So, Golden Sacks is driving aluminum from one warehouse to another,
and then back again, to drive up prices for "warehousing" it.

Meantime, JPMorgan bought up more than half of the copper warehoused
for the US market, planning to do the same thing.

As EA says, it's time to bend over:

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/21/bu...anted=all&_r=0

--
Ed Huntress

On 2013-07-20, Ed Huntress wrote:
So, Golden Sacks is driving aluminum from one warehouse to another,
and then back again, to drive up prices for "warehousing" it.

Meantime, JPMorgan bought up more than half of the copper warehoused
for the US market, planning to do the same thing.

As EA says, it's time to bend over:

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/21/bu...anted=all&_r=0


I read the article with great attention and, while it is intelligently
written, I do not "get it". I do not see why an industrial consumer of
aluminum needs to buy it from those warehouses. They can go straight
to any aluminum producer or wholesalers.

My best understanding of the story is that the storage costs are
imposed on commodity speculators who own metal and use it as
collateral, but do not hold it themselves. My heart does not really
hurt for them.

i

On Sat, 20 Jul 2013 17:53:08 -0500, Ignoramus8648
wrote:

On 2013-07-20, Ed Huntress wrote:
So, Golden Sacks is driving aluminum from one warehouse to another,
and then back again, to drive up prices for "warehousing" it.

Meantime, JPMorgan bought up more than half of the copper warehoused
for the US market, planning to do the same thing.

As EA says, it's time to bend over:

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/21/bu...anted=all&_r=0


I read the article with great attention and, while it is intelligently
written, I do not "get it". I do not see why an industrial consumer of
aluminum needs to buy it from those warehouses. They can go straight
to any aluminum producer or wholesalers.

Two points: Golden Sacks now controls 25% of the aluminum in the US,
and that's enough power to drive up the spot price for everyone else.
If you ignore G-S's stock, that would mean 100% of the market was
chasing 75% of the supply -- kaBOOM! go prices.


My best understanding of the story is that the storage costs are
imposed on commodity speculators who own metal and use it as
collateral, but do not hold it themselves. My heart does not really
hurt for them.

They're running a scam, Iggy. They're exploiting a London Metals
Exchange rule that allows them to lard billions of dollars on top of
the commodity price, for "warehousing" it.

They're not allowed to keep it in a warehouse for very long under
those rules, so they load up a truck and cart it off to *another* of
their warehouses. Then the truck returns to the first warehouse with
aluminum from the second warehouse.

They're skimming off billions of dollars, and it's all legal.

Isn't it great when you set the rules that control your own business?
g

--
Ed Huntress

On Sat, 20 Jul 2013 17:53:08 -0500, Ignoramus8648
wrote:


snip

My best understanding of the story is that the storage costs are
imposed on commodity speculators who own metal and use it as
collateral, but do not hold it themselves. My heart does not really
hurt for them.

One more thing: The bottom line on all of this is that it has cost us
consumers over $5 billion over the past three years.

--
Ed Huntress

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 20 Jul 2013 17:53:08 -0500, Ignoramus8648
wrote:


snip

My best understanding of the story is that the storage costs are
imposed on commodity speculators who own metal and use it as
collateral, but do not hold it themselves. My heart does not really
hurt for them.

One more thing: The bottom line on all of this is that it has cost us
consumers over $5 billion over the past three years.

--
Ed Huntress

Bunky Hunt redux with different metals.

Think they will get a bailout when it blows up?

Will Bernanke buy up those troubled assets?

Best Regards
Tom.

On Sat, 20 Jul 2013 16:53:55 -0700, "Howard Beal"
wrote:


"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 20 Jul 2013 17:53:08 -0500, Ignoramus8648
wrote:


snip

My best understanding of the story is that the storage costs are
imposed on commodity speculators who own metal and use it as
collateral, but do not hold it themselves. My heart does not really
hurt for them.

One more thing: The bottom line on all of this is that it has cost us
consumers over $5 billion over the past three years.

--
Ed Huntress

Bunky Hunt redux with different metals.

Think they will get a bailout when it blows up?

Will Bernanke buy up those troubled assets?

Best Regards
Tom.

I don't think it will blow up. The only thing that will get in its way
is new regulations.

What do you think the chances are of that, with his Congress?

Maybe the London Metal Exchange will step in. They can do so if they
want to. The set the warehousing rules for companies that trade on the
LME.

--
Ed Huntress

On 2013-07-20, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Sat, 20 Jul 2013 17:53:08 -0500, Ignoramus8648
wrote:


snip

My best understanding of the story is that the storage costs are
imposed on commodity speculators who own metal and use it as
collateral, but do not hold it themselves. My heart does not really
hurt for them.

One more thing: The bottom line on all of this is that it has cost us
consumers over $5 billion over the past three years.


Whether this cost is consumers' cost, is exactly what is not so
obvious to me.

I think that this weird warehousing scam costs the speculators who pay
for warehousing services, as opposed to aluminum producers or direct
(off exchange) buyers of aluminum, or to the end users of aluminum
that was never sold on exchanges.

These costs are real, and Goldman is running a scam, but they are
speculators' costs, not consumer costs. I am quite convinced that I am
right.

I have a MBA degree from the University of Chicago, and I studied
quantitative finance, and when they discuss pricing of commodity
futures, the futures price depends on 1) interest rate and 2) storage
costs. This is true of any commodity and affects no-arbitrage pricing.

Storage costs is what Goldman is jacking up. But that only affects
futures pricing and settlement. It has no effect on off-exchange
aluminum trading.

i

On 2013-07-20, Howard Beal wrote:

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 20 Jul 2013 17:53:08 -0500, Ignoramus8648
wrote:


snip

My best understanding of the story is that the storage costs are
imposed on commodity speculators who own metal and use it as
collateral, but do not hold it themselves. My heart does not really
hurt for them.

