“Criminal” Paper Derivative Selling Used To Crush Gold Market

Today a legend in the business told King World News that we are in the final stages of a war to push gold and silver prices lower and it is being facilitated through the “criminal” use of paper derivatives.  This is being done “… to destroy the psychology of people invested in this sector.”  Keith Barron, who consults with major companies around the world and is responsible for one of the largest gold discoveries in the last quarter century, also spoke about what is taking place behind the scenes in the war on gold and silver and shared a remarkable story about his father who was truly one of the first goldbugs.  

Barron:  “I’ve done some calling around to key contacts around the world regarding this gold and silver smash, and again it has to do entirely with the paper market, with options, and with large entities utilizing derivatives.

What’s being done here is criminal, but there won’t be any investigation by the SEC, CFTC or the powers that be because they are sanctioning it.  King World News often talks about a ‘War going on in the gold and silver markets,’ and people should remember that this is in fact a war.  It’s a war to destroy the psychology of people invested in this sector.  To destroy them mentally….

“This is a manipulation of the paper market, not of the physical market.  Gold is still being looted from the ETF’s such as GLD, and physical gold continues to hemorrhage from Western central bank vaults to Eastern vaults.  If they are selling in places like the U.S., you can be sure they are buying in places like Shanghai.  That’s where your physical gold is going to end up if you are selling today, is China.

We have already seen 6 or 7 of these types of declines since 2002, even though this one has been particularly long and brutal, but investors in the sector have to remain mentally tough and hang in there.

This is all part of a desperate effort by the West to collapse the psychology of smaller participants around the world, and even to shake up institutional players, but the reality is there is only so much physical metal around.  Physical gold is in very short supply, and eventually this game that is being played is going to end.  This action is being forced mostly through the use of seemingly endless paper derivative-related futures selling and options.

But as key entities are called upon for the physical gold, eventually this fraud will unravel because they will not be able to deliver the gold.”

Source: http://kingworldnews.com/kingworldnews/KWN_DailyWeb/Entries/2013/6/21_Criminal_Paper_Derivative_Selling_Used_To_Crush_Gold_Market.html

JPMorgan Accounts For 99.3% Of The COMEX Gold Sales In The Last Three Months

When just one firm accounts for 99.3% of the physical gold sales at the COMEX in the last three months it’s not what most of us on this side of the rainbow would consider “broad-based” selling.  Of course discovering this kind of relevant information requires an internet connection, 2nd grade math and reading skills, and the desire to do a teeny-weeny bit of reporting.  Sadly they’ve wandered so far down the rabbit hole that the concept of “physical demand” (i.e. people actually wanting to take possession of the stuff) is puzzling to them because the vast majority of the world’s so-called “gold-trading” takes place in the realm of make believe (which is their natural habitat).  It’s all fun and games until somebody loses their metal and “somebody” has lost one hell of a lot of metal in the last 90 days.

This is the CME Group’s COMEX metals issues and stops year-to-date report, which can be found here everyday for free.  It chronicles the physical delivery notices of various metals, including gold.  Let’s have a look:

“I” is for “Idiot”
That’s how I remember it, anyway. “I” actually stands for “issues,” meaning the firm parted with its metal (@ 100 troy ounces a shot), and “S” stands for “stops,” meaning the firm took delivery of gold. “C” is for customer accounts, “H” is house accounts.  The first thing you should notice is that most transaction net out to zero in a given month (blue boxes), meaning the firm’s gold holdings didn’t change. What they delivered one day they got back the next, or vice versa.  The green boxes show firms who received more than they delivered and the red boxes indicate firms who coughed up gold for Bernanke bucks (aka idiots). Note that Deutsche Bank’s massive take in February more than offsets its deliveries in December and April.

Notice one more thing before we move on: Despite Goldman’s much ballyhooed “Gold Sucks!” call a few weeks ago, the squid has not parted with any yellow metal whatsoever in 2013.  Hmmm.

Now for the main event:

J P Morgan has fumbled ownership of 1,966,000 Troy ounces of gold since February 1.  That’s 74% more gold than the US mint delivered through the US mint’s American Eagle program in all of 2012.  I mention this because there’s little doubt in my mind that the US government is one of JPM’s gold “customers.”  So (if I am correct) the same US government who just let the Morgue dump its gold on the COMEX floor will once again be suspending gold sales to peasants.

