Warning: Function ereg() is deprecated in ..../includes/class_postbit.php(345) : eval()'d code on line 4

Warning: Function split() is deprecated in ..../includes/class_postbit.php(345) : eval()'d code on line 19

Warning: Function ereg() is deprecated in ..../includes/class_postbit.php(345) : eval()'d code on line 4

Warning: Function split() is deprecated in ..../includes/class_postbit.php(345) : eval()'d code on line 19

Warning: Function ereg() is deprecated in ..../includes/class_postbit.php(345) : eval()'d code on line 4

Warning: Function split() is deprecated in ..../includes/class_postbit.php(345) : eval()'d code on line 19

Warning: Function ereg() is deprecated in ..../includes/class_postbit.php(345) : eval()'d code on line 4

Warning: Function split() is deprecated in ..../includes/class_postbit.php(345) : eval()'d code on line 19

Warning: Function ereg() is deprecated in ..../includes/class_postbit.php(345) : eval()'d code on line 4

Warning: Function split() is deprecated in ..../includes/class_postbit.php(345) : eval()'d code on line 19

Warning: Function ereg() is deprecated in ..../includes/class_postbit.php(345) : eval()'d code on line 4

Warning: Function split() is deprecated in ..../includes/class_postbit.php(345) : eval()'d code on line 19

Warning: Function ereg() is deprecated in ..../includes/class_postbit.php(345) : eval()'d code on line 4

Warning: Function split() is deprecated in ..../includes/class_postbit.php(345) : eval()'d code on line 19

Warning: Function ereg() is deprecated in ..../includes/class_postbit.php(345) : eval()'d code on line 4

Warning: Function split() is deprecated in ..../includes/class_postbit.php(345) : eval()'d code on line 19

Warning: Function ereg() is deprecated in ..../includes/class_postbit.php(345) : eval()'d code on line 4

Warning: Function split() is deprecated in ..../includes/class_postbit.php(345) : eval()'d code on line 19

Warning: Function ereg() is deprecated in ..../includes/class_postbit.php(345) : eval()'d code on line 4

Warning: Function split() is deprecated in ..../includes/class_postbit.php(345) : eval()'d code on line 19
Manoobulation
Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 35

Thread: Manoobulation

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Chicago
    Posts
    4,376

    Default Manoobulation

    How many other stupid things would you like to listen to?

    SEC Charges Florida Broker in Astrology-Based Ponzi Scheme
    06/21/2012 12:00 PM EDT

    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
    2012-118

    Washington, D.C., June 21, 2012The Securities and Exchange Commission today charged that a former broker in Orlando, Fla., defrauded investors in an astrology-based Ponzi scheme.
    The SEC alleges that Gurudeo “Buddy” Persaud lured family, friends, and others into investing in his firm, White Elephant Trading Company LLC, by falsely guaranteeing their money would be safe and yield lofty returns ranging from 6 to 18 percent. Persaud told investors he would invest in the debt, stock, futures, and real estate markets, but did not reveal that his trading strategy was based on his belief that markets are affected by gravitational forces.
    According to the SEC’s complaint filed in U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Persaud used investors’ money to make payments to other investors, the hallmark of a Ponzi scheme. Persaud also lost $400,000 of investor funds through his trading and diverted at least $415,000 to pay for his personal expenses, the SEC alleged. The same month Persaud began receiving investor money, he started using some of that money for his personal expenses. The SEC said that Persaud created phony account statements to hide his trading losses and give investors a false sense of security.
    “Persaud preyed on people who trusted him by promising high and steady returns while hiding his unconventional trading strategy,” said Eric I. Bustillo, Director of the SEC’s Miami Regional Office. “When Persaud blatantly lied to investors and hid their losses through a Ponzi scheme, he should have known that an SEC enforcement action was in the stars.”
    Persaud was a registered representative at a Florida-based broker-dealer but separately operated the now-inactive White Elephant, starting in mid-2007. In all, Persaud raised more than $1 million from at least 14 investors between July 2007 and January 2010.
    The SEC alleges that in making trading decisions, Persaud chiefly relied on an Internet service that provided directional market forecasts based on lunar cycles and gravitational pull. Persaud’s strategy was premised on the idea that gravitational forces affect mass human behavior, and in turn, the stock market. For example, Persaud believed that when the moon exerts greater gravitational pull on the Earth, people feel dejected and are more inclined to sell securities.
    The SEC’s complaint seeks disgorgement of ill-gotten gains, financial penalties, and injunctive relief against Persaud to enjoin him from future violations of the federal securities laws.
    The SEC’s investigation was conducted in the Miami Regional Office by Senior Counsel Rachel K. Paulose and Accountant Karaz S. Zaki under the supervision of Assistant Regional Director Elisha L. Frank, with assistance from examiners Anson Kwong and Brian H. Dyer, Examination Manager George Franceschini, Assistant Regional Director Nicholas A. Monaco, and Associate Regional Director John C. Mattimore. Amie Riggle Berlin will lead the SEC’s litigation.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Chicago
    Posts
    4,376

