|
"The pot calling the kettle black," a timeworn rejoinder to another's accusation, is an expression I think of whenever my research leads me to GATA. The Gold Anti-Trust Action Committee—an organization with the self-avowed purpose to "advocate and undertake litigation against illegal collusion to control the price and supply of gold"—once lambasted me for my lack of intellectual curiosity. My challenge to assertions of bank manipulation in the gold futures market prompted GATA secretary/treasurer Chris Powell to write: "That's what's so disappointing about [Zigler] and about so many others involved with the gold market—a determined and perhaps a bit nervous lack of curiosity." This is a surprising conclusion when you consider the hard data that supported the contentions in my essay "Gold Manipulation Redux" and its predecessor "Has Gold Been Manipulated?". Indeed, it was intellectual curiosity that led me to conduct the research engendering that data in the first place. Why bring this up now? Just this: The Commodity Futures Trading Commission now disaggregates trader commitment data allowing the intellectually curious more insight into block positions within the gold market. But how many adherents of the manipulation theory are willing to acknowledge that the data show money managers—speculative investment funds—rather than banks, really drive futures pricing? Strength Of Money Manager Positions In COMEX Gold Futures 
Money managers have adopted a historically lopsided stance in gold futures. Long positions held by these funds are 111 times the size of their short positions. Put another way, 99 percent of the futures positions held by funds are purchases. In the past, GATA's officers and other market commentators have complained that such deep concentration on one side of the market constitutes prima facie evidence of manipulation. Yet, we've heard nothing from GATA about this speculative muscle flexing. Who's incurious now?
|
"99 percent of the futures positions held by funds are purchases."
you should know better than to make such a meaning less comment is the 99% long made up of 1,2,3 .... 5000 funds/participants.
A small number holding a large amount is a preamble to manipulation, conversley a large number will find it hard to collude to manipulate what is so difficult to understand ??