"No man can become rich without himself enriching others"
Andrew Carnegie



Showing posts with label free stock tips. Show all posts
Showing posts with label free stock tips. Show all posts

Thursday, August 22, 2013

3 Reasons to Ditch Your Bear Suit

Bull and bear in front of the Frankfurt Stock ...
Bull and bear in front of the Frankfurt Stock Exchange (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
By Rude Awakening

Baltimore, Aug.21, free portfolios .- Don't give up on stocks just yet. In this market, the early bear gets squeezed.

It's just plain dangerous to bet against a low-volume drop like we're seeing right now. Heck, we're not even officially experiencing a correction. Or a meaningful dip. But that hasn't stopped the crash brigade from declaring once again that this is the beginning of the end for stocks…

"Suddenly, everyone is talking about this being a correction. I would say that at the current moment, we are just barely in a dip but possibly headed toward a correction," says Josh Brown of The Reformed Broker. "With a market pause that is not yet even a 5% dip - let alone a 10%+ correction - people (myself included) have been jumping the gun in trotting out the C-word so early."

He's not alone.

These low-volume drops have investors running in circles. There are no bulls in sight. Everyone is expecting the worst…

I'm not saying you should completely ignore this month's market action. But there's no reason to sell everything and set yourself on fire out on the front lawn…

Here are three reasons you shouldn't jump headfirst into the bear market camp just yet:

1. It's August

Trading volume is almost non-existent right now. And for the past several years, we've seen quite a few wild price swings in August that didn't stick. It's entirely possible that buyers kick it back into gear after Labor Day…

2. The Taper is coming?

Every dip in this market since the November 2012 bottom has coincided with a big policy fear. First it was the Fiscal Cliff. Then it was Sequestration. Now it's the Taper. The safe bet so far is that none of it really matters as much as people think it does.

3. Hysteria

Investors should welcome a dip. Dips are opportunity. But that's not the vibe I'm getting as the market creeps lower this month.

Bespoke Investment Group reports that bullish sentiment among newsletter writers has declined to its lowest levels since late June. This piece of data is usually a great contrarian indicator.

Also, don't ignore pockets of strength in this market. While the Dow coughed up its gains yesterday and closed in the red, the Russell 2000 finished the trading day up more than 1.5%.

It's never a good idea to trade on your fears. Keep a level head and let price guide your decisions. The dog days of summer are almost behind us…

.
Enhanced by Zemanta

The Timeless Wisdom of Izzy Stone

Stones
Stones (Photo credit: rkramer62)
By Daily Reckoning
Chicago, Aug.22, free stock tips .- "I sought in political reporting what Galsworthy in another context had called 'the significant trifle' -- the bit of dialogue, the overlooked fact, the buried observation which illuminated the realities of the situation." -- I.F. Stone, The Haunted Fifties (1963)

I start with a hidden problem in the stock market's latest earnings report card. Overall, earnings rose about 2% for the quarter. But if you take out the financials (banks, insurers), earnings actually fell by 3%.

That's a problem.

I appeared on Fox TV Friday morning. Before the show, I said I wanted to talk about this earnings stuff. The producer asked, "Do you think that's too technical to explain?"

"I should hope not" I thought to myself. I hope people understand that earnings (or profits) drive the stock market over the long term.

Specifically, the market rises and falls based on what the consensus guess is about where earnings are going. The market looks ahead. So you can match up the S&P 500 -- a broad proxy for the market -- with the consensus guess for earnings in the coming 12 months (the so-called "forward estimate").

Take a look at this chart from FactSet, which shows just that.


So if earnings fall -- or if people start to think earnings will fall -- the stock market also tends to fall. This is simple stuff. Trying to predict what will happen is, of course, anything but simple. I'd say it's foolish to even try. But people love this kind of thing -- especially TV people.

I was on Fox last week, on Aug. 7. I expressed the usual caution about the market, which I've been doing in these pages all year. Asked if it was time to sell, I said "Absolutely." I told viewers that my C&C portfolio was down to just nine names. We have historically carried 20-25.

Anecdotally, I said, that tells you what I think of the market. It was a lucky call, because the market has done nothing but drift lower since. (It got me a return invite. They want to know what I think now.)

People are starting to worry about earnings. They are also worried about when the Fed will stop pouring free drinks and end the party -- which, in a roundabout way, still comes down to a worry over earnings.