One more thing: The bottom line on all of this is that it has cost us
consumers over $5 billion over the past three years.


Bunky Hunt redux with different metals.

Think they will get a bailout when it blows up?

Goldman does not own that aluminum. Goldman only invented a way to
rip-off LME futures speculators, who "own" aluminum, but pay Goldman to
store it.

i

Will Bernanke buy up those troubled assets?

Best Regards
Tom.

On Sat, 20 Jul 2013 16:53:55 -0700, "Howard Beal"
wrote:


"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 20 Jul 2013 17:53:08 -0500, Ignoramus8648
wrote:


snip

My best understanding of the story is that the storage costs are
imposed on commodity speculators who own metal and use it as
collateral, but do not hold it themselves. My heart does not really
hurt for them.

One more thing: The bottom line on all of this is that it has cost us
consumers over $5 billion over the past three years.

--
Ed Huntress

Bunky Hunt redux with different metals.

Think they will get a bailout when it blows up?

If I were king, they'd be beheaded, not bailed out.



Will Bernanke buy up those troubled assets?

Yeah, with our taxpayer money.

--
The Road to Success...is always under construction.
--anon

On Sat, 20 Jul 2013 21:37:23 -0500, Ignoramus8648
wrote:

On 2013-07-20, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Sat, 20 Jul 2013 17:53:08 -0500, Ignoramus8648
wrote:


snip

My best understanding of the story is that the storage costs are
imposed on commodity speculators who own metal and use it as
collateral, but do not hold it themselves. My heart does not really
hurt for them.

One more thing: The bottom line on all of this is that it has cost us
consumers over $5 billion over the past three years.


Whether this cost is consumers' cost, is exactly what is not so
obvious to me.

I think that this weird warehousing scam costs the speculators who pay
for warehousing services, as opposed to aluminum producers or direct
(off exchange) buyers of aluminum, or to the end users of aluminum
that was never sold on exchanges.

These costs are real, and Goldman is running a scam, but they are
speculators' costs, not consumer costs. I am quite convinced that I am
right.

I have a MBA degree from the University of Chicago, and I studied
quantitative finance, and when they discuss pricing of commodity
futures, the futures price depends on 1) interest rate and 2) storage
costs. This is true of any commodity and affects no-arbitrage pricing.

Storage costs is what Goldman is jacking up. But that only affects
futures pricing and settlement. It has no effect on off-exchange
aluminum trading.

i

'Dunno, Iggy. You may want to look into it further. If I was still
covering materials I'd call some friends at _American Metal Market_
for an explanation, but I'm not, so all I can do is repeat what the
consultants are saying.

But it parallels things that were happening in wheat markets a decade
or so ago, where the financial controllers of the futures markets, and
of grain storage, were indirectly setting the actual prices for red
wheat. Golden Sacks apparently is using their control and inside
knowledge to trade on their own behalf in the open market, so there
are a lot of pieces to that puzzle.

We'll see if any other parts of the financial press pick up on it, and
what they say.

--
Ed Huntress

"Ignoramus8648" wrote in message
...
On 2013-07-20, Howard Beal wrote:

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 20 Jul 2013 17:53:08 -0500, Ignoramus8648
wrote:


snip

My best understanding of the story is that the storage costs are
imposed on commodity speculators who own metal and use it as
collateral, but do not hold it themselves. My heart does not really
hurt for them.

One more thing: The bottom line on all of this is that it has cost us
consumers over $5 billion over the past three years.


Bunky Hunt redux with different metals.

Think they will get a bailout when it blows up?

Goldman does not own that aluminum. Goldman only invented a way to
rip-off LME futures speculators, who "own" aluminum, but pay Goldman to
store it.

i


I would think the speculators are smart enough to see that kind scam
comming.
Something else going on here. What would happen if Goldman decided to get
out of the moving/storage bussines? Panic selling? Goldman has bets that
prices
will drop like gold did? Many lawsuits would result, thats what forced bunky
to file for BK.

Best Regards
Tom.

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 20 Jul 2013 16:53:55 -0700, "Howard Beal"
wrote:


"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
. ..
On Sat, 20 Jul 2013 17:53:08 -0500, Ignoramus8648
wrote:


snip

My best understanding of the story is that the storage costs are
imposed on commodity speculators who own metal and use it as
collateral, but do not hold it themselves. My heart does not really
hurt for them.

One more thing: The bottom line on all of this is that it has cost us
consumers over $5 billion over the past three years.

--
Ed Huntress

Bunky Hunt redux with different metals.

Think they will get a bailout when it blows up?

Will Bernanke buy up those troubled assets?

Best Regards
Tom.

I don't think it will blow up. The only thing that will get in its way
is new regulations.

What do you think the chances are of that, with his Congress?

Maybe the London Metal Exchange will step in. They can do so if they
want to. The set the warehousing rules for companies that trade on the
LME.

--
Ed Huntress


Maybe Goldman wants new regulations ? It might make it easier to
cover up how they scewed the speculators. Hell they might even
pay for new regulations.

Best Regards
Tom.

On Sun, 21 Jul 2013 08:18:31 -0700, "Howard Beal"
wrote:


"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 20 Jul 2013 16:53:55 -0700, "Howard Beal"
wrote:


"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 20 Jul 2013 17:53:08 -0500, Ignoramus8648
wrote:


snip

My best understanding of the story is that the storage costs are
imposed on commodity speculators who own metal and use it as
collateral, but do not hold it themselves. My heart does not really
hurt for them.

One more thing: The bottom line on all of this is that it has cost us
consumers over $5 billion over the past three years.

--
Ed Huntress

Bunky Hunt redux with different metals.

Think they will get a bailout when it blows up?

