Skip to main content

Home/ Political Metals/ Group items tagged manipulation

Rss Feed Group items tagged

PS Diigo

Guest Post: Andrew Maguire responds to "Trader David R" | TF Metals Report - 0 views

  • We needed this silver to be delivered to a Swiss vault, but were initially refused allocation unless we had it delivered within the LBMA system, namely to UBS in Switzerland. The client however, specifically wanted the silver stored outside the LBMA system in private vaulting facilities because they wanted to be assured they held unencumbered numbered bars in their name with no counterparty risk attached. The fact that this silver was to exit the LBMA system was of no concern as it was ultimately to be re assayed into smaller bars destined for Asian consumption and would not be reentering the LBMA system again.  Having Brinks simply pick up the paid for physical in London was refused. Considering that over 5000 tonnes of so called ‘physical silver’ is cleared between LBMA banks in London every day, this should not have posed a problem, however, these transactions although counted as ‘physical’ in reality consist of unallocated metal which the bulk of, when cleared, is simply netted on the books amongst the clearers every day with very little physical actually changing hands. Taking delivery of 312 tonnes shouldn’t have even caused a ripple, except for the fact it was ‘real numbered bars’ that were sought. If leveraged 100/1, (the lower side of Jeff Christians 400/1 silver summit estimations), this would have amounted to netting out 31,200 tonnes of unallocated silver, or a year’s mine output!
PS Diigo

Transcript for Paul Tustain - Chris Martenson - gold, markets, Paul Tustain - 0 views

  • the bigger plan who can do the settlement,
  • Or in a spot settled market, which settles every day
  • forward market
  • ...6 more annotations...
  • anybody who runs their trade to settlement day on the London market will settle in bars.
  • I think we looked at that quite recently and there is no real evidence of a difference between the two this year
  • all these things are circumstantial. I do not think anything;
  • how is it that BullionVault is different from this crowd? Or, do you think these concerns are overblown?
  • It is. Yeah. And it is an ugly way that some things can work out. The question is, you could pay for something in full and leave it there in support of your account, in which case you have transferred ownership to the futures company. But, of course, nobody knows that when they do it, and how the law will treat that. If the law does not find a clear document which says this property is under the safekeeping of the custodian and a fee is being paid, then there is a risk that that property will be grabbed by a liquidator in a liquidation. That is what you have to avoid. So you need to look at the documentation that makes it absolutely clear it is the property of you, the person who placed it under the care of the company involved and you want to make sure you pay that fee as well. It does not have to be a very big one and if it is a BullionVault, it is about a third of the price of an ETF. We charge 12 base points a year. But you have to have that fee because it is very important in the courts, showing that this was not a transfer of property to another organization, in the nature of a business transaction. What it shows is that the transaction such as it was, was placing into the custody of a safekeeper your own property.
  • ETFs are, you have a debt instrument. You do not own gold but you own a debt instrument which is reliability backed by physical gold
  •  
    plan
PS Diigo

Some Answers to Doug Casey's Questions - 0 views

  • And extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence.
  • The banks don’t tie up capital because they operate in the paper-gold and paper-silver markets, creating various financial derivatives that are not regulated and carried off their balance sheet. They are contingent liabilities and do not require bank capital.
1 - 18 of 18
Showing 20 items per page