PDA

View Full Version : Exclusive: Second Whistleblower Emerges - A Deep Insider's Walkthru To Silver Market




ctiger2
04-13-2010, 08:06 PM
From ZeroHedge

http://www.zerohedge.com/article/exclusive-second-whistleblower-emerges-deep-insiders-walkthru-silver-market-manipulation


A second whistleblower speaks. As the topic of physical delivery has gained prominent attention recently, it is crucial to complete the circle and show how this weakest link in the PM market is (ab)used by the big boys: Phibro and Warren Buffet. Pay particular attention to the analogues between the methods employed in the 90's commodity market and how the PM (and equity) market is being gamed currently. And to think that each new generation of traders believes it has discovered something new... (All emphasis below is ours)

Background

* As a market maker in silver options from 1989 to 2000 I was present during both the 1994 and 1997 silver events. They were seminal in my education of gamesmanship in trading and how probabilities can come up short.
* Prior to going out on my own, I traded at a small market making firm. When a trader finished training there, he had top-tier options knowledge but was not educated in whom the players were, the fundamentals of the markets, and how probabilities were useless when information was asymmetric. That wasn’t their business, they taught option’s theory. Since I had drunk the kool-aid, I thought fundamentals and gamesmanship were useless in the face of the almighty Standard Deviation model. That was a mistake.

Phibro Early Exercise

* In April 1994, the Thursday before Easter, the trading day ended with a rather unusual run up of 15 cents near the close to finish at 435ish around noon. Options expired that day at 4pm but we weren’t anywhere near the closest strikes (425 and 450) so most of us left. It was a 4 day weekend in the U.S. but silver traded globally, albeit il-liquidly in Asia. Comex wouldn’t open until next Tuesday. My education in gamesmanship started that afternoon at JFK airport as I was waiting for a flight, my first vacation in 5 years.
* My backer paged me at the airport to inform me that someone was exercising the K 450 calls. I scoffed thinking it was a retail sap that was talked into exercising some 5 lot piece by an overzealous broker. “Great I said, let them, the options are out of the money.” And I hung up
* 10 minutes later he had me paged again. “You don’t understand, it’s Phibro exercising.” Again I naively said, “So what, they are energy guys.” But I was curious, “How many? “ I asked. “All of them, five thousand, he replied. Now I was really curious, but still woefully ignorant that it was I who was the sap at the table. “Why would they do that?” and he explained it to me. I nearly shit myself and bent over in the cab vomiting on the ride back.
* Cancelling my trip, I headed back to the office to assess the reality of what would happen, probabilities were no longer important. Survival was important. I had no money and was trading on a $25k note lent to me by my backer.
* We covered by buying futures on my entire short open Interest equivalent of EXPIRED OUT OF THE MONEY OPTIONS in Singapore with a dealing firm. We did this prior to even actually knowing if I was exercised, probabilities be damned. How did I know they exercised? The price covered at was $462; that is how. The 450s were already in the money by 12 cents.
* Phibro exercised all 5k lots. I had a fraction of that but big enough to be carried out on a stretcher had the rest of my position not bailed me out/ performed on Tuesday next week.
* The weird part was, the market stabilized that Tuesday and did not run to “infinity” as it could easily have. We found out later it was because Phibro’s exercise was a no-no and Warren Buffet ordered them to shut the trade down as it was too big of a potential scandal. Especially in light of his coming to Solly’s rescue and lending his good name to fix their most recent Treasury scandal. A couple head’s rolled there if I remember correctly.
* My guess was that the client was a Buffet or Soros type. Someone that would only go to Phibro, as these guys were the best at preventing information leakage, and always aligned themselves with client interests, where as if IB had an order and acted in dual capacity as a dealer, he would potentially front-run the order or stop it out poorly on an exit. Phibro didn’t take other side of their client’s orders. They ran with them, and took care of the clients first.
* Phibro got a big order for a client to buy silver, one that had to be handled expertly, and filled over time, no information leakage would be tolerated. These guys were a prop desk that took orders as brokers once in a while.
* They accumulated options for their own account (K 450C) to piggyback but not front-run the client.
* They must have bought futures for themselves as well as the client with his permission.
* They beat the VWAP by gunning the market on light volumes 1 hour before a 4 day US holiday. [TD: compare and contrast with the daily patterns seen every single day in the endless move up in the S&P]
* They exercised the 450 Calls that day and then lifted the offers of the 1 or 2 OTC metals dealers left open during Singapore hours, running them over during illiquid markets.

Never Again!

