|
From Wikipedia:
A conspiracy
theory is a hypothesis that alleges a coordinated group is, or was, secretly
working to commit illegal or wrongful actions, including attempting to hide
the existence of the group and its activities. In notable cases the hypothesis
contradicts what was, or is, represented as the mainstream explanation for
historical or current events. The phrase "conspiracy theory" is
also sometimes used dismissively in an attempt to portray hypothetical
speculation as being untrue or outlandish.
Some theorists, like Charles Pigden argue that the reality of such
conspiracies should caution against any casual dismissal of conspiracy
theory. Pigden, in his article "Conspiracy Theories and the Conventional
Wisdom" argues that not only do conspiracies occur but that any educated
member of society will believe in at least one of them; we are all, in fact,
Conspiracy Theorists. Authors and publishers, such as Robert Anton Wilson and
Disinfo, use proven conspiracies as evidence of what a secret plot can accomplish.
In doing so, they demonstrate that the label "conspiracy theory"
does not necessarily indicate that a theory is false.
The argument is often advanced there cannot be a conspiracy without leakers
or whistle blowers...
As I have stated elsewhere, I do not consider myself a conspiracy theorist.
However, when I encounter a potential "leaker" or "whistle
blower", I pay close attention to what is said. In most cases these
"leakers" do not announce themselves as such. Lindsey Williams is
an example of one who does
announce himself as a whistle blower, but I watch his videos because I
believe that he
believes what he is saying. I don't think he is intentionally lying, although
it is possible he is being used by someone else.
Those who don't wish to be forever branded as a "whistle blower" or
to be exposed to the wrath of the conspirators will often share their
"wisdom" under the cover of anonymity. It is possible that this is
the case with ANOTHER.
I have also previously stated that of the myriad of opinions on the internet,
most are based on either speculation or analysis of public data. But once in
a while an opinion comes along that appears to be based on insider
information. This is when I really perk up.
This may seem like an overly long introduction to the following article, but
in my opinion it contains insight and clarity that can only come from someone
with an extraordinary view of recent Fed activities. It is also well written,
as by someone with history of more than just 11 articles. Perhaps I am
totally wrong about the author, "James Conrad", but I am not the
only one with a raised eyebrow.
Chris Powell of GATA said,
A gold investor
writing under the name James Conrad for whom no biographical information is
provided has posted a fascinating essay at Seeking Alpha...
In fact, James Conrad does have a short biography on Seeking Alpha,
though it is quite mysterious in my opinion:
James Conrad,
Ph.d., is and has been, an investor and trader of stocks, bonds, options, and
precious metals for 37 years. He is also the editor of a closed circulation
daily market newsletter, which provides investment news, analysis and
opinion. Because of the time-sensitive nature of the information contained in
the newsletter, subscriptions are not
currently open to the public. New subscribers are accepted only on recommendation of existing
subscribers. His articles on Seeking Alpha, and elsewhere,
however, mirror the subject matter, analysis and opinions currently covered
in the newsletter.
Furthermore, his article-writing on Seeking Alpha only began recently, on
August 18th, 2008, in the middle of this crisis.
So on pure speculation I ask, why would someone with such writing skill and
apparent insight use a pseudonym?
Also noteworthy, this article was initially submitted to two or three sites,
not the usual "goldbug venues". This tells me that he's not trying
to preach to the choir. It is a great article, so I'm sure it will be on
several gold sites later today, but as of this writing, it is James Conrad's
11th submission on Seeking Alpha, his first submission on bnet.com, a
business site, and a non-credited submission on thenetworknewsletter.com, a financial
site.
Anyway,
here's the article from SeekingAlpha.com:
The Manipulation
of Gold Prices
by: James Conrad December 04, 2008
There is no other leveraged commodity market where short sellers increase
their positions, materially, as the price rises, and increase them even more
when prices are exploding, except gold and silver. The reason traders
don’t normally do that is that it exposes short sellers to unlimited
liability and risk. Yet, in both March and July 2008, and on countless
occasions over the past 21 years, vast numbers of new gold and silver short
positions were temporarily opened up, with the position holders seemingly
unconcerned about the fact that precious metals had just risen exponentially,
and that there was a very real potential they would bankrupt themselves with
unlimited upside potential. Normal traders would not expose themselves to
such unlimited risks.