Will Bernanke buy up those troubled assets?

Best Regards
Tom.

I don't think it will blow up. The only thing that will get in its way
is new regulations.

What do you think the chances are of that, with his Congress?

Maybe the London Metal Exchange will step in. They can do so if they
want to. The set the warehousing rules for companies that trade on the
LME.

--
Ed Huntress


Maybe Goldman wants new regulations ? It might make it easier to
cover up how they scewed the speculators. Hell they might even
pay for new regulations.

Best Regards
Tom.

I'm not inclined to expect collusion and conspiracies in general, but
when it comes to Golden Sacks and JP Morgan, I assume it's true.

--
Ed Huntress

On Saturday, July 20, 2013 10:37:23 PM UTC-4, Ignoramus8648 wrote:

Storage costs is what Goldman is jacking up. But that only affects

futures pricing and settlement. It has no effect on off-exchange

aluminum trading.



i

Nice to see that someone understands what is happening.

Actually as I see it the storage cost per month of storage is not increasing. It is just that the length of time that one can store aluminum is increased.

Dan

On Sat, 20 Jul 2013 17:32:51 -0400, Ed Huntress
wrote:

So, Golden Sacks is driving aluminum from one warehouse to another,
and then back again, to drive up prices for "warehousing" it.

Meantime, JPMorgan bought up more than half of the copper warehoused
for the US market, planning to do the same thing.

As EA says, it's time to bend over:

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/21/bu...anted=all&_r=0

=======================
Aluminum is only part of the story.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/...it_work.ht ml

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-0...omplaints.html

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/...SBRE96J0AS2013

http://moneymorning.com/2013/07/19/b...ions-in-fines/
[Enron lives!!!!!]

Commodity trade speculation/bubbles] appears to be in large
part driven by the existence of "phantom." assets, analogous
to bank credit and/or the ability of a physical asset to
operationally exist in several locations at the same time
through "hypothecation" of collateral. In too many cases
there are NO PHYSICAL ASSETS, only IOUs or markers.

This is a far more important story than it appears, for
example, speculation/market manipulation in food appears to
have been a far more substantial factor in the "Arab Spring"
and the collapse of a number of Mid-East governments than
any sudden desire for freedom. Indeed, the continuing
turmoil in Egypt can be almost entirely traced to unstable
and rising food prices.

In short, the vaunted "free market" appears to be collapsing
at the macro scale in everything from the cost of capital
[LIBOR/QE] to energy, largely due to the actions of the
major players such as "Golden Sacks," the mega banks, the
hedge funds, with the collusion of the politicians and
regulators.

FWIW G/S is now a bank.
http://www.goldmansachs.com/what-we-...nding/banking/

On Sun, 21 Jul 2013 13:37:46 -0500, F. George McDuffee
wrote:

On Sat, 20 Jul 2013 17:32:51 -0400, Ed Huntress
wrote:

So, Golden Sacks is driving aluminum from one warehouse to another,
and then back again, to drive up prices for "warehousing" it.

Meantime, JPMorgan bought up more than half of the copper warehoused
for the US market, planning to do the same thing.

As EA says, it's time to bend over:

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/21/bu...anted=all&_r=0

=======================
Aluminum is only part of the story.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/...it_work.ht ml

Well, Matt Yglesias is asking in that piece essentially what Iggy is
asking.


http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-0...omplaints.html

This one does some explaining and concludes "Since 2010, the
additional cost to aluminum users is about $3 billion annually,
according to the Beer Institute, a Washington-based trade group that
represents brewers." [talking about aluminum cans]

"Buyers have to pay premiums over the LME benchmark prices even with a
glut of aluminum being produced. Premiums in the U.S. surged to a
record 12 cents to 13 cents a pound in June, almost doubling from 6.5
cents in summer 2010, according to the most recent data available from
Austin, Texas-based researcher Harbor Intelligence.

"Warehouses are creating logjams, said Chris Thorne, a Beer Institute
spokesman.

“Restrictive and outdated warehousing rules are interfering with
normal supply-and-demand dynamics, creating supply-chain bottlenecks,
and preventing brewers and other aluminum users from getting aluminum
in time and at fair market prices,” Thorne said.


http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/...SBRE96J0AS2013

[can't find]


http://moneymorning.com/2013/07/19/b...ions-in-fines/
[Enron lives!!!!!]

Ouch.


Commodity trade speculation/bubbles] appears to be in large
part driven by the existence of "phantom." assets, analogous
to bank credit and/or the ability of a physical asset to
operationally exist in several locations at the same time
through "hypothecation" of collateral. In too many cases
there are NO PHYSICAL ASSETS, only IOUs or markers.

This is a far more important story than it appears, for
example, speculation/market manipulation in food appears to
have been a far more substantial factor in the "Arab Spring"
and the collapse of a number of Mid-East governments than
any sudden desire for freedom. Indeed, the continuing
turmoil in Egypt can be almost entirely traced to unstable
and rising food prices.

In short, the vaunted "free market" appears to be collapsing
at the macro scale in everything from the cost of capital
[LIBOR/QE] to energy, largely due to the actions of the
major players such as "Golden Sacks," the mega banks, the
hedge funds, with the collusion of the politicians and
regulators.

FWIW G/S is now a bank.
http://www.goldmansachs.com/what-we-...nding/banking/



This is ****ing me off.

--
Ed Huntress

On 2013-07-21, wrote:
On Saturday, July 20, 2013 10:37:23 PM UTC-4, Ignoramus8648 wrote:

Storage costs is what Goldman is jacking up. But that only affects

futures pricing and settlement. It has no effect on off-exchange

aluminum trading.



i

Nice to see that someone understands what is happening.

Actually as I see it the storage cost per month of storage is not
increasing. It is just that the length of time that one can store
aluminum is increased.