* I became infatuated with Phibro gamesmanship and made it a point to understand that particular type of player.
* Libertarian Darwinist that I was I did not blame them. At the time It was a buyer-beware market for big businesses and they did nothing wrong. They took risk and they aren’t bigger than the market. I wanted to play with the big boys, and that was the price.
* For me it was about learning how to read the signs and not be on the wrong side of one of those events again, even if I was not privy to their meetings.

Here is some of what I learned:

* In metals (and energy and anything else with an OTC market) the IB firms have dealing desks along GS, MS, Republic, JPMorgan, Scotia Mocatta, all were essentially broker dealers in precious metals. All had clients: miners who hedged production and hedge funds who speculated OTC. They provided liquidity by taking the other side of their client’s trade and “back-to-backing” them in the futures markets or held onto them in their prop books as counterparty because of something else they saw.
* Their client left resting orders with them in the IB’s Central Limit Order Book (CLOB) which served as good information to trade around for the IB. Sometimes they front-ran the client, other times they go for stops to force the client to puke. Sometimes they’d just make markets, depending on many things. It was poker to them.
* Phibro was different. These were smart guys but they weren’t a dealing bank. They exploited imbalances in markets and took positions. They had ideas. They also took orders for heavyweights who needed absolute discretion. They did not make it their business to fleece their own clients and instead aligned their interests. And they made the banks look like pikers when a client came to them with an order.
* For the next 4 Years I paid attention to how those dealing banks and phibro played the markets. It was all about gamesmanship, Bayesian probability, and knowing your counterparty’s motivation with these guys. Information and misinformation.

Some methods:

* How I.B firms would use a thinly traded floor to print the price that would trigger a massive stop loss in the OTC markets and bury their own clients. Or how they would buy for their own accounts in front of resting limit orders for clients and simply use their clients to stop themselves out if the market printed thru their buy levels. Or how they would use dual representation to show loudly they were buyers on one side of the ring, while they were selling quietly upstairs to other OTC dealers. Trading with themselves in multiple entities, etc.
* An IB with a Commodity Index was in heaven. Prop trading, captive client flow from IB deals and OTC dealing and Brokerage. The good ones knew how to integrate and hedge macro risks, whether to front run their own index clients or get out off their way. “Chinese walls” did not exist in Commods.
* Commods were mostly self regulated and that lead to predatory yet mostly legal behaviour.
* Some of these were necessary to protect their interests with such a small number of players. Some were possibly unethical, but most were legal. Their clients were all big boys who left resting orders with the IBs at their own risk. Clients themselves had to resort to some of the same tricks to keep the IB desks honest, like Coming in backwards, “spoofing”, leaving buy stops to get sell orders filled. The alternative for these clients was to put massive orders in the floor where liquidity was subjective, non continuous and information leakage was massive.

1997- Warren Buffet.