I conclude, therefore, that over the last 21 years or so, “fake”
precious metals supply in the form of promises of future delivery have
habitually been increased when prices increase until increased
“supply” managed to overwhelm increased demand, leading to a
temporary price collapse. This is compounded by the fact that the futures
prices on COMEX tend to dictate the “officially” report price for
the precious metals elsewhere.
After the market is broken, shell-shocked leveraged long market participants
have always been thrown out of their positions by margin calls, and/or have
been happy to sell contracts back to the short sellers at much lower prices.
This process has always allowed short sellers to cover short positions at a
profit. If for some reason naked shorts needed to deliver, they could always
count on various European central banks (and some say the Fed basement
repository) to backstop them, releasing tons of physical gold into the
market. It seemed that there were always another 34 tons or so of gold dumped
at strategic times to bring down fast rising prices. Meanwhile, huge physical
market demand in Asia and severe shortages buffered the downside. Because of
the physical demand, prices steadily increased but, perhaps, at a much slower
pace than would have been the case in the absence of market manipulation.
Rarely was there ever a serious short-squeeze. Rarely, that is, until Friday
of last week when the deliveries demanded by non-leveraged long buyers
reached record levels. In spite of an avalanche of complaints from gold and
silver investors, the CFTC (Commodity Futures Trading Commission) has never
bothered to audit even one vault to see if the short sellers really have the
alleged gold and silver they claim to have. There is a legal requirement
that, in every futures contract that promises to deliver a physical
commodity, the short seller must be 90% covered by either a stockpile of the
commodity or appropriate forward contracts with primary producers (such as
miners). Inaction by CFTC, in the face of obvious market manipulation, implies
a historical government endorsed price management.
Things, however, are changing fast. As previously stated, the first major
mini-panic among COMEX gold short sellers happened last Friday. As of
Wednesday morning, about 11,500 delivery demands for 100 ounce ingots were
made at COMEX, which represents about 5% of the previous open interest.
Another 2,000 contracts are still open, and a large percentage of those will
probably demand delivery. These demands compare to the usual ½ to 1%
of all contracts.
The U.S. economy is in shambles. Both commercial and investment banks are
insolvent. European central banks no longer want to sell gold. China wants to
buy 360 tons of it as soon as humanly possible, and as soon as it can be done
without sending the price into the stratosphere. A close look at the Federal
Reserve balance sheet tells us that Ben Bernanke eventually intends to
devalue the U.S. dollar against gold. There has been a vast expansion of Fed
credit, which has risen from $932 billion to $2.25 trillion in the last two
and a half months. The Fed has bought nearly all toxic bank assets that were
supposed to be purchased pursuant by the $700 billion Congressional bank
bailout.
Official bailout funds have been used to buy equity interests in the various
banks instead. By avoiding the use of monitored Congressional funds, the Fed
has embarked on a secretive campaign to buy toxic assets. They have refused
to give any accounting of their activities, even though they are using
taxpayer money to do this. The Fed has refused, for example, to comply with a
“freedom of information act” request from Bloomberg News. That
refusal is now the subject of a major lawsuit.
The Federal Reserve has embarked on the biggest money printing surge in
history, though the world economy has yet to feel its effect. To prevent
newly printed dollars from causing immediate hyperinflation, these newly
printed dollars have been temporarily sequestered into the banking
industry’s reserves, rather than being released for general use. This
was done in a number of creative ways.
First, the number of “reverse repurchase agreements” has been
increased to $97 billion. A “repurchase agreement” is a
non-recourse method by which the Fed increases the money supply by paying
dollars for collateral. The collateral, in this case, are toxic defaulting
mortgage bonds that banks want to be rid of. The cash enters the system and
theoretically stimulates the economy because it supplies banks with money to
make loans with.
A “reverse repurchase agreement” is the exact opposite. It is a
method of reducing the money supply by selling bonds to the banks, and taking
the cash back out of the system. In this case, the Fed gave banks cash for
toxic defaulting mortgage bonds. Then, it took the same cash back by selling
the banks new treasury bills just received from the U.S. Treasury. The Fed,
in turn, bought these T-bills with the newly printed dollars. The banks,
having gotten rid of toxic assets, were allowed to transfer private risk to
the taxpayers. This process bolsters bank balance sheets by privatizing bank
profits, and socializing bank losses.