The earnings for the second quarter seem to foreshadow a decline ahead.

I've already pointed out the fact that if you exclude the banks, earnings actually fell. In some sectors, the decline was ferocious. The mining sector's profits were off 59%. (Fortunately, we put ourselves in a great position here. We long ago dumped all of our miners and commodity plays. Instead, we bought the financials. Today, we enjoy the profits -- and savings -- of that decision.) The overall growth in earnings was the third-slowest growth rate in the past four years (or 16 quarters).

Also, the number of positive surprises was the lowest since 2008. And of the number of companies that gave guidance for the third quarter, about 80% have issued negative guidance. Meaning they've taken their forecasts down a notch or two. As a result, the expected earnings growth rate for the third quarter is 4.3%, down from 6.7% at the start of the quarter. That figure is still probably optimistic.

In summary, for anyone who takes a deeper look into the market's working engine (those earnings), there are plenty of worn-out parts that look like trouble down the road.

Taking a deeper look is what Izzy Stone was all about.

I.F. Stone (1907-89), or "Izzy" as he was known, wrote and self-published a newsletter called I.F. Stone's Weekly for nearly two decades. It was influential in its time. At its height in the 1960s, Stone had about 70,000 subscribers.

His focus was political reporting. He was famous for digging through the public record and finding things that people missed. As he described it so eloquently, "I sought in political reporting what Galsworthy in another context had called 'the significant trifle'-- the bit of dialogue, the overlooked fact, the buried observation which illuminated the realities of the situation."

His work has earned him a place among the best investigative reporters that ever lived. I find him inspirational in my own efforts in trying to put together a newsletter attuned to those same "significant trifles." Stone would've made a heck of a financial newsletter writer.

Among my favorite nuggets of wise advice from Stone:

"If you're going to be a newspaperman, you are either going to be honest or consistent. If you are really doing your job as an observer... it's more important to say what you see than worry about inconsistency. If you are worried about that, you stop looking. And if you stop looking, you are not really a reporter anymore. I have no inhibitions about changing my mind."

I don't think I have to point out how this applies to markets. Certainly, if you come at the market with a strong view, you are apt to overlook the possibly important trifle that doesn't fit your worldview. And that trifle might be the clue that gets you ahead of the crowd.

More from Stone:

"The search for meaning is very satisfying, it's very pleasant, but it can be very far from the truth. You have to have the courage to call attention to what doesn't fit. Even though readers are going to say, 'Well, two weeks ago you said this.' So you did. And maybe you were wrong then, or partly wrong, but anyway, you've just seen something that doesn't fit, and it's your job to report it. Otherwise, you're just the prisoner of your own preconceptions." [Bold added.]

This is not just for newsletter writers. This is for thinking people everywhere.

We should realize that we are all, to some extent, prisoners of our preconceptions. And we should all work to not let those preconceptions blind us to opportunities (or pitfalls) staring us in the face. Aim to take opportunity (and see trouble) where it lies, and don't try to force the market to live up to your preconceptions.

Izzy's world had its center in Washington. Our focus is Wall Street. Both places have many affinities. Power and money are their chief currencies. Deception and sleight of hand are common skills. It's easy to get discouraged when you get close. Izzy never did.

"I felt that if one were able enough and had sufficient vision," he once wrote, "one could distill meaning, truth and even beauty from the swiftly flowing debris of the week's news." Stone's essays did that with wit and good writing.

If you are interested, I recommend The Best of I.F. Stone as a starter. If you want more, you can move on to Stone's six-volume A Nonconformist History of Our Times, which starts in 1939 and runs until 1970. I've also read two excellent biographies: All Governments Lie! by Myra MacPherson, and American Radical, by D.D. Guttenplan.

I live in a suburb of Washington, D.C. (If you step outside and listen closely, you can hear the beating heart of the Empire.) Last night, I headed down to the Penn Quarter to meet a couple of friends for dinner. Izzy used to write his Weekly from Washington and lived only a couple of miles from where I was.