Dan, how about I start plumbing repairs to your house, and keep hourly
prices steady, but charge you 5 hours for toilet repair, instead of 1
hour. You would not be happy.

i

On 2013-07-21, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Sat, 20 Jul 2013 21:37:23 -0500, Ignoramus8648
wrote:

On 2013-07-20, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Sat, 20 Jul 2013 17:53:08 -0500, Ignoramus8648
wrote:


snip

My best understanding of the story is that the storage costs are
imposed on commodity speculators who own metal and use it as
collateral, but do not hold it themselves. My heart does not really
hurt for them.

One more thing: The bottom line on all of this is that it has cost us
consumers over $5 billion over the past three years.


Whether this cost is consumers' cost, is exactly what is not so
obvious to me.

I think that this weird warehousing scam costs the speculators who pay
for warehousing services, as opposed to aluminum producers or direct
(off exchange) buyers of aluminum, or to the end users of aluminum
that was never sold on exchanges.

These costs are real, and Goldman is running a scam, but they are
speculators' costs, not consumer costs. I am quite convinced that I am
right.

I have a MBA degree from the University of Chicago, and I studied
quantitative finance, and when they discuss pricing of commodity
futures, the futures price depends on 1) interest rate and 2) storage
costs. This is true of any commodity and affects no-arbitrage pricing.

Storage costs is what Goldman is jacking up. But that only affects
futures pricing and settlement. It has no effect on off-exchange
aluminum trading.

i

'Dunno, Iggy. You may want to look into it further. If I was still
covering materials I'd call some friends at _American Metal Market_
for an explanation, but I'm not, so all I can do is repeat what the
consultants are saying.

But it parallels things that were happening in wheat markets a decade
or so ago, where the financial controllers of the futures markets, and
of grain storage, were indirectly setting the actual prices for red
wheat. Golden Sacks apparently is using their control and inside
knowledge to trade on their own behalf in the open market, so there
are a lot of pieces to that puzzle.

We'll see if any other parts of the financial press pick up on it, and
what they say.


You do not have to call your friends, just think about that article,
and you will arrive to the same conclusion. This is a cost charged to
exchange participants and not to direct buyers.

i

On Sun, 21 Jul 2013 18:54:33 -0500, Ignoramus18103
wrote:

On 2013-07-21, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Sat, 20 Jul 2013 21:37:23 -0500, Ignoramus8648
wrote:

On 2013-07-20, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Sat, 20 Jul 2013 17:53:08 -0500, Ignoramus8648
wrote:


snip

My best understanding of the story is that the storage costs are
imposed on commodity speculators who own metal and use it as
collateral, but do not hold it themselves. My heart does not really
hurt for them.

One more thing: The bottom line on all of this is that it has cost us
consumers over $5 billion over the past three years.


Whether this cost is consumers' cost, is exactly what is not so
obvious to me.

I think that this weird warehousing scam costs the speculators who pay
for warehousing services, as opposed to aluminum producers or direct
(off exchange) buyers of aluminum, or to the end users of aluminum
that was never sold on exchanges.

These costs are real, and Goldman is running a scam, but they are
speculators' costs, not consumer costs. I am quite convinced that I am
right.

I have a MBA degree from the University of Chicago, and I studied
quantitative finance, and when they discuss pricing of commodity
futures, the futures price depends on 1) interest rate and 2) storage
costs. This is true of any commodity and affects no-arbitrage pricing.

Storage costs is what Goldman is jacking up. But that only affects
futures pricing and settlement. It has no effect on off-exchange
aluminum trading.

i

'Dunno, Iggy. You may want to look into it further. If I was still
covering materials I'd call some friends at _American Metal Market_
for an explanation, but I'm not, so all I can do is repeat what the
consultants are saying.

But it parallels things that were happening in wheat markets a decade
or so ago, where the financial controllers of the futures markets, and
of grain storage, were indirectly setting the actual prices for red
wheat. Golden Sacks apparently is using their control and inside
knowledge to trade on their own behalf in the open market, so there
are a lot of pieces to that puzzle.

We'll see if any other parts of the financial press pick up on it, and
what they say.


You do not have to call your friends, just think about that article,
and you will arrive to the same conclusion. This is a cost charged to
exchange participants and not to direct buyers.

I've read about four articles since. A couple seem to know what
they're talking about. They say that the net result is higher prices
to consumers, in the billions.

Take a look at my comments on the links that Unka' George posted.

There is no way, in a field like this, that I'd apply simple deductive
logic to a situation I know little about, and decide that I've reached
the correct conclusion, without hearing from multiple experts. That's
how I work. Most things I write about for publication are things about
which I'm not an expert. My task is to figure out where to get the
information from experts.

I'm waiting for more. There will be more, because the Fed is getting
involved in the general issue of banking firms warehousing commodities
(revisiting regulations enacted in 2003), and the financial press, at
least, will pick up on it.

--
Ed Huntress

On Sat, 20 Jul 2013 17:32:51 -0400, Ed Huntress
wrote:

snip
So, Golden Sacks is driving aluminum from one warehouse to another,
and then back again, to drive up prices for "warehousing" it.

Meantime, JPMorgan bought up more than half of the copper warehoused
for the US market, planning to do the same thing.
snip

FYI

http://www.cnbc.com/id/100902782

http://www.cnbc.com/id/100905731

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-0...sner-says.html

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-0...3-billion.html

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-0...es-review.html

On Tue, 23 Jul 2013 11:15:28 -0500, F. George McDuffee
wrote:

On Sat, 20 Jul 2013 17:32:51 -0400, Ed Huntress
wrote:

snip
So, Golden Sacks is driving aluminum from one warehouse to another,
and then back again, to drive up prices for "warehousing" it.