* I got my chance to not get run over in 1997, when Warren Buffet gave an order to Phibro to buy silver.
* Short version. Here is what went down.
* Buffet gives Phibro the order- fact
* Phibro begins filling it as a broker using various OTC dealers as counterparties, and letting the I.B dealers sweat getting out of the risk. - fact
* Phibro buys options for their own account (no exercise game this time tho)- fact
* Phibro buys futures for their own account. – not confirmed.
* One by one the IB dealers start to catch on that this is no ordinary order Phibro is handling. They back away and liquidity gets harder to find.- fact
* Other bigger hedge funds in the small circle of professionals, and other smart firms start getting long.- fact
* Silver starts getting delivered from the Comex vaults. Some of it actually removed. Some of it just “covered with a sheet” for removal. But ounces begin to be removed from the warehouse. Phibro was rumored to be taking delivery and beginning to telegraph fear in the markets to start spoofing the VWAP. Rumor was they had a warehouse in Red Hook where they stored it. Never confirmed.
* Point here is, the saps for the last part of this play were the producers and refiners who were complacently net short and dependent on above ground silver to satisfy delivery requests.
* Producers had been over-hedging for years in this market, as silver was cheap and they had business cash flow issues. It was their habit to sell forward production not yet available to them. And if forced to, they would lease already above ground silver and make delivery, collateralizing it with silver yet to be mined. Their positions were habitually synthetically long the contango as they rolled their deliverable production further and further out the curve in an attempt to squeeze much needed cash (cost of carry)for their businesses. The net effect was that sometimes they had to borrow silver for prompt delivery while they rolled their production hedge back further. – my interpretation of what I learned. May not be accurate to the “T”, am not a physical guy.
* Example: in 1995 a miner has silver due above ground in 1997. He hedges it in Z-1997 contract. Z 1997 comes and if he doesn’t have that silver available for some other reason; he covers the short and rolls it back. How much he needs to do this is a function of his obligations, cash flows, and his greed for carry. If leases are cheap, he will seek to capture all the contango and lease it until he gets the silver available.
* If lease rates go up, it is not unlike a miner strike. Silver is needed for delivery now, and term risk becomes the issue. Contango collapses and market goes backwardated. He will be forced to sell the contango to get that prompt silver short back if he cannot make delivery. He has to defer delivery.
* These guys were dependent on the specs NOT taking delivery for years. Specs didn’t have balance sheets to take and store physical metal. Specs usually were the weak hands at futures expiry.
* But then…..Entities that stored silver in bank vaults (like the Republic vault) begin to remove silver from the available pool for leasing. This made the “easy money” portion of production financing no longer easy. Think: smart money getting the word that a squeeze was on and playing along with it.
* Phibro (and others) start selling the contango in the futures market to prepare to take delivery of even more contracts. Or at least put pressure on the producers who had front month shorts they would have to make a decision on delivering. Phibro KNEW that the producers had to sell the spreads to get their shorts back. But they couldn’t lift their shorts altogether as part of their financing deals with their bankers. Their own positions were now breaking down in every way except flat price. The market really didn’t move much. This let them stay in denial.
* Buffet announces he is long and intends to take delivery of silver. Contango collapses. Market spikes to 7.40.
* Rumor is gov’t intercedes and asks Buffet to not do this, it would break the industry. (Kind of like how the exchange begged the gov’t to help it shut down the Hunt Bros.) He says ok, and agrees to lend then their silver back to them. Essentially charging them 40% interest to delay delivery for a year.

What to look for:

* Find the overleveraged/ extended party- and you will find the weak hand at the table. (Producers in 1997)
* Tail wags dog: if the pricing venue trades smaller volume than the OTC, then manipulate price with small volumes to execute trades with big volumes favorably. (OTC vs Comex floor)
* Divide and conquer- if counterparties are undercapitalized and/ or fragmented, then it will be easier to get them to move like a herd. (happens in options ALL THE TIME at expiration)
* Manipulate data- take delivery of metal, take risk off books, manipulate MTM data.
* Create an exit strategy- a good catalyst like Easter weekend, an announcement by an investor etc. or develop a market and grow your own bigger fool. ie – retail.

Comments - So many points to make here:

* How derivative markets can create a problem thru too much liquidity that cannot easily be reconciled by bringing physical production on line fast enough.
* How this works both ways, and that dealing banks have been playing the gold/silver carry game for easy funding of other trades for years.
* How, even though I personally think that what the OTC does is their own business, but the increasing securitization of commodities leaves regulatory arbitrage and OTC games to affect a new generation of ETF buyers, either thru incremental banking or thru contango cancer. That Wall Street salesmen and players with access to both markets retail and professional can exploit the captive audience created with ETFs and other fund type instruments to shear and in some cases skin the sheep.
* That much of this happens because the gov’t is too stupid to see the inherent conflict of interest in what a broker-dealer does. Regulation will not stop gaming the law. Ethics do, and not everybody has ethics. So best you can do is prevent situations of conflict of interest, like the existence of Broker-dealer type entities. Either you trade for yourself, or you trade for others. Period.
* Fact is, if there were retail public in this game back then, the IB firms would have somehow sold them on the idea to BUY contango, or short silver. But the financialization of commodities wasn’t there yet. And the “bigger fool” game stopped at the producers. If it happened again, with ETFs, cross regulatory semi fungible products, asymmetric access to venues and other factors in a global market, the public would be killed, short squeeze or long puke (like in UNG now) take your pick.
* You can never know intentions, and no one is bigger than the market, but the consequences of a lack of transparency and the free reign in which banks can tell half-truths to investors is a big factor in enabling strong hands to fleece weak hands with little market risk. It’s all a con game. And when the IBs figured out how to change the rules, then they were free to use their killer techniques to exploit a million little fish instead of the 10 big fish they usually competed with.
* Phibro was a ballsy cowboy trading firm. The banks at the employee level are as well, but corporately, they first seek to make money and secondly provide a service. When they should be providing a service that makes money.
* Everything that was done I’ve seen done the other way, keeping prices low, shaking out weaker players. Rarely does it happen in such a dramatic way. It is usually a series of “short cons” as opposed to Phibro’s home run. It’s all Darwinism. But when civilians are involved as they are now, then it is no longer caveat emptor.
* Instead of taking a million dollars from a hedge fund, these guys take a dollar from a million people now.