    Default

    I forgot to include the definition.

    Manoobulation: Selling subscriptions to fake bullish metals stories to traders who want to join the pat each other on the back society.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    1,073

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Matthew Shelley View Post
    How many other stupid things would you like to listen to?

    SEC Charges Florida Broker in Astrology-Based Ponzi Scheme
    06/21/2012 12:00 PM EDT

    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
    2012-118

    Washington, D.C., June 21, 2012The Securities and Exchange Commission today charged that a former broker in Orlando, Fla., defrauded investors in an astrology-based Ponzi scheme.
    The SEC alleges that Gurudeo “Buddy” Persaud lured family, friends, and others into investing in his firm, White Elephant Trading Company LLC, by falsely guaranteeing their money would be safe and yield lofty returns ranging from 6 to 18 percent. Persaud told investors he would invest in the debt, stock, futures, and real estate markets, but did not reveal that his trading strategy was based on his belief that markets are affected by gravitational forces.
    According to the SEC’s complaint filed in U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Persaud used investors’ money to make payments to other investors, the hallmark of a Ponzi scheme. Persaud also lost $400,000 of investor funds through his trading and diverted at least $415,000 to pay for his personal expenses, the SEC alleged. The same month Persaud began receiving investor money, he started using some of that money for his personal expenses. The SEC said that Persaud created phony account statements to hide his trading losses and give investors a false sense of security.
    “Persaud preyed on people who trusted him by promising high and steady returns while hiding his unconventional trading strategy,” said Eric I. Bustillo, Director of the SEC’s Miami Regional Office. “When Persaud blatantly lied to investors and hid their losses through a Ponzi scheme, he should have known that an SEC enforcement action was in the stars.”
    Persaud was a registered representative at a Florida-based broker-dealer but separately operated the now-inactive White Elephant, starting in mid-2007. In all, Persaud raised more than $1 million from at least 14 investors between July 2007 and January 2010.
    The SEC alleges that in making trading decisions, Persaud chiefly relied on an Internet service that provided directional market forecasts based on lunar cycles and gravitational pull. Persaud’s strategy was premised on the idea that gravitational forces affect mass human behavior, and in turn, the stock market. For example, Persaud believed that when the moon exerts greater gravitational pull on the Earth, people feel dejected and are more inclined to sell securities.
    The SEC’s complaint seeks disgorgement of ill-gotten gains, financial penalties, and injunctive relief against Persaud to enjoin him from future violations of the federal securities laws.
    The SEC’s investigation was conducted in the Miami Regional Office by Senior Counsel Rachel K. Paulose and Accountant Karaz S. Zaki under the supervision of Assistant Regional Director Elisha L. Frank, with assistance from examiners Anson Kwong and Brian H. Dyer, Examination Manager George Franceschini, Assistant Regional Director Nicholas A. Monaco, and Associate Regional Director John C. Mattimore. Amie Riggle Berlin will lead the SEC’s litigation.
    Hell, they could have paid Matty. They must not have known about SS.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    1,073

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Matthew Shelley View Post
    I forgot to include the definition.