Meantime, JPMorgan bought up more than half of the copper warehoused
for the US market, planning to do the same thing.
snip

FYI

http://www.cnbc.com/id/100902782

http://www.cnbc.com/id/100905731

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-0...sner-says.html

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-0...3-billion.html

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-0...es-review.html


http://www.cnbc.com/id/100901931


--
""Almost all liberal behavioral tropes track the impotent rage of small
children. Thus, for example, there is also the popular tactic of
repeating some stupid, meaningless phrase a billion times" Arms for
hostages, arms for hostages, arms for hostages, it's just about sex, just
about sex, just about sex, dumb,dumb, money in politics,money in
politics, Enron, Enron, Enron. Nothing repeated with mind-numbing
frequency in all major news outlets will not be believed by some members
of the populace. It is the permanence of evil; you can't stop it." (Ann
Coulter)

On Tue, 23 Jul 2013 11:15:28 -0500, F. George McDuffee
wrote:

On Sat, 20 Jul 2013 17:32:51 -0400, Ed Huntress
wrote:

snip
So, Golden Sacks is driving aluminum from one warehouse to another,
and then back again, to drive up prices for "warehousing" it.

Meantime, JPMorgan bought up more than half of the copper warehoused
for the US market, planning to do the same thing.
snip

FYI

http://www.cnbc.com/id/100902782

http://www.cnbc.com/id/100905731

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-0...sner-says.html

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-0...3-billion.html

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-0...es-review.html

On Tue, 23 Jul 2013 11:15:28 -0500, F. George McDuffee
wrote:

On Sat, 20 Jul 2013 17:32:51 -0400, Ed Huntress
wrote:

snip
So, Golden Sacks is driving aluminum from one warehouse to another,
and then back again, to drive up prices for "warehousing" it.

Meantime, JPMorgan bought up more than half of the copper warehoused
for the US market, planning to do the same thing.
snip

FYI

http://www.cnbc.com/id/100902782

http://www.cnbc.com/id/100905731

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-0...sner-says.html

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-0...3-billion.html

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-0...es-review.html

Thanks for the links, George. I'll read them this evening.

--
Ed Huntress

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 23 Jul 2013 11:15:28 -0500, F. George McDuffee
wrote:

On Sat, 20 Jul 2013 17:32:51 -0400, Ed Huntress
wrote:

snip
So, Golden Sacks is driving aluminum from one warehouse to another,
and then back again, to drive up prices for "warehousing" it.

Meantime, JPMorgan bought up more than half of the copper warehoused
for the US market, planning to do the same thing.
snip

FYI

http://www.cnbc.com/id/100902782

http://www.cnbc.com/id/100905731

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-0...sner-says.html

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-0...3-billion.html

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-0...es-review.html

Thanks for the links, George. I'll read them this evening.



Aluminum prices are actually down.

http://www.infomine.com/investment/m...uminum/1-year/

On Wed, 24 Jul 2013 00:04:37 -0700, "PrecisionmachinisT"
wrote:


"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 23 Jul 2013 11:15:28 -0500, F. George McDuffee
wrote:

On Sat, 20 Jul 2013 17:32:51 -0400, Ed Huntress
wrote:

snip
So, Golden Sacks is driving aluminum from one warehouse to another,
and then back again, to drive up prices for "warehousing" it.

Meantime, JPMorgan bought up more than half of the copper warehoused
for the US market, planning to do the same thing.
snip

FYI

http://www.cnbc.com/id/100902782

http://www.cnbc.com/id/100905731

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-0...sner-says.html

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-0...3-billion.html

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-0...es-review.html

Thanks for the links, George. I'll read them this evening.



Aluminum prices are actually down.

http://www.infomine.com/investment/m...uminum/1-year/

I knew someone would bring that up. g Look at the longer term.
That's what they're talking about.

There's a glut of aluminum right now. That's why Golden Sacks is
trying to manipulate the market by keeping as much as they can out of
circulation. They have futures positions to protect, and the rest of
us are paying for it.

As I follow the links that have shown up here, and the stories that
are showing up in the aggregators, it's becoming clear that this whole
thing is all about rigging the market.

--
Ed Huntress

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
news
On Wed, 24 Jul 2013 00:04:37 -0700, "PrecisionmachinisT"
wrote:


"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
. ..
On Tue, 23 Jul 2013 11:15:28 -0500, F. George McDuffee
wrote:

On Sat, 20 Jul 2013 17:32:51 -0400, Ed Huntress
wrote:

snip
So, Golden Sacks is driving aluminum from one warehouse to another,
and then back again, to drive up prices for "warehousing" it.

Meantime, JPMorgan bought up more than half of the copper warehoused
for the US market, planning to do the same thing.
snip

FYI

http://www.cnbc.com/id/100902782

http://www.cnbc.com/id/100905731

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-0...sner-says.html

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-0...3-billion.html

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-0...es-review.html

Thanks for the links, George. I'll read them this evening.



Aluminum prices are actually down.

http://www.infomine.com/investment/m...uminum/1-year/

I knew someone would bring that up. g Look at the longer term.
That's what they're talking about.


They're down on the one year, the five year and also on the 24 year charts;
pray tell how long of a term should we be looking at here?


There's a glut of aluminum right now. That's why Golden Sacks is
trying to manipulate the market by keeping as much as they can out of
circulation. They have futures positions to protect, and the rest of
us are paying for it.

As I follow the links that have shown up here, and the stories that
are showing up in the aggregators, it's becoming clear that this whole
thing is all about rigging the market.


This "whole thing" is called "capitalism", and it's been "rigged" since it's
very inception..

I do have to agree however, if not for Goldman Sachs, aluminum prices would
probably be even lower than they are today.