At the same time, the U.S. Treasury has been very busy selling newly printed
Treasury bills to anyone foolish enough to buy them. To a large extent, the
fools reside overseas, but some reside inside this country, and the sale of
these U.S. bonds has resulted in a substantial inflow of foreign reserves to
the Treasury. Banks have also been offered favorable interest rates on both
reserve and non-reserve deposits held at the Fed.
This was combined with what is probably a tacit agreement by which the banks
were given the money and led to redeposit most newly printed cash back into
the Fed, in a category known as “Reserve balances with Federal Reserve
Banks”. This category has ballooned from $8 billion in September to
$578 billion on November 28th.
On October 9, 2008, the Federal Reserve began paying interest on deposits at
Federal Reserve Banks. The overnight rate happens to have dropped way below
the “official” federal funds rate. Meanwhile, rates paid by the
Fed on required deposits are only .1% less than the federal funds rate, and
on voluntary deposits only .35% less than the federal funds rate.
Accordingly, U.S. banks can engage in a dollar based one-nation carry trade,
which further sequesters the newly printed dollars.
Banks are borrowing from the Fed, then taking the same money, redepositing
it, and earning a spread on the interest rate differential. Banks can also
deposit newly printed dollars into a category known as “Deposits with
Federal Reserve Banks, other than reserve balances.” This category also
earns interest in a similar way, and has risen from $12 billion to $554
billion in the same time period. The funds will eventually be used for direct
lending from the Fed to open market borrowers, at huge levels of risk that
even the free-wheeling cowboys who run things at America’s private
banks are not willing to accept.
That being said, most money center banks in America are certainly NOT risk
averse, even now. People who are bailed out of foolish decisions never become
risk averse. They are, however, very insolvent, and, aside from the
non-recourse provisions of Fed repurchase agreements, they would prefer, for
bad publicity reasons, not to default on their obligations to the Fed. Aside
from the newly printed dollars given to them by the Fed and the recent
transfer of all risk to the taxpayers, they have no liquidity of their own
with which to make new loans. That is why they aren’t making any. The
Fed will eventually make the loans itself and take all the risk, while using
the private banking system as merely a means for delivery.
Right now, however, the Fed wants to sequester the new dollars, until the
U.S. Treasury has finished the major part of its funding activities. That
will allow the Treasury to borrow money at very low rates. The Fed intends to
feed money into the system, but at the minimum rate needed to prevent the DOW
index from staying under 8,000 for any significant period of time. Right now,
most measures are designed simply to stop U.S. banking laws from
automatically requiring the closure of most big banks.
The extent of manipulations engaged in by this Federal Reserve is mind
numbing. The total number of sequestered dollars has now reached well in
excess of $1.2 trillion dollars. That means that Fed credit, so far, has been
effectively increased only by about 10%, over the last 2.5 months, rather
than 150% that appears on the surface of the Fed balance sheet. The rest is
temporarily sequestered.
Back in July, the U.S. Treasury, through the ESF (Exchange Stabilization
Fund), sold billions of euros and, I believe, established a dollar
sequestering “derivative” by paying interest, perhaps in Euros,
to foreign money center banks. This was designed to keep dollars out of
circulation, overseas. It was the beginning of the dollar bull back on July
15th.
I had thought, at the time, with good reason, that the U.S. would run out of
foreign exchange and would be forced to close down the operation within a few
months. I underestimated Ben Bernanke.
Instead, the Fed managed to establish currency swap lines with various
foreign nations, under the guise of supplying them with dollars. This need
for dollars arose partly as a result of the actions of the Fed, in sequestering
Eurodollars in July, and partly as a result of the multiple credit default
events which triggered over $2.5 trillion worth of selling in the stock and
commodities markets, as 50 to 1 leveraged players were forced to cover about
$50 billion worth of credit default insurance obligations.
In truth, the Fed needs the foreign currency more than the foreign central
banks need dollars. The Fed is using its new foreign currency resources, in
part, to control the value of the dollar, and to insure that U.S. bailout
bonds are sold for the highest possible prices at the lowest possible long
term costs. Anyone who buys long term Treasury bills is going to lose a
fortune of money in the long term.