It's unseasonably cool in Washington. We ate out on the patio at chef Jose Andres' Jaleo restaurant. (Best tapas restaurant in town.) My friends were globe-trotting investors, and I was hoping to get a useful lead or two. And I did. Never stop looking, Izzy used to say. More another time...
...
Enhanced by Zemanta

Wednesday, August 21, 2013

Don't Get Too Excited About the Market's Gains

Dow Jones hoofdkantoor EMEA
(Photo credit: Tjeerd)
Lower quality stocks led the advance; near-term trend remains down


Better earnings from the retail sector, including Best Buy (BBY),TJX Companies (TJX) and Urban Outfitters (URBN), contributed to the gains. Homebuilding stocks bounced as well, with the iShares Dow Jones US Home Construction (ITB) up 3.1% and most of the major builders up as much as 4%.
At Tuesday’s close, the Dow Jones Industrial Average was off 8 points at 15,003, the S&P 500 rose 6 points to 1,652, and the Nasdaq gained 25 points at 3,614. The NYSE traded 634 million shares and the Nasdaq crossed 311 million in a light-volume session. Advancers led decliners on both major exchanges by 2.7-to-1.

Chart Key
The S&P 500 regained a small part of the four-day decline that began on Aug. 14 with a gap down from its 20-day moving average. But Tuesday’s bounce failed to close above the 50-day moving average, and so this senior index must be considered negative for the intermediate term.
A close under the intermediate trendline at about 1,650 would confirm the downtrend while a solid advance with higher volume would turn the index positive again.
The Russell 2000 small-cap index stayed under its 50-day moving average for just one day. Note the oversold MACD and a slight hooking up from the fast line (red).
The current bounce could even challenge the breakaway gap at 1,038-1,045. But the head-and-shoulders breakdown will be difficult for traders to overcome.
Conclusion: These charts vividly illustrate the market’s current dilemma. As in July and part of August, the leading stocks are of lower quality, not the stuff of dynamic bull markets. In fact, on Tuesday, the blue-chip Dow 30 closed down while lower quality stocks rallied.
Fed talk could support a continuation of the rally, but the die is cast and the near-term trend is down with the intermediate-term trend hanging by a slim thread. Continue to sell into strength.
...
Enhanced by Zemanta

Monday, August 12, 2013

How to define risk in dividend paying stocks?

The Coca-Cola logo is an example of a widely-r...
The Coca-Cola logo is an example of a widely-recognized trademark representing a global brand. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
By Valueinvestingnews

Boston, Aug.12, free stock tips .- For many equity investors these days, risk is usually defined as an unfavorable fluctuation in stock prices. This means that an investor who purchased Coca-Cola (KO) at $40/share, and observes the price decline to $30/share, had a $10 unfavorable move in the price against them. This view on risk could be adequate for investors whose investing timeframe is in days or months. The problem with defining risk with stock market volatility however, does not make much sense for long-term investors.

As a long-term investor, I focus on identifying companies with strong fundamentals, and good business prospects, which I then try to accumulate at attractive valuations. I then monitor long-term business trends, read annual reports, and check to see if the company is earning more and paying out more in dividends. As a result, the data points I use are in “years”, rather than days or months. If you expect to hold a company for 20 years, focusing on a decrease from $40 to $30 is relatively immaterial. In my investing, I usually avoid focusing on price fluctuations, except as a tool to uncover cheap stocks to buy. Of course, if this drop is because of some material information that could affect the long-term prospects of the business, you need to evaluate whether you want to add or liquidate your position. However, if this drop is because stock prices are simply going down in tandem, chances are that you are not getting much from this information.

For me, risk is defined as a situation where I lose my all of investment capital. When I lose my investment capital, I would be unable to make more investments and earn more money from it. This permanent loss of capital is usually associated with situations such as business failure from the company I invested in. This would mean that not only would I lose out on a portion of my dividend income, but would also be unable to replace it because the capital base has dwindled significantly. This is why it is important to diversify my investments, in order to reduce the impact on my capital base from the effects of one company failing. If the stock I own merely goes from $40 to $30, but the fundamentals are unchanged I would not see that as a risk, but rather as the cost of doing business. Therefore, deteriorating fundamentals are a much larger risk to your capital and dividends than stock price fluctuations alone.

I believe that prices are what you pay, but value is what you get. Over the next 20 - 30 years that you hold dividend paying stocks, you will likely suffer big declines in stock prices on several occasions. This could be due to a lot of factors like recessions, wars, oil shocks, as well as a lot of company specific factors. The goal is to start with the facts first, such as a news release or an annual report for example, rather than focus on prices alone, and avoid making decision on rumors and opinions which are not grounded by facts. It is also important to be mentally prepared for declines in prices, and not panic and do something stupid like selling everything.