On Wed, 24 Jul 2013 12:06:45 -0700, "PrecisionmachinisT"
wrote:


"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
news
On Wed, 24 Jul 2013 00:04:37 -0700, "PrecisionmachinisT"
wrote:


"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 23 Jul 2013 11:15:28 -0500, F. George McDuffee
wrote:

On Sat, 20 Jul 2013 17:32:51 -0400, Ed Huntress
wrote:

snip
So, Golden Sacks is driving aluminum from one warehouse to another,
and then back again, to drive up prices for "warehousing" it.

Meantime, JPMorgan bought up more than half of the copper warehoused
for the US market, planning to do the same thing.
snip

FYI

http://www.cnbc.com/id/100902782

http://www.cnbc.com/id/100905731

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-0...sner-says.html

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-0...3-billion.html

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-0...es-review.html

Thanks for the links, George. I'll read them this evening.



Aluminum prices are actually down.

http://www.infomine.com/investment/m...uminum/1-year/

I knew someone would bring that up. g Look at the longer term.
That's what they're talking about.


They're down on the one year, the five year and also on the 24 year charts;
pray tell how long of a term should we be looking at here?

The 20-year charts. g

I'd have to know what the beer people were expecting prices to be. In
any case, I'm going to have to keep following the stories. It's not a
subject I report about, but it will be useful background.



There's a glut of aluminum right now. That's why Golden Sacks is
trying to manipulate the market by keeping as much as they can out of
circulation. They have futures positions to protect, and the rest of
us are paying for it.

As I follow the links that have shown up here, and the stories that
are showing up in the aggregators, it's becoming clear that this whole
thing is all about rigging the market.


This "whole thing" is called "capitalism", and it's been "rigged" since it's
very inception..

Ah, no, I don't agree with that. Commodities have often been
vulnerable to price manipulation, and that's what the stories are
saying about aluminum now.

Capitalism, when it's working right, is about free competition, not
rigged prices.


I do have to agree however, if not for Goldman Sachs, aluminum prices would
probably be even lower than they are today.

Well, I still don't know enough about it. I'll look into it more when
I can. My free evening just disappeared as I have to get ready for a
conference call in the morning.

--
Ed Huntress

Att: Ed

The mills of the gods continue to grind [slowly]. My
question "is there now *ANY* market, including labor that is
not fixed or rigged at the macro level (and at the
taxpayers' risk?"

http://www.economist.com/news/financ...-finance-metal

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

On Sat, 20 Jul 2013 17:32:51 -0400, Ed Huntress
wrote:

snip
So, Golden Sacks is driving aluminum from one warehouse to another,
and then back again, to drive up prices for "warehousing" it.

Meantime, JPMorgan bought up more than half of the copper warehoused
for the US market, planning to do the same thing.
snip

FYI

http://www.cnbc.com/id/100902782

http://www.cnbc.com/id/100905731

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-0...sner-says.html

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-0...3-billion.html

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-0...es-review.html

On Sat, 17 Aug 2013 09:28:09 -0500, F. George McDuffee
wrote:

Att: Ed

The mills of the gods continue to grind [slowly]. My
question "is there now *ANY* market, including labor that is
not fixed or rigged at the macro level (and at the
taxpayers' risk?"

http://www.economist.com/news/financ...-finance-metal

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

On Sat, 20 Jul 2013 17:32:51 -0400, Ed Huntress
wrote:

snip
So, Golden Sacks is driving aluminum from one warehouse to another,
and then back again, to drive up prices for "warehousing" it.

Meantime, JPMorgan bought up more than half of the copper warehoused
for the US market, planning to do the same thing.
snip

FYI

http://www.cnbc.com/id/100902782

http://www.cnbc.com/id/100905731

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-0...sner-says.html

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-0...3-billion.html

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-0...es-review.html


Ooh, yeah, it's ugly. When this first came up, I recall that some
folks questioned whether the banks were doing anything underhanded. By
now they're probably getting the idea. Sitting on commodities, making
consumers line up to get what they own and collecting rent on them
while doing it is underhanded enough. But the banks are withholding
metals from the market while trading in those metals on their own
accounts. That ought to be worth a prison term.

But they've really bought themselves trouble by taking on America's
canned-beer drinkers. That's REAL trouble, even if those drinkers will
be staggering and belching their way with pitchforks and torches.

Which reminds me, I finally got a chance to do some metal-bending last
evening! I popped the cap off of a bottle of Beck's.

--
Ed Huntress

On Saturday, August 17, 2013 11:43:33 AM UTC-4, Ed Huntress wrote:

.. But the banks are withholding

metals from the market while trading in those metals on their own

accounts. That ought to be worth a prison term.


Ed Huntress

So what laws are the banks violating? As far as I know commodity trading is legal. Owning aluminum had better be legal or I am in trouble by having some raw stock in my basement.

Since Aluminum prices have been going down, it looks like the banks are losing money. I am looking forward to copper prices to follow the Aluminum prices and go down.

Dan

On 2013-08-17, wrote:
On Saturday, August 17, 2013 11:43:33 AM UTC-4, Ed Huntress wrote:

. But the banks are withholding

metals from the market while trading in those metals on their own

accounts. That ought to be worth a prison term.


Ed Huntress

So what laws are the banks violating? As far as I know commodity
trading is legal. Owning aluminum had better be legal or I am in
trouble by having some raw stock in my basement.

Since Aluminum prices have been going down, it looks like the banks
are losing money. I am looking forward to copper prices to follow
the Aluminum prices and go down.

They are ripping off their customers, who bought metal on exchanges
and seek to get physical delivery, by holding on to the metal longer
than necessary and charging storage fees. It is a ripoff. But its
effect on aluminum prices is not big.

It affects futures pricing in a minor way, because a trader who is
contemplating buying a futures contract, anticipates paying extra
ripoff storage fees.