    Manoobulation: Selling subscriptions to fake bullish metals stories to traders who want to join the pat each other on the back society.
    Matty. Most of our ( pat each other on the back ) society members have done real well with our Silver positions. Yes we love to pat ourselves and each other on the back. Seems a little gay, but thats what we like to do. What we enjoy the most is eliminating Matty from our trade process. No broker! Love it. I can over pay and lose value all on my own without a broker. Unfortunately I figured this out so long ago, I've actually quadroopled my value and then some. Our members did however overlook one problem. Storage. You see $16,000 worth of silver takes up a whole childrens size shoe box. This has created an issue.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Zionot, Squashkenazi
    Posts
    11,223

    Default

    http://www.cmegroup.com/trading/meta...es-options.pdf
    Silver Futures and Options: Fact Card

    • Market participants are provided with a central point of price
    discovery, price transparency, risk management, mitigation of
    counterparty credit risk and CFTC oversight
    • Price may be managed separately from physical supply
    • Contracts are list for 60 months forward, enabling the
    establishment of a forward price curve


    A definition of management includes the concept of manipulation.

    Any on topic comments?
    "I foresee little future in 'the price of silver', I see a huge future for 'the price in silver'." - heartbone
    "The truth is called hate by those who hate the truth." - K

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Zionot, Squashkenazi
    Posts
    11,223

    Arrow fleeced

    excerpted from: CME Group Destabilizes Gold and Silver Markets

    "Traders are required to post collateral to back their positions in these future markets. This is known as a margin requirement. In any sane markets, this margin requirement would be a percentage. This way, no matter whether prices are falling or rising the margin requirement would be constant (in percentage terms) – stability is enhanced.

    Conversely, the U.S. paper-fraud markets are operated in precisely the opposite manner: margin requirements are a flat rate. What this means (automatically) is that when prices are falling the effective size of these margin requirements rises (amplifying downward pressure). And when prices rise the effective size of margin requirements fall (amplifying upward pressure on the market).

    In other words, irrespective of whether prices are rising or falling; margin requirements automatically act to destabilize the market further. This is how one would operate a crooked casino, not legitimate markets. Given this unstable paradigm; the CME Group has a direct, official responsibility to minimize the instability in these markets which is automatically produced by these insane margin rules (which it created).

    It does so in the following manner. When commodity prices rise, the CME Group is supposed toraise the margin requirements in order to keep the percentages constant. When commodity prices fall, the CME Group is supposed to lower margin requirements to keep the percentages constant. This is all unequivocal arithmetic, for which there can be no possible argument.

    Yet once again, currently, we see the CME Group raising margin requirements (sharply), despite the most-severe two-day crash in gold and silver markets in history. The only legitimate move for the CME Group to make here would be to dramatically lower margin requirements – to keep percentages relatively constant."


    Again, any comments?
    "I foresee little future in 'the price of silver', I see a huge future for 'the price in silver'." - heartbone
    "The truth is called hate by those who hate the truth." - K

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    233

    Default Relevance

    Quote Originally Posted by silverheartbone View Post
    excerpted from: CME Group Destabilizes Gold and Silver Markets

    "Traders are required to post collateral to back their positions in these future markets. This is known as a margin requirement. In any sane markets, this margin requirement would be a percentage. This way, no matter whether prices are falling or rising the margin requirement would be constant (in percentage terms) – stability is enhanced.

    Conversely, the U.S. paper-fraud markets are operated in precisely the opposite manner: margin requirements are a flat rate. What this means (automatically) is that when prices are falling the effective size of these margin requirements rises (amplifying downward pressure). And when prices rise the effective size of margin requirements fall (amplifying upward pressure on the market).