Maybe Jamie Dimon figures he’ll buy back all that gold on the cheap when the rest of the world realizes how smart he is.  Or maybe he’s once again displaying that his firm doesn’t have the slightest idea what “hedging” is and is teetering on the brink of collapse.  That would explain the April 11th meeting between President Obama and the Pig 5 bank CEOs, wouldn’t it?  And you just have to get a little misty that Lloyd Blankfein was nice enough to provide some hot-air cover for his competitor, don’t you?

One thing’s very clear: When it comes to selling physical gold, J P Morgan is acting alone.  The 130 contracts NOT delivered by JPM in the last three months (of which  110 were fromABN AMRO) are but a footnote.  If Jamie’s right, he’ll look like a genius in a few months, if not he should be able to recycle his quote regarding the infamous “London Whale” losses: “Just because we’re stupid, doesn’t mean everybody else was.”  Time will tell.

100 years ago John Pierpont Morgan famously testified to Congress, “Money is gold, and nothing else.” (Note: That is the exact quote, the full testimony can be found here).  One has to wonder what the big guy would think of his legacy’s disregard for sound money, $70 Trillion derivatives book, and “House of Cards” “Fortress” balance sheet.

One more very, very important thing.
Anybody who says there’s been gold selling in the GLD is a freaking moron (Bob Pistrami, I’m looking in your direction).   The GLD works much like a coat check.  Unless you think checking your coat constitutes a real transaction of some kind you shouldn’t think of changes in the GLD’s gold holdings as sales. They’re not. When you check your gold into the GLD you get shares (like a claim check). Where it gets wierd is you can sell these claim checks to nimrods who seem to think they’ve bought your coat, but aren’t actually allowed to wear it.

What nobody seems to appreciate is that every share of GLD is allowed to be sold TWICE (long and short, and it’s really important to understand that).  If you’re foolish enough to doubt me (and foolish enough to short gold), go short GLD shares and see if anyone knocks on your door demanding gold.  Saying the GLD is 100% backed by gold is a bold face lie because they’re can be twice as many shares in play as gold backing them, which means GLD shares may be only 50% backed by gold before any rules are broken.

When GLD (or any ETF for that matter) shares sold exceed the existing shares PLUS all the shortable (double-sold) shares, legitimate shares can not be found for settlement and that must be reported to the SEC’s “Fails to Deliver” list, which is published twice a month with about a four-week delay (here).

April 15, 2013 was this biggest volume day ever for GLD (93.7mm) and I’ll guarantee you right now that record fails to deliver will be reported on or around that date, which should have required more gold to be deposited with the GLD (but that didn’t happen).  So instead of the half-assed explanation Pistrami offered (here) of how he thinks the GLD works, he should have raised the question of whether or not there were enough legitimate shares of GLD to facilitate trading (I say no way in hell).

Gold continues to be pulled from the GLD (which really means people want their coats back) and still no one’s concerned about the number doubled-owned shares.  Worse yet, the responsibility for sorting this unholy mess out falls to SEC chief Mary Jo White who is celebrating her 16th day in office.

I can’t wait to see what happens next….

Notes for Nerds:  This piece is not intended to describe the inner workings of the COMEX or GLD in detail, so don’t bust my balls with minutiae, unless it is relevant to the discussion of JPM’s massive gold sales or the double-ownership of ETF shares. Double-owned ETF shares are huge problem with ETFs in general, but the misrepresentation (by omission) of this fact by ETFs supposedly backed by tangible assets like gold and silver seems more egregious to me.  

In addition to the YTD CME Group metals report, you can track the hilarity on a day-by-day basis here.

The February 1 to April 25 delivered gold contracts info referenced included only transactions between firms.   For that reason Morgan Stanley’s 307 contracts transferred from  house account to customer account was excluded from the calculations.

Source: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-04-26/jpmorgan-accounts-993-comex-gold-sales-last-three-months

Alleged Ponzi Scheme Perpetrators Speak Out Against Use of Words “Ponzi Scheme”

Posted by Kathy Bazoian Phelps

What is it with alleged Ponzi scheme perpetrators these days? They seem to have a heightened sensitivity to the use of the words “Ponzi scheme.” In 2012, two cases were decided against two governmental agencies – the SEC and the IRS–in connection with their use of the words “Ponzi scheme.”

