I first heard on Sunday night from Chris Powell that the Financial Times had done an article on “the manipulation of the gold market.” I had not seen the article but I was told it was pretty good (as good as anything else that’s been printed in MSM) and that even Gold Money’s Alisdair Mcleod was quoted. I got up Monday morning to read the article only to find that it had been “pulled” off of the internet but in fact the print edition did go out.
My first thought was (and still is) “shock” that an article of this sort would have ever gotten past any FT editor and the title, “Gold Price Rigging Fears Has Investors On Alert” was just too inflammatory. I guess my questions at this point are “why” and “how.” How did this article EVER get past the editors? And since it did…why did they pull it off of the internet?
Zerohedge wrote a piece on this on Tuesday which was a good read and asked a few questions of their own. As for the “pulled” article itself, I thought that it had very little “shock” value and not much “meat” to it. Yes it was nice to read a headline in one of if not THE largest financial publications which had the two words in the same sentence “gold” and “manipulation” but that’s about it.
Seriously, the author says that gold might be manipulated 50% of the time? Really? Is this 50% of waking hours? Trading hours? Or her source could only identify it 50% of the time? Those of you who know me and have read my writings over the years know that I believe the gold price has been manipulated 100% of the time, 24/7 and in all time zones! This article was a disappointment to me. The author, Madison Marriage gave it a try and only scratched the surface of the surface. She mainly talked about the “London gold fix” and the 5 “fix” members front running or colluding for profit and totally misses the point. If she really wanted to do a “blood and guts” story, all she needed to do was contact GATA, they have the REAL story spelled out going back many years. They would have gladly given their information on a “real silver” platter. GATA has for 15 years contacted regulatory agencies and media with smoking gun information only to come up “crickets” with nary a response!
She really and truly missed the point AND the “motive” behind the manipulation of gold and silver prices. Not only that, she completely missed the point by “laying blame” on 5 overweight cigar smokers cooped up in a London room. Anyone with common sense understands that gold is a “political” metal that central banks have fought since the printing press was invented…and even before. Central banks have EVERY motive to manipulate gold and NO motives whatsoever to allow it to trade freely, this is just a simple fact. With the advent of derivatives they also have new “ways” to carry out their attacks…and “profit” their minions for “helping out.”
Ms. Marriage does finish her piece by mentioning investigations by Bafin and the CFTC but has she really looked into “what” they (the CFTC) have done? “Done” as in have rock solid information about silver only to announce that they found “nothing actionable?” I do want you to study the phrase “nothing actionable” for a moment, this is not the same as saying there is no manipulation…only nothing that they can take action on…and I presume because of where or “who” the evidence leads to! As I have written many times before, I was just some Joe Schmoe in the brokerage industry but I saw several instances where the SEC used a “time and sales” report coupled with phone records and e-mail to track down their target, why can’t the CFTC perform a simple time and sales report to see who dumped 50% of global silver production within 36 hours? Because it would lead them to entities that are “too big to trail,” that’s why!
Back to my title, why would they do this? Why or how could the title even be printed? Once it’s “out” then why pull it back? This is like a bullet, once out of the chamber there’s no going back. Not that the content was so damning or anything but the title alone is like sunlight to these vampires. Did someone in the press actually have an inkling of conscience? Is Ms. Marriage a kid just out of college and read what a journalist is supposed to do …and tried to do it? Was this some sort of “signal” to cabal cronies? Or so they can say at a future date “we tried to tell you, we reported on it?”
I really don’t know on this one and usually this is not the case. Not that I “always know,” but 99% of the time I have an opinion or a guess yet this one has me thoroughly stumped. I would love to hear from anyone who has a theory on this one. What was the upside of printing it in the first place? And why pull it down? Normally there is an upside (or at least a “perceived” upside) to anything that someone does, where is the upside here? Maybe the most obvious question is this, “Who is going to be fired for such blasphemy?”
P.S. In his usual Sherlock Holmes fashion, Chris Powell from GATA has been following the Financial Times with the question, “Why was the story pulled? “So far the only response from the Financial Times is that the article was a “mistake.”