    In other words, irrespective of whether prices are rising or falling; margin requirements automatically act to destabilize the market further. This is how one would operate a crooked casino, not legitimate markets. Given this unstable paradigm; the CME Group has a direct, official responsibility to minimize the instability in these markets which is automatically produced by these insane margin rules (which it created).

    It does so in the following manner. When commodity prices rise, the CME Group is supposed toraise the margin requirements in order to keep the percentages constant. When commodity prices fall, the CME Group is supposed to lower margin requirements to keep the percentages constant. This is all unequivocal arithmetic, for which there can be no possible argument.

    Yet once again, currently, we see the CME Group raising margin requirements (sharply), despite the most-severe two-day crash in gold and silver markets in history. The only legitimate move for the CME Group to make here would be to dramatically lower margin requirements – to keep percentages relatively constant."


    Again, any comments?
    This is pretty irrelevant. We have a really interesting market. Silver eagles are trading at a 40% premium when the metal price is well down. That defies normal market behavior. We should be asking ourselves why this is happening rather than bickering. Matt, this premium is not a Ponzi scheme. The physical metal market is under strain. People are not receiving delivery of allocated gold. Germany has to wait 7 years for a small portion of the gold it owns. This is not a normal market. This is not hype or BS, this is a very unusual situation. As a self appointed expert, you should be explaining some of this rather than making childish statements which are beneath you.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Chicago
    Posts
    4,376

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mike Phillips View Post
    This is pretty irrelevant. We have a really interesting market. Silver eagles are trading at a 40% premium when the metal price is well down. That defies normal market behavior. We should be asking ourselves why this is happening rather than bickering. Matt, this premium is not a Ponzi scheme. The physical metal market is under strain. People are not receiving delivery of allocated gold. Germany has to wait 7 years for a small portion of the gold it owns. This is not a normal market. This is not hype or BS, this is a very unusual situation. As a self appointed expert, you should be explaining some of this rather than making childish statements which are beneath you.
    Mike, why are you listening to stories from people who make things up in their heads rather than a professional who actually works in the metals markets and who has made and taken large exchange deliveries often? I understand their are questions about the German Gold story, but I am trying to follow them myself so that I can explain to my customers what is going on. BTW, if you have Gold allocated to a certificate in an exchange depository, you can take delivery any time you like, and anyone who tells you you can't is full of it.
    Last edited by Matthew Shelley; 25th April 2013 at 13:57.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    233

    Default I am listening

    Quote Originally Posted by Matthew Shelley View Post
    Mike, why are you listening to stories from people who make things up in their heads rather than a professional who actually works in the metals markets and who has made and taken large exchange deliveries often? I understand their are questions about the German Gold story, but I am trying to follow them myself so that I can explain to my customers what is going on. BTW, if you have Gold allocated to a certificate in an exchange depository, you can take delivery any time you like, and anyone who tells you you can't is full of it.
    Matt, I am listening to you. You just don't need to descend to the level you were at with that post. You don't need to resort to sarcasm. You have some valuable contributions to make to this discussion.

    Mike

  10. #10
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Atlanta
    Posts
    9,061

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mike Phillips View Post
    This is pretty irrelevant. We have a really interesting market. Silver eagles are trading at a 40% premium when the metal price is well down. That defies normal market behavior. We should be asking ourselves why this is happening rather than bickering. Matt, this premium is not a Ponzi scheme. The physical metal market is under strain. People are not receiving delivery of allocated gold. Germany has to wait 7 years for a small portion of the gold it owns. This is not a normal market. This is not hype or BS, this is a very unusual situation. As a self appointed expert, you should be explaining some of this rather than making childish statements which are beneath you.


    I'll address a couple things. Anyone paying a 40% premium for an ASE has been bitten by the ASE love bug, which would be $9.60 each with the spot price at $24. That's simply throwing your money down the drain and the chances are, you'll never recoup that kind for premium payment.

