Forex Books Talking

now bleeding profusely with the main copper operation, so just to "make the number" they "cash credit" the gold byproduct (which should truly be a "COproduct") in order to keep their jobs

Now, whose idea would that have been? The CFO (Chief Financial Officer) of BHP? The CHO (Chief Hedging Officer) of Rio Tinto? The CMMNO (Chief "Make-My-Number

Make-My-Number -Officer") of Codelco? Ahhhhhh, I really don't think so. I think it is a 30-something junior analyst at "JP Morgan, Cayman Islands" that has an

has an advanced mathematics degree from Moscow U. whose oligarch father bribed his way into Boca Raton and has $2 billion in AUM at JPM Private Wealth

Wealth. Young Sergei has a profit target to meet for the quarter, so he decides to go to the hedging arm of their futures operation to execute a prop desk

desk trade under the guise of a "hedge" where his hedge margins are fraction of normal speculative margins. This means that he has unlimited shorting powe

power despite a market that has moved over $250/ounce against him since the lows of early December, which coincidently marked the upturn from -2,911 figure during the first week of December.

Think about it. In four "COT weeks," the gold price has gone from $230 to $290 during which the cretins have sold over 88,000 contracts or 8,800,000 syntheti

synthetic "ounces" of paper gold, so assume an average of $260 as a price point and a weekly close of $295 representing paper loss of $308,000,000 since May 3

since May 3. Now pick an average sale price of, say, $1,230 on the early paper gold sales from Dec. 4 until May 3 on the remaining net shorts (207,245 – 2,911) 207,334,

and multiple by $65/oz loss and you have an additional paper loss of $1,328,171,000 and $1,634,171,000 of losses accrued since that historic

that historic day last December when Commercials were actually net long for the first time since 1999 at $252.80/oz. Now granted that there could be a great deal

great deal of spreading within COT activity as the cretins could easily have used swaps or options to offset futures exposure, but any way one cuts it, someone is

someone is "out" some serious capital. If I were a gambling man (please don't roll your eyes), I would say that the odds favor minimal producer hedging in favor of raw

in favor of raw speculation by the banks secured by implicit but unofficial guarantees by the central bank snapperheads. Will they be forced to cover?