http://www.zerohedge.com/article/exclusive-second-whistleblower-emerges-deep-insiders-walkthru-silver-market-manipulation

tmosley
04-13-2010, 08:45 PM
I'm starting to think there won't be any manipulation this month. They may be running scared at this point.

raiha
04-14-2010, 01:08 AM
They are so sure of themselves, these Type A personalities, they have forgotten how to be scared as they have forgotten to be human. They are the Bloated Ones...Aristocrats of the new millenium. Hopefully they will stick their heads above the parapet, a bit too high for a bit too long.

hugolp
04-14-2010, 01:09 AM
Nice reading. Is this basically the modern day equivalent to a "bank run"?


Find the overleveraged/ extended party- and you will find the weak hand at the table. (Producers in 1997)

Basically some big trader looks for a guy that is doing "fractional reserve" in metals and then forces the price up by asking for phisical delivery. Is this correct?

Fractional reserve is fraud and should not be allowed in any form.

Mini-Me
04-14-2010, 02:34 AM
This kind of stuff is fascinating to read. I don't really think it brings any new information to the table (except the case studies about the silver miners, Phibro, etc.), but it's another confirmation about the consciously competitive, predatory nature of the financial markets today, and about all the dirty little techniques that many traders have learned about the hard way. It kind of brings that Jim Cramer interview to mind, where he mentioned how hedge funds manipulate prices to their advantage. Investment can be a positive sum game, since people have different goals and time horizons and such, but this stuff reminds me that short-term trading can be a very brutal zero-sum game, where the strong players quite literally play against weaker players and strategize against them. It's also a reminder to beware your own broker if you do any trading...it may be illegal, but there are a lot of stories on the Internet about brokers front-running their own customers and screwing them out of decent prices on trades. With all of the algorithmic trading going on, the "retail" minnows/sheep/prey that the whistleblower is talking about (i.e. us) are at a huge disadvantage, and often it's our own brokers taking advantage of that.

hugolp, I don't fully understand everything the whistleblower was saying, but here's my basic understanding: Instead of selling silver they already held in hand, the mining companies were short-selling it.

When you short sell a security, it means you're borrowing the security from someone else on the market and selling it, and you have a future obligation to return the security to the party who lent it to you, on demand. In the stock market, you usually do this when you expect the price of a stock to decrease: Borrow and sell the stock to someone at a high price, wait for it to reach a lower price, buy it back from the market (this is called covering your short), and return it to the lender. Of course, sometimes the price might increase, and you'll end up having to buy it back for more than you sold it for. Sometimes you can be charged interest to cover the risk of default, but this usually doesn't happen, because your account will have a maintenance margin requirement (the assets in your account are collateral for your debt, and long story short, you're forced to cover your debts and obligations before your account value ever dips low enough that you can't afford them). This is perfectly legal, and it should be, because it's based on valid contractual agreements with known risks.

Now, the silver miners were short-selling silver. They borrowed it and sold it, knowing they'd have to return it to the lender on demand (the silver in their mines was the collateral in this case...but here, the problem was that their collateral wasn't all that liquid ;)). However, because they were silver miners, they did not generally have to buy silver back from the open market in order to cover their shorts: Instead, they could just mine the silver and return that to their lenders. So long as a whole bunch of lenders did not all demand their silver back at once, this system allowed them to take profits from silver sales in advance of actually mining the silver. Again, this is all perfectly legal and above-board. However, they ended up overleveraging themselves irresponsibly, and it blew up in their faces: Other parties like Warren Buffett and Phibro realized that the silver miners were overleveraged, and so they bought a whole bunch of silver and started hinting about taking delivery. Long story short, they eventually announced they were taking delivery of a huge amount of silver, and all of this led to a chain reaction where the miners had to return a lot of borrowed silver that they didn't have on hand yet (because they already sold it but hadn't mined more yet to cover the short). Since they didn't have the silver on hand, they would have had to actually buy it on the market in order to return it to lenders...and they couldn't afford to (and their collateral wasn't exactly liquid, which was the whole point of short-selling for them in the first place). This would have destroyed them, but Buffett ended up "taking pity" at the government's request and made a deal with them: Instead of demanding delivery, he'd hold off and charge 40% interest on the undelivered silver. ;)

Basically, the silver miners were overleveraged and stupid, and Buffett and Phibro noticed this and preyed on them mercilessly. There was no fraud involved in the leveraging that the silver miners did though. That's my understanding of the situation, and I'm pretty sure I have the main idea right, even if a lot of the technical details and terminology are foreign to me.




