 10AM to 5PM Pacific, Monday to Friday
100 oz. silver minimum, USA shipping, wire transfer only! 
Janelle (530) 913 0553 silver_support1@vzw.blackberry.net

JH MINT & Coin Shop, Grass Valley, CA 
(530) 273-8175
http://www.jhmint.com/

Rocklin Coin Shop, CA, 15 min north of Sacramento
http://rocklincoinshop.com/

Or visit www.momsilvershop.com
(Mom will ship in lots of more or less than 100 ounces of silver, and overseas, and take credit cards or pay pal.) 



Sincerely,

Jason Hommel

In case you miss an email, check the archives:
http://silverstockreport.com/ 


 


If you found this email useful, please Forward this email to your family and friends.

Safe Unsubscribe
This email was sent to silverstockreport@gmail.com by j@silverstockreport.com.

silverstockreport.com | 13241 Grass Valley Ave | Grass Valley | CA | 95945