Also Read: Biggest Ponzi Scheme

In a case brought by the SEC against Small Business Capital Corp. and its principal, Mark Feathers, Feathers filed a Motion for Restraining Order (“TRO“), Preliminary Injunction, Sanctions, and Special Damages against the SEC, arguing that the SEC used “fighting words” in certain publications related to the case. SEC v. Small Business Capital Corp., 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 178392 (N.D. Cal 2012). Feathers based his motion on the argument that the SEC’s use of the works “Ponzi-like” and “swindler” are “fighting words” which violated that his First Amendment rights. The court, in denying Feathers’ motion, noted:

The problem with Plaintiff’s request in the context of this action, however, is that claims under the First Amendment are not at issue in this case. Indeed, the classic issue presented by “fighting words” is whether such speech is constitutionally protected; in other words, whether the challenged speech is “likely to produce a clear and present danger of a serious substantive evil that rises far above public inconvenience, annoyance, or unrest.”City of Houston v. Hill

, 482 U.S. 451, 462 (1987). Any party’s right to free speech is not implicated by the claims brought by Plaintiff, which involves only violations of securities law. Absent such a free speech issue, the court is unable to analyze whether Defendant could prevail on the merits of a First Amendment claim.The court found that “fighting words” lose First Amendment protection only if they constitute “words that by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace.” Id. at *5 (citing Hill, 482 U.S. at 461-62). After denying Feathers’ request for a TRO and preliminary injunction, the court cautioned:

With that said, however, the court expects all parties to this case to act in a dignified and appropriate manner. The language utilized in press releases, pleadings or other documents should be carefully chosen so as not to denigrate others or unnecessarily jeopardize the viability of the investment assets, especially when this case remains at the initial stages of litigation.Id. at *6.
In a separate case brought against the IRS, Plaintiffs Emerging Money Corporation, Emerging Administrative Services, LLC and Emerging Actuarial Designs, LLC alleged that the IRS had wrongfully disclosed information when it asserted to certain taxpayers that the transactions that the “Plaintiffs had promoted to them were ‘sham transactions’ and part of a ‘Ponzi scheme.’” Emerging Money Corp. v. United States, 873 F. Supp. 2d 451 (D. Conn. June 4, 2012).

The Plaintiffs’ “claim was based on 26 U.S.C. § 7431, which permits plaintiffs to recover damages when an officer of the United States knowingly or negligently discloses returns or return information in violation of Section 6103. Plaintiffs seek, inter alia, $1,000 for each unauthorized disclosure of their return information.” Id. at *6. The IRS filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that it was permitted to make those statements under the Internal Revenue Code.

The facts in the case were that the IRS had investigated the Plaintiffs’ “Stock to Cash” program in which a client would transfer shares of stock to a lender and the lender would make an upfront cash payment called a “loan.” The IRS concluded that the program was a Ponzi scheme and delivered letters to the clients who had participated in the program which included the following information: “(1) identification of Plaintiffs as possible ‘lenders’ or administrators of the Stock to Cash program (the ‘identification of Plaintiffs’); (2) the statement that the IRS was conducting an investigation of the Stock to Cash program (the ‘investigation assertion’); (3) the IRS‘s position that the Stock to Cash transactions were ‘sham transactions’ (the ‘sham-transaction assertion’) and (4) the assertion that those transactions were ‘built into a Ponzi scheme’ (the ‘Ponzi-scheme assertion’).” Id. at *4-5.

The IRS contended that it was entitled to disclose the information under the “Own Information” exception under 26 U.S.C. § 6103(e)(7). The court reviewed relevant case law and concluded that most of the information disclosed was the recipients’ own information because it “consisted of facts that directly impacted the Recipients’ tax liabilities.” However, the court noted, “But the Ponzi-scheme assertion did not directly impact the Recipients’ tax liabilities. Their ‘loans’ would have been considered sales of stock whether or not the program was a Ponzi scheme. The fact that the transactions were ‘shams’ was enough to establish to the Recipients that they were invalid, without a contextual reference to a larger Ponzi scheme.” Id. at *13.

The court reviewed several other exceptions, such as the “Administrative Proceeding” Exception, the “Investigative Purposes” exception, and the “Erroneous Information” issue, and ultimately concluded that the IRS did not violate Section 6103 when it sent out the letters regarding most of the information contained in the letters. However, the court found that the “exceptions did not cover the IRS’s assertion that the Stock to Cash program was a Ponzi scheme.” Id. at *23. The court instructed the Plaintiffs to file a statement and explanation of the damages they were seeking if they wanted to proceed to trial. The Plaintiffs filed a supplemental statement asking for $69,000 in statutory damages, or in the alternative, actual and punitive damages, plus attorneys’ fees and costs. The Plaintiffs’ statement is attached here.

Two alleged Ponzi scheme perpetrators, two governmental agencies, two courts, and two decisions – all involving the use of the words “Ponzi scheme.” If nothing else, these cases are a reminder that we are in this country innocent until proven guilty, so we should tread carefully when using those two little words.