I would consider selling only after a dividend cut, in order to avoid acting on noise. The reason behind this rule is two-fold. The first reason is that companies do not grow to the sky in a straight-line. There are roadblocks along the way. At the time these roadblocks occur, it is very difficult to evaluate if they will result in a permanent loss or not. When Johnson & Johnson (JNJ) had issues in one of its subsidiaries in 2010, many investors feared the worst. Since then however, the company has managed to clean up operations, and succeeded. If you had sold back then, you would have missed out on the opportunity. As a result, any negative news might be scary at the time, but in the grand scheme of things, could be simply considered noise. This is why I note these negative events, but might refrain from selling off my position. I have also sold when I found valuation to be too high, but I have had mixed results from this scenario.

Second, in my analysis of companies, I have noted that when a company cuts dividends after it has paid and increased them for decades, it is usually admitting trouble. However, there is more trouble ahead, because boards typically make their decisions on whether to increase or cut distributions based on the business prospects for the next 2 – 3 years. In the Johnson & Johnson case above, the company was experiencing some issues, however they kept raising the dividend and kept earning more per share. This indicated that the problems are not as huge as expected.

Of course, selling after a dividend cut is not effective 100% of the time. However, it is a fail-safe mechanism, that can allow an investor to have a reasonable confidence that selling at this event will leave them with some capital. This capital can then be deployed in other attractive opportunities that will generate rising streams of income. In addition, selling after a cut removes any guesswork of whether the negative events you are learning about the company are noise or not. It should also be a wake-up call for the investor who “falls in love” with a company, and could expect to rationalize themselves out of selling a company with deteriorating fundamentals.

In conclusion, I define risk in dividend investing as an event that leads to total destruction of capital, from which my dividend income would be reduces or eliminated. In order to reduce this risk, I am diversifying my portfolio, and have a hard sell rule of disposing of a stock after a dividend cut. This would protect my dividend income, and allow me to enjoy the fruits of my labor in my golden years.

...
Enhanced by Zemanta

Urgent: This Currency Could Be Crashing As We Speak...

Self-employed
Self-employed (Photo credits: www.myhardhatstickers.com)
By StreetAuthority

Washington, Aug.12, free portfolios .- Lately, every day it seems like some Wall Street expert or financial commentator has a dire prediction about the U.S. economy and the dollar.
But I'm tracking what I believe is a much more urgent currency crisis...

The economic news out of Australia seems to get worse by the week.

Now, economic commentators especially like to warn of China's imminent collapse. So, early last week, when China's newest trade numbers came in shockingly weak, the talking heads had a field day with the news. So, what does this have to do with Australia?

Well, resource-rich Australia is particularly vulnerable to any slowdown in China, because a whopping 45% of the country's exports go to China. China is Australia's No. 1 trading partner.

And China just isn't buying as much of Australia's natural resources as it once bought.

Iron ore is Australia's No. 1 export, and China just isn't buying as much as it used to. That may explain why iron ore spot prices plunged 30% between February and May of this year.

But its problems aren't in the past. Like I said, the economic news out of Australia seems to get worse by the week.

Forget China: Watch Australia for Economic Collapse
The Australian government admitted that its budget deficit is going to balloon to $30 billion this year.

Now... $30 billion may not sound like a lot, especially in comparison to the United States -- which has been running TRILLION-dollar deficits since Obama took over. But Australia is a much smaller economy, with a 2013 national budget of A$398 billion.

On a percentage basis, $30 billion works out to roughly an 8% deficit. Worse yet, the 2013 deficit was anticipated to be only $18 billion just a few months ago.

The problem is an unexpected and rapid $33 billion drop in tax revenue caused by a slowdown in trade with China, and tumbling commodity prices.

"We are now facing a deteriorating economy when the rest of the world is actually getting better," Treasury Secretary candidate Joe Hockey said.

And Shane Oliver, the chief economist of AMP Ltd., one of the largest brokerage firms in Australia, publicly described the Australian economy: "I'm shocked by how much it has deteriorated."

Falling Growth Forecasts, Interest Rates
Even the eager-to-be-re-elected politicians are admitting there is a problem, as last week they cut their 2013 GDP growth forecast from 2.75% (which was made in May) to 2.5% and warned that unemployment would rise from 5.75% to 6.25% this year.