The Fed has also taken a number of steps beyond those already discussed to
restrict aspects of the normal money supply which most strongly affect
exchange rates. For example, they only allowed “currency in
circulation” to rise by $33 billion in aggregate, while at the same
time increasing foreign reverse repurchase agreements to reduce foreign
availability of dollars by $30 billion, and reducing the “other
liabilities” category dollar availability by another $7 billion. Since
it is likely that “other liabilities” involve foreign held dollars,
this resulted in a net deficit of $4 billion on foreign exchange markets, as
compared to September, 2008.
All these actions, taken together, have supported the dollar overseas, and
led to a breakdown of the commodities markets. The adverse effect of a
paradoxically rising dollar has been especially severe in dollar dependent
commodity producing nations, such as Ukraine.
The net effect is that the U.S. dollar, in spite of terrible fundamentals, is
now King of the Currencies once again, at least temporarily. The rising value
of the dollar happens also to support naked short sellers of gold and silver,
on COMEX, and these are old friends of the Federal Reserve. Supply and demand
ultimately determine the price of gold but, in the shorter term, it is
inversely tethered to the dollar. When the dollar is artificially high, gold
prices will often plunge artificially low.
But, in short, the Fed currently has gained complete control over the value
of the dollar. It can now adjust and micromange the dollar on a day-to-day
basis. All it needs to do is open and close the “dollar spigot.”
When they want the dollar to rise, the Fed can reduce the number of
sequestered dollars. When they want it to fall, they simply ease up,
releasing dollars into the financial markets. There is only one problem. Real
investors are fleeing the stock market, and stock indexes are becoming more
and more dependent upon government cash in order to avoid collapse.
People are liquidating holdings in mutual funds, and redeeming against hedge
funds at a fantastic rate. This has created heavy downward pressure on stock
prices. If the DOW falls below 8,000 for any significant amount of time, most
big American insurance companies will be forced to recognize huge losses on
their portfolios, and will become insolvent. Insolvent insurers, like
insolvent banks, must be closed by their regulators as a matter of law.
Obviously, mass insurer bankruptcies would be yet another major destabilizing
slap in the face to an increasingly unstable economy.
The Fed now has only two ways to stop this. One is by brute force. It can buy
securities directly, through its primary dealers, thereby supporting and
pumping up stock prices. It has done a lot of that in the past few weeks, but
this method is highly inefficient and costly. It is better to catalyze upward
market movement rather than force it. Catalysis of markets involves opening
up the money spigot a bit, allowing some of the sequestered funds to bleed
back into the system. This allows the stock market to rise or stabilize
naturally, as the equivalent of inflation is created mostly in the stock
market without substantial bleed through. At the same time, however, opening
the money spigot reduces the value of the dollar and causes gold prices to
rise. Rising gold price adversely affects COMEX short sellers who are, as
previously stated, old friends of the Federal Reserve.
Gold buying enthusiasm, everywhere but at the COMEX, is at record levels,
whereas stock market investing appetite is low. For this reason, when the Fed
tried to constrict the money supply on Monday, it caused more damage to the
stock market than to the price of gold. Gold declined by over 5%, but the
S&P 500 collapsed by over 9%. The next day, the Fed eased up on the money
supply spigot, allowing the dollar to fall and the stock market to reflate.
If the Fed repeats this performance over and over again, stock investor
psychology will be seriously harmed. Withdrawals from mutual and hedge funds
will accelerate. The stock market will sink at an uncontrollable rate, and
the world will surge onward toward Great Depression II, much worse than the
first. At some point, there will be nothing the Fed can do about it, no
matter what manipulations it attempts. Hopefully Ben Bernanke is aware of the
dangerous nature of the game he is playing.
The Federal Reserve must now make a tough choice. In the past, Federal
Reserve Chairmen may have felt it necessary to support regular attacks on
gold prices to dissuade conservative people from putting a majority of their
capital into gold. Now, however, the world economy needs much higher gold
prices in order to devalue paper money, not against other currencies in a
"begger thy neighbor" policy, but against itself. This can jump
start the system. If the Fed continued to support gold price suppression,
that would collapse the stock market far deeper than they can afford, most
insurers will end up bankrupt, and there will be no hope of avoiding Great
Depression II.
