according to the commitment of traders reports, and the bank participation reports, both from the CFTC, indicate the largest single position is held
by a bank on the short side. The position's size is about 30,000 contracts (or 150 million ounces. That amount is about 120 million ounces larger than
the current accountability limit.
Presumably, they must have been granted an exemption to the position limits, but this seems wrong to me.
the current open interest in silver is about 114,000 contracts (or 570 million ounces), almost a year's mine production. collectively, the two largest
positions account for over 25% of this open interest. The only two banks that could be responsible are JP Morgan and HSBC.
There is no way either of them could possibly deliver 150,000,000 ounces each month, yet that is how much they sell in futures. However, since these
contracts are usually settled for the cash value no silver needs to change hands. This is
EXACTLY why they suppress prices, to avoid paying out
the difference in value.
No trader on the long side has been granted the same exemptions as the shorts. Which means any one entity is limited to 30 million ounces, while each
of these two longs seemingly are able to sell as many contracts as they want.
and, the delivery month limited to 1,500 contracts (or 7.5 million ounces). so how would any one entity possibly expose the fraud? they cant because
the game is rigged.
If it wasnt for these banks large short positions, the buyers would need to be willing to pay a much, much higher price in order to find sellers.
Since these banks are always willing to sell contracts way below market price, the longs open bids are always met at very, very low prices. Why pay
$50 to get a real ounce of silver when a bank is willing to pretend to sell it at $20?
this old 'two sides to each contract' argument is tired, and false. you need to stop letting john nadler's lame excuses cloud your critical thinking
abilities.
edit on 11/13/2010 by sp00n1 because: (no reason given)