Other than that, there should not be much effect on the price of
aluminum.

i

On Sat, 17 Aug 2013 15:20:46 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

snip
So what laws are the banks violating?
snip

This is the crux of the problem. It may well be that after
two decades of "deregulation" no laws were indeed broken,
but then again, up until about 1865, holding people as
chattels [slaves] broke no US laws either.

The fact that no laws seem to have been violated is not a
justification for continued unethical and counterproductive
[in the aggregate] activity but rather a highly persuasive
argument for the immediate re-enactment (and draconian
enforcement) of new and improved versions of Glass-Steagall
to reconstruct the firewalls and bulkheads between the
financial services sectors and the reanimation of the CFTC
with reimposed position limits in the commodity markets
[among many other things] and the re-regulation, if not
prohibition, of "derivatives" aka gambling contracts.

The granting of Federal tax exemption on the interest paid
on municipal bonds must also be closely regulated/monitored
due to widespread and increasing abuse, although that
particular horse has been long ago been stolen, it may not
be too late to save the tractor, saddle, hay, oats, corn,
etc. by locking the barn now.

IMNSHO -- The rogue banksters and financial dons/capos are
now a far greater threat to not only the American Republic
[as we know it] but the capitalist/free market economic
system, than Marx, Lenin, Stalin or Mao ever was.

On Sat, 17 Aug 2013 15:20:46 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

On Saturday, August 17, 2013 11:43:33 AM UTC-4, Ed Huntress wrote:

. But the banks are withholding

metals from the market while trading in those metals on their own

accounts. That ought to be worth a prison term.


Ed Huntress

So what laws are the banks violating?

Section 9(a)(2) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

As far as I know commodity trading is legal.

Not if you're manipulating prices at the same time -- which they are.

Owning aluminum had better be legal or I am in trouble by having some raw stock in my basement.

Unless you control the distribution rate of something like 25% of the
aluminum on the US market, you probably don't have anything to worry
about.


Since Aluminum prices have been going down, it looks like the banks are losing money. I am looking forward to copper prices to follow the Aluminum prices and go down.

Good luck. I'm sure that Golden Sacks has the futures prices hedged;
probably shorted.

--
Ed Huntress


Dan

On Sat, 17 Aug 2013 17:27:13 -0500, Ignoramus31265
wrote:

On 2013-08-17, wrote:
On Saturday, August 17, 2013 11:43:33 AM UTC-4, Ed Huntress wrote:

. But the banks are withholding

metals from the market while trading in those metals on their own

accounts. That ought to be worth a prison term.


Ed Huntress

So what laws are the banks violating? As far as I know commodity
trading is legal. Owning aluminum had better be legal or I am in
trouble by having some raw stock in my basement.

Since Aluminum prices have been going down, it looks like the banks
are losing money. I am looking forward to copper prices to follow
the Aluminum prices and go down.

They are ripping off their customers, who bought metal on exchanges
and seek to get physical delivery, by holding on to the metal longer
than necessary and charging storage fees. It is a ripoff. But its
effect on aluminum prices is not big.

It doesn't have to be. Currency traders make or lose tens or hundreds
of millions on the price-shift of 0.1% in a currency's value. Trading
commodities can be similar, if you're leveraged 100:1 or more...which
they are, because they don't have to own the commodity at all.


It affects futures pricing in a minor way, because a trader who is
contemplating buying a futures contract, anticipates paying extra
ripoff storage fees.

Golden Sacks et al. are trading contracts on their own account -- and
they're manipulating prices by controlling the distribution of 25% of
the aluminum in the U.S.


Other than that, there should not be much effect on the price of
aluminum.

i

On Sat, 17 Aug 2013 17:54:28 -0500, F. George McDuffee
wrote:

On Sat, 17 Aug 2013 15:20:46 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

snip
So what laws are the banks violating?
snip

This is the crux of the problem. It may well be that after
two decades of "deregulation" no laws were indeed broken,
but then again, up until about 1865, holding people as
chattels [slaves] broke no US laws either.

The fact that no laws seem to have been violated...

I don't think that's the case, George. It appears that the SEC has
acquired some balls and is going to go after them on something like 15
USC § 78i.

is not a
justification for continued unethical and counterproductive
[in the aggregate] activity but rather a highly persuasive
argument for the immediate re-enactment (and draconian
enforcement) of new and improved versions of Glass-Steagall
to reconstruct the firewalls and bulkheads between the
financial services sectors and the reanimation of the CFTC
with reimposed position limits in the commodity markets
[among many other things] and the re-regulation, if not
prohibition, of "derivatives" aka gambling contracts.

The granting of Federal tax exemption on the interest paid
on municipal bonds must also be closely regulated/monitored
due to widespread and increasing abuse, although that
particular horse has been long ago been stolen, it may not
be too late to save the tractor, saddle, hay, oats, corn,
etc. by locking the barn now.

IMNSHO -- The rogue banksters and financial dons/capos are
now a far greater threat to not only the American Republic
[as we know it] but the capitalist/free market economic
system, than Marx, Lenin, Stalin or Mao ever was.

On Saturday, August 17, 2013 6:54:28 PM UTC-4, F. George McDuffee wrote:




The fact that no laws seem to have been violated is not a

justification for continued unethical and counterproductive

[in the aggregate] activity but rather a highly persuasive

argument for the immediate re-enactment (and draconian

enforcement) of new and improved versions of Glass-Steagall

to reconstruct the firewalls and bulkheads between the

financial services sectors and the reanimation of the CFTC

with reimposed position limits in the commodity markets

[among many other things] and the re-regulation, if not

prohibition, of "derivatives" aka gambling contracts.




I think letting states have lotteries is worse. It harms people that can little afford to be harmed.

