Ok - one of my sources indicated that the margin requirements were raised asymmetrically, but further research shows no independent verification.

However, some other rules were also changed at that time - not just the margins.

One was a "position limit" imposed after the fact and not fully grandfathered.

The other was a ban on "opening" transactions. (basically shutting down the market except for unwinding trades).

Combining these two with the margin increase had the effect of "forcing" the Hunts into a losing position.

While I am taking no moral position on whether the Hunts should have tried to do what they did, I have a clear moral objection to "changing the rules" under ones feet to ensure their loss.

While the margin rules change is effectively net neutral (except that those with more money can weather it better), the position limit is clearly not. It clearly discriminates against the most concentrated positions in the market. The ban on opening transactions and the increased margin requirements simply increase the pressure on the positions discriminated against by the position limits.

Just a thought experiment:

What would happen in the silver market today if the rules were to revert back to those imposed on the Hunts?

Think about it... (take 60 seconds or more)

Who have the most concentrated positions that would be forced closed?

Which type of transaction would predominate in that situation?

Who would be the only persons allowed to sell to them?

What price would they ask to unwind the trade?

Whose margin requirements would become onerous?