Last week, the Reserve Bank of Australia also cut benchmark interest rates to a record-low 2.5%, with the central bank citing weaker commodity prices and slower growth as the primary drivers behind the decision.

In addition to taking action to prevent economic collapse, Australia is also making a move to prevent a banking collapse by levying some deposits.

Tax The Rich! (Yeah, That Will Work...)
Australian politicians are stealing a page from U.S. politicians and looking to fund their budgetary problems by taking money from those evil corporations and you-didn't-build-it wealthy individuals.

Australia plans to levy a new 0.05% tax on bank deposits up to A$250,000, which could generate A$733 million in an 18-month span.

Unlike the government of Cyprus which taxed (penalized) the depositors, Australia is going to tax the banks instead. Of course, Australian banks will, in turn, pass on the cost of this tax to consumers in the form of higher fees or lower interest rates.

It is bad enough when governments raise taxes on our investment income, but I am hard-pressed to think of a worse way to discourage growth than to tax people's capital.

Bottom line: Australia is an economic train wreck waiting to happen. And you'll want to be on board when it derails.

I have filmed a short video (10 minutes) in which I further explain how the Aussie dollar crash will unfold -- and reveal an easy way to play the coming crash for a quick 20%-plus gain. Click here to watch it now.

...

Enhanced by Zemanta

Sunday, August 11, 2013

Ted Butler: JPM is Cornering the Gold Market!

English: Bracelets at the Dubai gold market
English: Bracelets at the Dubai gold market (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
By Silver Doctors