Anyway, I do take issue with your last sentence. I kind of thought the forums were past this fallacy. ;) Even fractional reserve banking isn't inherently fraudulent; it's only fraud when one party is misled about what's going on. If you think about it, any bank that does ANY lending of any deposits whatsoever (whether on-demand deposits or longer-term CD's) is technically engaging in fractional-reserve banking. The moment you lend ANY money out, you are no longer operating at full reserves. Regardless of whether the bank is dealing with on-demand deposits or longer-term CD's, this principle still holds (the only thing that changes is the risk and predictability of default at a certain level of reserves). Think about it: What if you willingly lend money to someone, and your contract with them specifies that they are allowed to lend it out to others? Sure, that comes at a higher risk of default due to the potential pyramiding involved, but what if you're willing to take that risk (in exchange for a commensurate interest rate, for example)? In that case, no government has any business interfering in your business and saying, "This contract is illegal, and I won't let you engage in it, even though both you and the other party are fully aware of the risks!"

In our banking system, people are misled to think that their bank deposits are still "their money," which they can withdraw at any time with no risk; in reality, their on-demand deposits are actually loans to the bank, and every loan comes at the risk of default. Our account balances are not "our money;" they're merely IOU's from the bank, and any and all banks that lend out deposits will naturally owe more money to depositers than they currently hold in reserve. A bank may keep 90% reserves, or it may keep 10% (or less nowadays, lol), but the principle remains the same. In a free market, fractional reserve banking could, would, and should be perfectly legal (and we'd have sane contracts where a bank would put up its own loans as collateral in case it defaults on customer deposits...I'm not sure if that's typically the case now or not). The only reason this is fraudulent today is because people are misled into thinking their deposits are something they are not, and the entire banking system, regulatory system, etc. is structured to provide the illusion of perfect safety. Hardly anybody realizes that their bank account balance of $1 does not guarantee an exclusive claim to $1 of real cash on demand, because the bank may actually owe $1 to 10 people for every $1 it has in reserve, and a bank run would leave the bank unable to pay on demand. This illusion blurs the line between real cash and IOU's (account balances), which is even more blurred considering all money is created as debt under the current system. People hardly recognize the different between cash and bank deposits, etc., and the state intervention involved tricks the market into pricing them almost equivalently. This has created a situation where the whole system quickly becomes overleveraged, because all of the risk involved is systematically hidden from people.

Saying fractional reserve banking is "fraud and should not be allowed in any form" is like saying that risk is inherently fraudulent; this cannot be farther from the truth. The fraudulent part of things is systematically HIDING risk from people, and it's so dangerous because hiding risk ends up exponentially increasing risk, which eventually extends beyond individual transactions to the point of systemic failure.

ctiger2
04-14-2010, 09:54 AM
I had a hard time fully comprehending what this person was talking about. A lot of trader lingo... Anytime you can tie manipulation to Buffet that's a good thing. That guy has so much insider info it's ridiculous. No way anyone's that good.

tmosley
04-14-2010, 10:21 AM
I had a hard time fully comprehending what this person was talking about. A lot of trader lingo... Anytime you can tie manipulation to Buffet that's a good thing. That guy has so much insider info it's ridiculous. No way anyone's that good.

Well, Buffet was a "good guy" in this case, as he was going long silver, and demanding delivery. Apparently the Feds got to him, and convinced him to delay delivery by a year in exchange for 40% of the transaction in cash.

I would have refused. I'd have held out for 300% at least. Then I would have done it again the next year. Until the market was no longer being manipulated, or until the Feds were out of money to give me. With the extra money I got each time I did it, I would be able to take a larger and larger cut of the market. During this whole time, the physical would be streaming in.

