Did we know Gensler[cftc head] was from goldman sachs..

http://www.resourceinvestor.com/News/2010/12/Pages/Letter-to-CFTC-Commissioner-Chilton-on-Silver--Gold.aspx

I knew that. Not that it's any secret. Lots of Goldman people in the govt. That's why they're called "Government Sachs."

Which non-US bank(s) has increased its short position in silver so massively? What is that entity’s relationship to the US bank mega-shorts, JPMorgan and HSBC? I know you can’t answer those questions publicly but these are questions the CFTC should be looking into. It looks suspiciously like the US bank silver short position is being shifted to a bank or banks that are out of the jurisdiction of the CFTC. To further add to my suspicions theFinancial Times has out-of-the-blue published an article that declares that JPMorgan is reducing its silver short position on the Comex.

Before these guys go running off to the CFTC they ought to at least look around for an alternate explanation. I can think of one, just off the top of my head. Banks are known to finance mining companies. With the price of metals where there are, it makes sense, but just to be on the safe side, you'd want to short the metal that the company you were financing is about to produce so as to lock in the price (especially after a parabolic move). It's not a naked short. The silver is there in the ground, and you just ponied up the capital to get it out.

This article would have more weight (it still wouldn't prove anything) if they'd said, we looked around for a major financing and couldn't find one. But they didn't. So they get a D. But then they wouldn't get as many hits if they didn't spin the story to what they know is a willing audience. It works the same way in print "journalism" - the more sensational the story, the more advertising and/or subscriptions you can sell.

Here's another FAIL from that Bix artilce you posted.

JPM was not done and went for the final choke out driving the price down below $5 and holding it there destroying Amaranth in their wake then buying up the pieces to make at least $750M but many suspect over $2B."

This is "selective journalism" at its worst. Does he question why Amaranth had such an outsized position or why the CFTC didn't try to reel them in? After all, there's a good story there - capitalizing on the effects of a major disaster. No. He goes straight for JPM as if taking down Amaranth was some sort of nefarious plot, and not just a simple case of one market player's response to the overreach of another.

As I've said before, I'm not making a case for or against manipulation. My issue is with the lack of credibility of those doing the reporting. AFAIC, these people are just talking their book. Look at Murphy. He makes puffed up statements about ECU, a company he's heavily promoting - but does he do what he publicly said he'd do when the cake didn't rise? Well? Some of you must have subscriptions. How much did he charge you last year? C'mon. Somebody - anybody - prove me wrong, or do I have to post that cricket sound again?

ebear