I think Ben Bernanke is aware of this. Gold shorts will be abandoned, to
avoid financial catastrophe. In commenting, I take a practical view,
accepting what appears to be so, without passing judgment on the acts and
omissions of the last 21 years.
Anyone who reads the written works of our Fed Chairman knows that
Bernanke’s long term plan involves devaluing the dollar against gold.
This is the exact opposite of most prior Fed Chairmen. He has overtly stated
his intentions toward gold, many times, in various articles, speeches and
treatises written before he became Fed Chairman. He often extols the virtues
of former President Franklin Roosevelt’s gold revaluation/dollar
devaluation, back in 1934, and credits it with saving the nation from the
Great Depression. According to Bernanke, devaluation of the dollar against
gold was so effective in stimulating economic activity that the stock market
rose sharply in 1934, immediately thereafter. That is something that the Fed
wants to see happen again.
It is only a matter of time before gold is allowed to rise to its natural
level. Assuming that about half of the current increase in Fed credit is
eventually neutralized, the monetized value of gold should be allowed to rise
to between $7,500 and $9,000 per ounce as the world goes back to some type of
gold standard. In the nearer term, gold will rise to about $2,000 per ounce,
as the Fed abandons a hopeless campaign to support COMEX short sellers, in
favor of saving the other, more productive, functions of the various banks
and insurers.
Revaluation of gold, and a return to the gold standard, is the only way that
hyperinflation can be avoided while large numbers of paper currency units are
released into the economy. This is because most of the rise in prices can be
filtered into gold. As the asset value of gold rises, it will soak up excess
dollars, euros, pounds, etc., while the appearance of an increased number of
currency units will stimulate investor psychology, and lending and economic
output will increase, all over the world. Ben Bernanke and the other members
of the FOMC Committee must know this, because it is basic economics.
Many venerable names in banking agree, although none have gone so far as to
take their thoughts to the natural conclusion. Both JP Morgan Chase's and
Citibank’s analysts, for example, are predicting a huge rise in the
price of gold. That is interesting because GATA has come up with fairly
compelling evidence that JP Morgan Chase (JPM) and HSBC (HBC) may have been
big COMEX naked short sellers in the past.
Goldman Sachs (GS) is also a huge bullion bank, which allegedly is heavily
involved in downward gold price manipulation. However, this month, both HSBC
and GS took lots of deliveries of gold from COMEX. Given the size and
bureaucracy at such firms, it is certainly possible for the majority of
traders to be entirely honest, while others, at the same firm, may be totally
corrupt.
More important, however, than dwelling on the accuracy of conspiracy theories
is the fact that huge international banking firms normally do not take metal
deliveries from futures markets. They normally buy on the London spot market.
The fact that they are demanding delivery from COMEX means one of two things.
Either the London bullion exchanges have run out of gold, or these firms are
finding it cheaper to buy gold as a “future” than as a spot
exchange.
Smart traders at big firms may be buying on COMEX to sell into the spot
market, for a profit. This pricing condition is known as
“backwardation”. Backwardation is always the first sign that a
huge price rise is about to happen. In the absence of backwardation, there is
no rational explanation as to why HSBC, Bank of Nova Scotia (BNS), Goldman
Sachs, and others are forcing COMEX to make large deliveries.
The fact that this backwardation is hidden from the public eye is not
surprising. In spite of the ostensible existence of a so-called “London
fix”, 96% of all OTC transactions are secret and unreported. The
transactions happen solely between two parties, and are done opaquely, in
complete darkness. The current London fix may well be just as fake as the
bank interest rate reports that comprised LIBOR proved to be, just a few
months ago.
It won’t matter much if you purchase gold at $750, $800, $850, $900 per
ounce, or even much higher. All of these prices will be looking
extraordinarily cheap in a few months. The price of our pretty yellow metal
is about to explode, and it is probably going to soar, eventually, to levels
that not even most gold bugs imagine. COMEX gold shorts will be playing the
price a bit longer, in an attempt shake out some remaining independent
leveraged longs. Once that is finished, however, and it will be finished
soon, the price will start to rise very quickly.
Disclosure: The author holds physical gold and is long positions in GLD and
gold futures.
FOFOA
FOFOA is A Tribute to the Thoughts of Another
and his Friend
Donations are most appreciated, just click
here
Also
by Fofoa
| |