A free market is a market in which property rights are voluntarily exchanged at a price arranged completely by the mutual consent of sellers and buyers. By definition, in a free market environment buyers and sellers do not coerce each other, in the sense that they obtain each other's property without the use of physical force, threat of physical force, or fraud, nor is the transfer coerced by a third party
Proved, the commodities market was rigged
- Thread starter stock777
- Start date
A free market is a market in which property rights are voluntarily exchanged at a price arranged completely by the mutual consent of sellers and buyers. By definition, in a free market environment buyers and sellers do not coerce each other, in the sense that they obtain each other's property without the use of physical force, threat of physical force, or fraud, nor is the transfer coerced by a third party
Just look at this paragraph and match the companies to whose nose on Wall St is up whose ass in Washington
JPMorgan Chase and Co., Goldman Sachs Group Inc., Barclays Plc and Morgan Stanley control 70 percent of the commodities swaps positions, and swaps dealers are the largest holders of Nymex crude oil futures contracts, Masters said.
that is from http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601110&sid=agQ7prrjwiuU
Hank "the criminal" Paulson (GS), Jamie "I'll pay $2 for this $60 company if you can hold off on the discount window just one more (banking) hour" Dimon (JPM)...
The Wall Street criminals are running Washington. It's keep us from hitting bottom and moving forward. Taxpayers have to pay for it all for the benefit of Wall Street.
They say the banking bailouts with taxpayer money is to protect the soverign funds who invest in MBS. Does anyone in America really give a shit if China looses on an investment in the US? Wouldn't we be better off if China's investments in the US went to zero? Who do these dickheads in Washington work for? Us or the Chinese? This is TREASON when US taxpayers backstop China Government investments.
JPMorgan Chase and Co., Goldman Sachs Group Inc., Barclays Plc and Morgan Stanley control 70 percent of the commodities swaps positions, and swaps dealers are the largest holders of Nymex crude oil futures contracts, Masters said.
that is from http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601110&sid=agQ7prrjwiuU
Hank "the criminal" Paulson (GS), Jamie "I'll pay $2 for this $60 company if you can hold off on the discount window just one more (banking) hour" Dimon (JPM)...
The Wall Street criminals are running Washington. It's keep us from hitting bottom and moving forward. Taxpayers have to pay for it all for the benefit of Wall Street.
They say the banking bailouts with taxpayer money is to protect the soverign funds who invest in MBS. Does anyone in America really give a shit if China looses on an investment in the US? Wouldn't we be better off if China's investments in the US went to zero? Who do these dickheads in Washington work for? Us or the Chinese? This is TREASON when US taxpayers backstop China Government investments.
No, you're right.
It was all and only supply and demand for oil that moved prices, including spot prices.
The market is perfectly efficient, and the fact that INSTITUTIONS, such as pension funds, university endowments and others, having no need for oil nor intending to take delivery were piling in on the long side en mass didn't affect prices.
And the fact that those same people got burned badly and are now and have been yanking their money out hasn't affected prices.
All supply and demand.
Economics 101 - most commodities do not a have a price elasticity of 1. Thus a price fall of 30% does not mean that demand has fallen 30%.
This has been pointed out numerous times on commodities threads on this board in the last few months, yet still you repeat the same erroneous claims.
Quote from dont:
Point Masters made was that these Index and Swap "speculators" were forced to buy as it went up and now as its going down they are forced to sell.
Pretty clear to me then and now, that he was right.
So much for the "delivery" argument.
Pension funds typically pursue a policy of consistent asset allocation weightings (e.g. 10% in commodities, 50% stocks, 40% bonds). Maintaining a constant weighting requires rebalancing, meaning that they sell on the way up and buy on the way down. I.e. the exact opposite of what you say Masters claimed.
E.g. pension fund A has 10% weighting in commodities. Commodities go up 15% whilst stocks and bonds fall or stay flat. They now have too much in commodities, so they sell to get back to the 10% weighting. I.e. selling as it rises. Or if commodities fell 30%, they would have to add an additional 3% of total capital to their commodity position in order to maintain the 10% weighting.