Chicago, Aug.12, free investment ideas .- For the past few weeks I have been harping on JPMorgan's massive long position in COMEX gold futures, stating that nothing comes closer in importance for the price. There has never been a case where a market corner wasn’t the prime price determinant. Preventing or eliminating market corners is the number one priority under commodity law. A market corner is the antitheses of how a free market is supposed to operate. A series of market corners and manipulation in the early part of the last century (the Jesse Livermore era) was what led to the formation of commodity regulation in the US in the 1930’s. It’s bad enough when entities such as the Hunt Brothers or the rogue copper trader from Sumitomo cornered markets; but it’s a whole different level of badness when the most important US bank corners a market, as JPMorgan has done in COMEX gold futures.
Silver Maple
By Ted Butler:
Today I would like to step back a bit and highlight how we got to the outrageous position of JPMorgan cornering the gold market. Regular readers know that I have pinpointed JPMorgan as being the prime manipulator in gold and silver for going on five years, following the revelation from the federal commodities regulator, the CFTC, that JPMorgan inherited the massive concentrated gold and silver short positions of Bear Stearns in March 2008. That, plus verifiable data from the CFTC, in its published Commitments of Traders (COT) and Bank Participation Reports, clearly confirm my allegations of a market corner by JPMorgan in COMEX gold futures.
This may seem hard to believe, but JPMorgan’s current corner on the COMEX gold market is the second market corner in the gold market by this bank in the last nine months and among many prior corners over the past five years in gold and silver. JPMorgan is a serial market manipulator and now swings both ways in cornering markets; usually on the short side of markets until the current long corner in gold.
Based upon COT and Bank Participation Reports data, last December 4, JPMorgan had a net short position in COMEX gold futures of approximately 75,000 contracts. This position represented 20.5% of the true net open interest on that date (once 68,648 spread contracts were removed from total open interest of 434,416 contracts). On that date, the price of gold was $1700. While it is difficult for many (including the CFTC) to grasp the concept that a corner could exist on the short side of the market, surely no one would argue against a 20.5% concentrated share of a major regulated futures market by a single entity would constitute manipulation and a corner.
It was this corner on the short side of COMEX gold futures by JPMorgan that provided the incentive and led to the subsequent $500 decline in the price of gold into the end of June. On the historic price decline in gold over the first half of 2013, JPMorgan booked profits on their short side gold market corner (of over $2 billion in my estimate) and continued to rig prices lower in order to establish their current long side corner of 85,000 contracts, or 25% of the true net open interest in COMEX gold futures (minus spreads).
You can’t go from being 75,000 contracts (7.5 million oz) net short to 85,000 contracts (8.5 million oz) net long in an instant or in a week or a month. You can’t snap your fingers and buy the equivalent of 16 million oz of gold, regardless of whether you have the money to leverage derivatives with a notional value of $25 billion. It took JPMorgan nine months to buy 160,000 net COMEX gold futures contracts (16 million oz), at an average monthly rate of around 18,000 contracts (1.8 million oz) from Dec 4 thru today.
In a nutshell, a market corner is determined by the size of the position of the corner relative to the total market. In hundreds of previous articles I used the term concentration; but it seems to me that corner is a better description. What percent of a market is large enough to constitute a corner? Like pornography, a reasonable person should recognize it when he sees it. A good place to start is by comparing a concentrated holding relative to other markets, relative to the same market historically, relative to regulatory guidelines and relative to commonsense.
Large and active regulated futures markets (with several hundred thousand contracts of open interest or more), like COMEX gold, NYMEX crude oil, CBOT corn or CME e-mini S&P futures should have relatively low levels of concentration on either the long or short side, say below 20% and closer to 10% by either the 4 largest shorts or longs. Among such large markets, only COMEX gold futures is above all the others with a long side concentration three times larger than for corn or crude oil. On an historical basis, the current concentration on the long side of COMEX gold by the four largest traders has never been higher than it is now, either in gold or in any other comparable large market.
Even though the largest concentrated gold long trader, JPMorgan, succeeded in derailing the imposition of speculative position limits (the one known cure for a market corner), we have a firm sense for what the CFTC intended as the maximum percentage of the market to be held by any one entity. The agency’s proposed formula called for a 2.5% to 3% effective limit on what any one trader held in large futures markets before it was overturned in court. Therefore, JPMorgan is holding a concentrated position in COMEX gold futures ten times or more larger than the proposed limits of the CFTC.
Since the names of individual traders are not given in COT or Bank Participation Report data, it could be argued that JPMorgan is not the bank holding a corner in COMEX gold. That matters little because someone holds the corner. The four largest traders are holding nearly 42% of the COMEX gold futures market on a true net basis (after spreads are removed). Even if you assumed an equal division of the 42% true net market share by the four largest traders, at more than 10% each, the individual positions would still constitute a corner on their own. It would also involve an obvious conspiracy among these holders since the positions were established simultaneously. Besides, if it’s not JPM holding a 25% share, then JPM management has to be considered irresponsible to its shareholders for allowing the manipulation allegations against the bank to go unchallenged.
And one last thing – the fact that JPMorgan swung from a short side corner in COMEX gold in December to a long side corner now, it puts a lie to all the stories that the bank is only hedging for clients. What possible hedging would call for a short corner on the market being reversed to a long side corner in nine months?
Market corners are very big deals and it is for good reason that they serve as historical mile markers. In many ways, the current COMEX gold corner shares obvious similarities with past market corners in terms of the existence of a controlling market share, but it is the differences that make the current gold corner very special. For one thing, all previous market corners had ended or were ending before the world even knew there was a corner in effect. As far as public awareness, all previous market corners had to be reconstructed after the fact. Here, we have a ringside seat (unless my analysis is completely off) on a market corner that is unfolding in front of us in real time. This is unique beyond imagination.