In other words, if they are willing to pay 40% to delay delivery for a year, take their money they gave you, and hit them that much harder next year. Corner the market with free money from Uncle Sugar.

hugolp
04-14-2010, 10:58 AM
Anyway, I do take issue with your last sentence. I kind of thought the forums were past this fallacy. ;) Even fractional reserve banking isn't inherently fraudulent; it's only fraud when one party is misled about what's going on. If you think about it, any bank that does ANY lending of any deposits whatsoever (whether on-demand deposits or longer-term CD's) is technically engaging in fractional-reserve banking. The moment you lend ANY money out, you are no longer operating at full reserves. Regardless of whether the bank is dealing with on-demand deposits or longer-term CD's, this principle still holds (the only thing that changes is the risk and predictability of default at a certain level of reserves). Think about it: What if you willingly lend money to someone, and your contract with them specifies that they are allowed to lend it out to others? Sure, that comes at a higher risk of default due to the potential pyramiding involved, but what if you're willing to take that risk (in exchange for a commensurate interest rate, for example)? In that case, no government has any business interfering in your business and saying, "This contract is illegal, and I won't let you engage in it, even though both you and the other party are fully aware of the risks!"

In our banking system, people are misled to think that their bank deposits are still "their money," which they can withdraw at any time with no risk; in reality, their on-demand deposits are actually loans to the bank, and every loan comes at the risk of default. Our account balances are not "our money;" they're merely IOU's from the bank, and any and all banks that lend out deposits will naturally owe more money to depositers than they currently hold in reserve. A bank may keep 90% reserves, or it may keep 10% (or less nowadays, lol), but the principle remains the same. In a free market, fractional reserve banking could, would, and should be perfectly legal (and we'd have sane contracts where a bank would put up its own loans as collateral in case it defaults on customer deposits...I'm not sure if that's typically the case now or not). The only reason this is fraudulent today is because people are misled into thinking their deposits are something they are not, and the entire banking system, regulatory system, etc. is structured to provide the illusion of perfect safety. Hardly anybody realizes that their bank account balance of $1 does not guarantee an exclusive claim to $1 of real cash on demand, because the bank may actually owe $1 to 10 people for every $1 it has in reserve, and a bank run would leave the bank unable to pay on demand. This illusion blurs the line between real cash and IOU's (account balances), which is even more blurred considering all money is created as debt under the current system. People hardly recognize the different between cash and bank deposits, etc., and the state intervention involved tricks the market into pricing them almost equivalently. This has created a situation where the whole system quickly becomes overleveraged, because all of the risk involved is systematically hidden from people.

Saying fractional reserve banking is "fraud and should not be allowed in any form" is like saying that risk is inherently fraudulent; this cannot be farther from the truth. The fraudulent part of things is systematically HIDING risk from people, and it's so dangerous because hiding risk ends up exponentially increasing risk, which eventually extends beyond individual transactions to the point of systemic failure.

I know how fractional reserve works and that is why I am sure it is a fraud. Not any lending bussiness is fractional. What you are saying is that you can give your money to the bank to invest it and at the same time have it at your disposal at any time, and that is simply imposible and its a void contract. Its the same as saying that you are allowing your bank to rent your house, but at the same time you want to use it whenever you feel like it. Its imposible, therefore its not a valid contract.

tmosley
04-14-2010, 11:44 AM
I know how fractional reserve works and that is why I am sure it is a fraud. Not any lending bussiness is fractional. What you are saying is that you can give your money to the bank to invest it and at the same time have it at your disposal at any time, and that is simply imposible and its a void contract. Its the same as saying that you are allowing your bank to rent your house, but at the same time you want to use it whenever you feel like it. Its imposible, therefore its not a valid contract.

It is not a void contract, so long as the system is disclosed. Fractional reserve banking worked just fine during the free bank period.

It's only fraudulent the way it is currently practiced.

hugolp
04-14-2010, 11:55 AM
It is not a void contract, so long as the system is disclosed. Fractional reserve banking worked just fine during the free bank period.

It's only fraudulent the way it is currently practiced.

The fact that it worked better than the present system does not mean its the right answer. I would be very happy to have that monetary and banking system but still fractional reserve banking is fraudulent. It has a lot of problems.

ctiger2
04-14-2010, 12:06 PM
Well, Buffet was a "good guy" in this case, as he was going long silver, and demanding delivery. Apparently the Feds got to him, and convinced him to delay delivery by a year in exchange for 40% of the transaction in cash.

Yea, he went long but that was because he wanted to short squeeze the producers and make money. How did he know about their extreme short positions? Also, all that talk about secrecy regarding clients of Phibro/Buffet smells funny as well.

tmosley
04-14-2010, 12:20 PM
Yea, he went long but that was because he wanted to short squeeze the producers and make money. How did he know about their extreme short positions? Also, all that talk about secrecy regarding clients of Phibro/Buffet smells funny as well.

That's how markets are supposed to work. When players are too heavily short, you crush them, make money, and rout out the manipulative players. That this doesn't happen every year is the reason silver is so cheap.