Dan

On Sat, 17 Aug 2013 18:16:14 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

On Saturday, August 17, 2013 6:54:28 PM UTC-4, F. George McDuffee wrote:




The fact that no laws seem to have been violated is not a

justification for continued unethical and counterproductive

[in the aggregate] activity but rather a highly persuasive

argument for the immediate re-enactment (and draconian

enforcement) of new and improved versions of Glass-Steagall

to reconstruct the firewalls and bulkheads between the

financial services sectors and the reanimation of the CFTC

with reimposed position limits in the commodity markets

[among many other things] and the re-regulation, if not

prohibition, of "derivatives" aka gambling contracts.




I think letting states have lotteries is worse. It harms people that can little afford to be harmed.

Dan

Indeed it is. Operationally this is a tax on stupidity, but
then so are derivatives where, like jack in the beanstalk,
you trade the cow [real cash money] for a bag of magic
beans...

On Sat, 17 Aug 2013 21:52:47 -0500, F. George McDuffee
wrote:

On Sat, 17 Aug 2013 18:16:14 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

On Saturday, August 17, 2013 6:54:28 PM UTC-4, F. George McDuffee wrote:




The fact that no laws seem to have been violated is not a

justification for continued unethical and counterproductive

[in the aggregate] activity but rather a highly persuasive

argument for the immediate re-enactment (and draconian

enforcement) of new and improved versions of Glass-Steagall

to reconstruct the firewalls and bulkheads between the

financial services sectors and the reanimation of the CFTC

with reimposed position limits in the commodity markets

[among many other things] and the re-regulation, if not

prohibition, of "derivatives" aka gambling contracts.




I think letting states have lotteries is worse. It harms people that can little afford to be harmed.

Dan

Indeed it is. Operationally this is a tax on stupidity, but
then so are derivatives where, like jack in the beanstalk,
you trade the cow [real cash money] for a bag of magic
beans...

No one forces one to buy a ticket. Never forget that.

If one has "surplus" cash they want to **** down a rat hole...thats
their choice.

As for me...my "surplus" cash goes to other things...food, gasoline,
taxes etc etc.


--
""Almost all liberal behavioral tropes track the impotent rage of small
children. Thus, for example, there is also the popular tactic of
repeating some stupid, meaningless phrase a billion times" Arms for
hostages, arms for hostages, arms for hostages, it's just about sex, just
about sex, just about sex, dumb,dumb, money in politics,money in
politics, Enron, Enron, Enron. Nothing repeated with mind-numbing
frequency in all major news outlets will not be believed by some members
of the populace. It is the permanence of evil; you can't stop it." (Ann
Coulter)

On Sun, 18 Aug 2013 01:26:07 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:

On Sat, 17 Aug 2013 21:52:47 -0500, F. George McDuffee
wrote:

On Sat, 17 Aug 2013 18:16:14 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

On Saturday, August 17, 2013 6:54:28 PM UTC-4, F. George McDuffee wrote:




The fact that no laws seem to have been violated is not a

justification for continued unethical and counterproductive

[in the aggregate] activity but rather a highly persuasive

argument for the immediate re-enactment (and draconian

enforcement) of new and improved versions of Glass-Steagall

to reconstruct the firewalls and bulkheads between the

financial services sectors and the reanimation of the CFTC

with reimposed position limits in the commodity markets

[among many other things] and the re-regulation, if not

prohibition, of "derivatives" aka gambling contracts.




I think letting states have lotteries is worse. It harms people that can little afford to be harmed.

Dan

Indeed it is. Operationally this is a tax on stupidity, but
then so are derivatives where, like jack in the beanstalk,
you trade the cow [real cash money] for a bag of magic
beans...

==No one forces one to buy a ticket. Never forget that.==

If one has "surplus" cash they want to **** down a rat hole...thats
their choice.

As for me...my "surplus" cash goes to other things...food, gasoline,
taxes etc etc.

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

"No one forces one to buy a ticket. Never forget that."

Indeed, but be reminded this is the thickness of one EZ
wider rolling paper from the ancient rationale "If god
didn't want them sheared, s/he wouldn't have made them
sheep."

It is also a fine point, given the pervasive and
increasingly effective propaganda/advertising, if the less
educated/intelegent/critical thinkers among us can form the
requisite intent to legally purchase lottery tickets [or
derivatives]. Although laxely enforced, most states have
prohibitions against minors, persons of diminished mental
capacity, etc. from purchasing lottery tickets, and if they
do win, the state will generally not pay (thus victimized
them twice).

Operationally, lotteries are Ponzi schemes in their most
elemental form, without the fig leaf of an asymmetry in
international postal reply coupon valuation [Ponzi], or the
magic of split-strike conversions in the stock markets
[Madoff].

Even the winners are hosed in that the big bucks pay offs
aren't what they seem. These are generally paid in
installments over 20 years or so, and if the winner elects
to take the money and run (having noted the state bond
ratings), the prize is calculated on a NPV [net present
value basis at some fantastical rate of interest] and the
winner gets less than half of the advertized prize, out of
which s/he must then pay income taxes.

Much of the lottery money is syphoned off in sales/G&A
expenses, and very little is left to support "education," or
what ever it was that the pols promised it would support
when the lotteries were introduced.

It is an interesting thought experiment to consider, at the
macro/holistic economic level, what would happen if all
state lotteries were abolished.

On Sunday, August 18, 2013 4:04:34 PM UTC-4, F. George McDuffee wrote:

Operationally, lotteries are Ponzi schemes in their most

elemental form, without the fig leaf of an asymmetry in

international postal reply coupon valuation [Ponzi], or the

magic of split-strike conversions in the stock markets

[Madoff].

Generally a Ponzi scheme pays out to the early investors using money from the later investors.

A lottery only pays who ever wins regardless of whether they were an early or late buyer of a chance.

Dan