What is also very different about JPMorgan’s current gold market corner is that it is visible and provable in the CFTC’s own published data. To my knowledge, COT reports didn’t exist at the time of the Hunt Bros silver manipulation and the Sumitomo copper manipulation mostly involved trading on the LME, not the COMEX. The current gold corner by JPMorgan is not being discussed because of leaks from insiders, but from US Government data. Let’s face it – it’s not possible for me to be more of an outsider.
Past market corners pitted the regulators against outside speculators or rogue traders. I don’t recall any previous market corners being resolved where the industry insiders and particularly the exchanges were at odds with the CFTC. It was usually the regulators, the exchanges and the industry insiders all on one side and those accused of the corner (like the Hunt Bros) on the other side. In the current gold market corner by JPMorgan, the COMEX (owned by the CME Group) is just as much at fault for allowing it to develop. Were the CFTC to move against JPM, it would result in a decidedly different matchup than seen historically.
There can be no question that the price pattern over the past nine months has benefitted JPMorgan immensely. A short corner on the gold market at $1700 and now a long corner many of hundreds of dollars lower. Just a coincidence or strong supporting evidence of manipulation? Either JPM is the luckiest trading entity in history or they are exerting undue control on the gold (and silver market). Establishing repeated market corners has never occurred in history, yet the data prove that JPMorgan has done just that.
Not lucky at all are the victims of JPMorgan’s repeated market corners. The victims of the successful short side corner in gold are centered on those in the gold mining industry; shareholders and employees and anyone else damaged by the deliberate price-rigging to the downside, including metal investors and states and countries dependent on tax revenue. So many damaged with benefit to so few.
A key question is why the CFTC is not reacting to the clear evidence of JPMorgan cornering the COMEX gold futures market. One explanation (that I’ve long favored) is that the agency doesn’t know how to interpret the data they are publishing. But I’m giving them paint-by-the-numbers instruction for interpreting their own data. The Commission has published data that show that the largest four traders hold 140,550 gold contracts net long and that represents 42% of the entire open interest once all spread contracts are subtracted from total open interest. The agency can confirm in a heartbeat if the largest single trader holds close to 85,000 contracts of that total in the latest COT report and whether the largest short held 75,000 contracts on Dec 4. The agency can’t reveal the identity of the trader (unless it charges a violation of the law), but it can verify or dispute the share of the market held by the largest gold long without naming the entity.
Since the explanation that the CFTC can’t correctly interpret their own data loses credence after basic instructions to them of how to do so, we are left with the more popular explanation that the agency is in cahoots with JPMorgan in some way. As a US citizen, I hope that’s not the case, although I am increasingly leaning that way. One thing that can’t be denied is that the overall tide of sentiment against big banks trading in commodities is rising. I don’t know why it has taken so long as it never made sense for banks backed by insured deposits to speculate in commodities. I’m encouraged by Commissioner Bart Chilton’s recent pronouncement to this effect http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-08-05/fed-should-reverse-commodity-trading-policy-cftc-s-chilton-says.html but disappointed that he ignored the short corner on the gold market in December and ignores the long corner now in place. It’s time to be specific and not speak in generalities.
Perhaps the reason that the CFTC can’t see the corner in place in COMEX gold is because they are not looking. I confess; since JPMorgan turns up so often as the gold and silver price controller, I look for their involvement. I can tell you this for sure; if you look at the data through the perspective that JPMorgan is up to no good, then you can see it clearly. This reminds me of my discovery of the silver manipulation in the mid-1980’s thanks to Izzy Friedman’s challenge to explain the low silver price amidst a supply deficit. I came to see the short side manipulation and concentrated position because I was looking for what was wrong. Same here – if you try to legitimately explain why JPMorgan was so short at the top in December and so long now after a $500 decline in legitimate terms, you’ll drive yourself mad. This is a rotten crooked bank and their actions can only be comprehended in illegal terms.
Since we are in the unprecedented position of looking at a corner in the gold market in real time with little history to guide us, no one can predict how it will end precisely; but end it will. Will it end to the upside, with JPMorgan realizing huge profits (as they did with their previous short gold corner); or will it end with JPMorgan being forced to divest of their gold corner by the regulators. Obviously, the record would suggest the former, but it’s not impossible for the regulators at the CFTC to awaken from their coma of failing to properly regulate precious metals. Certainly how JPMorgan liquidates their gold corner will be the prime influence on the gold price.
Regardless of how JPMorgan disposes and dissolves its gold corner on the COMEX, it should be good for silver. If JPM lets the gold price rip to the upside for great profit (as is most likely), I would expect silver to more than tag along for the ride. If the regulators gain some wisdom about their own data and some fortitude in going against JPMorgan’s gold corner, I don’t see the great danger for silver at current prices. After all, JPMorgan has no long side corner in silver to be ordered liquidated and we’re already below the cost of production for many silver miners.
I’m not sure what to root for. If JPMorgan is forced to divest its corner on the gold market that would be such a regulatory sea change that it would make it extremely unlikely that JPM would short aggressively on the next silver rally. I am still convinced that is the most important market consideration. A measured reading of the facts and circumstances suggests the gold corner could be the catalyst for my long-expected divorce between silver and gold prices. Make no mistake – this gold market corner seems almost from another world or time. If I didn’t see the clear evidence that it existed by virtue of the hard data, I’d swear it was impossible. Instead, we’re all going to witness how it gets resolved.
Ted Butler.
Enhanced by Zemanta