These guys who are short on 100:1 leverage deserve to be bent over a barrel. The fact that no-one has done it is ASTOUNDING. The only reason I can see for such a lack of market correction is that the Feds step in any time anyone makes a move, and forces them to settle for paper.

That won't work when the one producing the short squeeze is Mr. Average Investor, who is taking possession like mad.

PeacePlan
04-14-2010, 12:22 PM
Consider doing this http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=240137 as it may add more pressure on CFTC

Shine the light on these suckers - including the Fed

Mini-Me
04-14-2010, 06:02 PM
I know how fractional reserve works and that is why I am sure it is a fraud. Not any lending bussiness is fractional. What you are saying is that you can give your money to the bank to invest it and at the same time have it at your disposal at any time, and that is simply imposible and its a void contract.
Here is what you're misunderstanding:

First, you're forgetting that fractional-reserve banking is not exclusively limited to fractional-reserve banking with on-demand deposits. Even when your deposits are NOT on demand at all times, such as when they're in a CD, banking can still be (and always is, if banks loan out borrowed money in any capacity) based on fractional reserves. Even CD's come at risk of default, and if there's any risk whatsoever (and therefore interest being paid), you can be assured that it's because the bank does not operate at 100% reserves. Realistically speaking, the only way for a bank to operate at 100% reserves is if they put all deposits in a safety deposit box, charge for storage (instead of paying interest), and loan out only the money received from those charges (and interest on said loans). This is a valid model, but it's not the only valid model. Some people prefer receiving interest on their deposits, even if there's a risk of default. Telling them they can't do that is nanny-state authoritarianism.

Now, on-demand deposits are fraudulent when consumers are led to believe that they're 100% their money, when they are in fact loans in reality, and their balances are merely IOU's. However, if consumers were made well aware that their deposits are loans, and that "on-demand" withdrawals exist only for convenience and inherently increase the risk of default (i.e. in case of a bank run), there is nothing wrong with offering those terms, and there is nothing wrong with accepting them. Again, there is nothing fraudulent about risk. The fraud only comes in when that risk is deliberately hidden from view. (Look up the definition of fraud if you disagree; fraud is inherently about people being tricked into believing that an agreement/purchase is different from what it actually is.)

The idea is not exactly, "give your money to the bank to invest it and at the same time have it at your disposal at any time," like you say. The idea is, "give your money to the bank to invest, and they must return it (or its equivalent, because money is fungible) on demand if they are able...but the bank will not always be able, since any loan naturally comes at risk of default, and on-demand loans have unpredictable withdrawal patterns that increase this risk." As long as the risk is disclosed, there is no fraud.

In short: It's only fraudulent if consumers are led to believe they have guaranteed on-demand access with no strings attached.

hugolp
04-14-2010, 11:58 PM
Here is what you're misunderstanding:

First, you're forgetting that fractional-reserve banking is not exclusively limited to fractional-reserve banking with on-demand deposits. Even when your deposits are NOT on demand at all times, such as when they're in a CD, banking can still be (and always is, if banks loan out borrowed money in any capacity) based on fractional reserves. Even CD's come at risk of default, and if there's any risk whatsoever (and therefore interest being paid), you can be assured that it's because the bank does not operate at 100% reserves. Realistically speaking, the only way for a bank to operate at 100% reserves is if they put all deposits in a safety deposit box, charge for storage (instead of paying interest), and loan out only the money received from those charges (and interest on said loans). This is a valid model, but it's not the only valid model. Some people prefer receiving interest on their deposits, even if there's a risk of default. Telling them they can't do that is nanny-state authoritarianism.

Now, on-demand deposits are fraudulent when consumers are led to believe that they're 100% their money, when they are in fact loans in reality, and their balances are merely IOU's. However, if consumers were made well aware that their deposits are loans, and that "on-demand" withdrawals exist only for convenience and inherently increase the risk of default (i.e. in case of a bank run), there is nothing wrong with offering those terms, and there is nothing wrong with accepting them. Again, there is nothing fraudulent about risk. The fraud only comes in when that risk is deliberately hidden from view. (Look up the definition of fraud if you disagree; fraud is inherently about people being tricked into believing that an agreement/purchase is different from what it actually is.)

The idea is not exactly, "give your money to the bank to invest it and at the same time have it at your disposal at any time," like you say. The idea is, "give your money to the bank to invest, and they must return it (or its equivalent, because money is fungible) on demand if they are able...but the bank will not always be able, since any loan naturally comes at risk of default, and on-demand loans have unpredictable withdrawal patterns that increase this risk." As long as the risk is disclosed, there is no fraud.

In short: It's only fraudulent if consumers are led to believe they have guaranteed on-demand access with no strings attached.

Well, you see, we completely agree. The problem is if you dont warantee the money then tecnically its not fractional reserve, its paying with debt (and if the transaction is voluntary its completely fine). If you have a note that does not guarantee you the money but rather says that it is a loan to the bank for the amount of 10oz of gold (f.e.) then its up to the other part to accept or not accept the note. But that is not fractional reserve. It would be the equivalent to accept a bond as money. If both parts are ok there is no problem, but it is not fractional reserve.

And yes, with a 100% deposit system the banks would have to charge for the storage. In this case there could be two kind of notes, the deposit notes (where its a fraud if the gold is not in there and the bank charges for it) and the debt notes, that represent a loan of the bank to someone (and pay interest but have risk). And it would be up to each individual to decide how much risk they want to take. It would be up to the market to decide wich one of the notes prefers and in wich quantity.

In a fractional reserve system the bank alone decides how much risk is going to take and the individuals, the market, has a hard time realizing how much risk the bank is taking. It can because when it feels the bank is printing a lot of notes it can start to suspect, but in reality it has not way of really knowing. That can lead to rumors and someone trying to atack some bank credibility, etc... Its a way of socializing the risk, its kind of central planing, where everybody shares the risk, but only the bank gets to decides the risk it takes.

In the other system, each individual chooses the risk he/she wants to take. Its a real market process.

Mini-Me
04-15-2010, 02:08 PM
Well, you see, we completely agree. The problem is if you dont warantee the money then tecnically its not fractional reserve, its paying with debt (and if the transaction is voluntary its completely fine). If you have a note that does not guarantee you the money but rather says that it is a loan to the bank for the amount of 10oz of gold (f.e.) then its up to the other part to accept or not accept the note. But that is not fractional reserve. It would be the equivalent to accept a bond as money. If both parts are ok there is no problem, but it is not fractional reserve.

And yes, with a 100% deposit system the banks would have to charge for the storage. In this case there could be two kind of notes, the deposit notes (where its a fraud if the gold is not in there and the bank charges for it) and the debt notes, that represent a loan of the bank to someone (and pay interest but have risk). And it would be up to each individual to decide how much risk they want to take. It would be up to the market to decide wich one of the notes prefers and in wich quantity.

In a fractional reserve system the bank alone decides how much risk is going to take and the individuals, the market, has a hard time realizing how much risk the bank is taking. It can because when it feels the bank is printing a lot of notes it can start to suspect, but in reality it has not way of really knowing. That can lead to rumors and someone trying to atack some bank credibility, etc... Its a way of socializing the risk, its kind of central planing, where everybody shares the risk, but only the bank gets to decides the risk it takes.

In the other system, each individual chooses the risk he/she wants to take. Its a real market process.

In this case, I think we just differ on our precise semantic definition of "fractional reserve." You seem to be using a very narrow and specific definition, but I don't see why: The term does not exist in a vacuum, and its meaning is not independent of its constituent words; instead, its two constituent words define the meaning. That is why any bank operating without full reserves is technically, by definition, operating on a fractional-reserve system.

Either way though, we agree about the more important point, so yay. :)

hugolp
04-16-2010, 03:48 AM
In this case, I think we just differ on our precise semantic definition of "fractional reserve." You seem to be using a very narrow and specific definition, but I don't see why: The term does not exist in a vacuum, and its meaning is not independent of its constituent words; instead, its two constituent words define the meaning. That is why any bank operating without full reserves is technically, by definition, operating on a fractional-reserve system.

Either way though, we agree about the more important point, so yay. :)

So now that we know that we agree on the content wich is the important part, I just want to coment on the name. I think its a big mistake to call the two things the same when in reality they are different things, specially because one is a fraud (a goverment legalized fraud) wich people that know how it works is against for very good reasons and the other is a completely fine system. So using the same name for both, IMO is a mistake for educational and political reasons. They should have a different name and be clearly defined as different thinks, because they are.

Fractional Reserve historically has been when the banks guarantees the deposit and at the same time it loans it out. That is fraud, and it is not what we are talking about, so it should have a different name. There is no point in naming the correct system with the same name as a fraudulent system. Its a really bad idea. It should have a different name.

YumYum
04-16-2010, 05:18 AM
The people that control silver don't know this just yet. They are some dumb people. I will buy silver before they find out what's up.