    Why would anyone pay those kinds of prices, when they can buy an ASE at the single price range, with a premium of $7 at APMEX, $6.10 at Provident and only $4.55 at Gainesville? Just because some people don't know any better, does not make the premiums of 40% the true going rate. Maybe on an average between LCS's, but who buys there products at an LCS when they know they are the highest prices in town. Keep in mind that the premiums I mentioned above are for a single ASE, so if you can afford larger quantities, the premium come down from there. As I've said before, this is not the time to be waiting in line for a grossly overpriced ASE, when you can buy generic products for a fraction of those premiums. The premiums on ASE's will come down, but they are not going to give anyone a rebate on the excess they paid. It also doesn't make sense to wait for the ASE premium to come down as the spot price could be $10 higher. However it does make sense to buy generic products that have not skyrocketed in price in the mean time.

    There is nothing mysterious about the spot price being down and the US Mint and dealers scalping the public on premiums for ASE's. The public stands in line to buy the new ASE's every year, nothing new. However, with the spot price crashing and the normal demand exceeding the US Mints capacity to produce them, has only been exacerbated by the publics desire to take advantage of the lower spot price and buy even more. Which only creates an even greater opportunity for the dealer to scalp the public for even higher premiums. When you look at the premiums charged by APMEX at $7 and then only $4.55 at Gainesville, you have to realize it's nothing but pure greed for everyone who can cash in on it. While thousands have been waiting for the next release of ASE's, there has been ample supply of generic Silver to be had at far more reasonable prices.

    As far as the Gold and Germany is concern. There has been about ten different versions of that story and who knows if any of them are true except that Germany wants part of their Gold returned in seven years or so the story goes.

    Who says that they are not delivering Gold, other than some analyst that are always repeating these same lines of BS. If these stories were actually true, then COMEX would have folded years ago from default.

    I look at the COMEX delivery reports daily and there is no indication that deliveries are not being met for Gold. Not only have they been delivering Gold, but the deliveries scheduled for Tuesday April 30,2013 are for 562 contracts which equals 56,200 ounces of Gold and that will make a total of 1,163,200 ounce delivered for the Month of April. Where is any proof that Gold is not being delivered, other than in some analyst story line to convince people to run out and buy more Gold before it's too late??

    The COMEX warehouse inventories have been declining over the past four months by over 3 million ounces, that alone should tell concerning minds that Gold has been delivered. But they did manage to actually increase the Gold holdings at COMEX on Friday by 153,748 ounces and are now once again back over 8 million ounces in total. Which is a far cry from collapsing.

    Mike you've been around for a long time, how many times have you read this same information regarding COMEX not delivering Gold or Silver?

    I can't disagree with the comments about how COMEX handles those margin calls with no definite pattern for those increases. Especially when they did five in a one week period and the price collapsed from it's peak.

    However I don't agree with the concept that the margins should rise with the price and fall when it declines. It's a bit more complicated than that. That's only looking at the market from one side, but the market swings in two directions and as that pendulum swings it is taking someone down with it.

    I can understand why they implement these margin increases, but why do they always increase it for everyone at the same time, when only some investors are putting their broker at potential risk?

    They are suppose to be put in place to protect the brokers, as they are ultimately the ones that are on the hot seat for any contract defaults. However, what is the logic to add a margin increase to both sides of a contract when the price is swinging in one direction only. That is, if the price is rising, you might need to have the short contract holders margin increased to protect the broker, but it makes no sense to increase the margin of the long contract holder. Likewise, if the price is in decline, you might need to increase the margin for the long contract holder and it would make no sense to increase the margin for the offsetting short contract.

    I would agree that margin increases should be based on price movements and percentage basis "if" they are running against the contract holder and they should be returned if those movements turn the other way in favor of the investor. This should be a two way street for the Long and Short contract holders, but not both paying the same penalty because one side is in trouble. What's the logic of increasing a margin for someone that bought a contract at $24 and the spot has jumped to $44, none whatsoever, but the problems are many for the poor slob that bought the short offsetting contract at $24. With a huge swing in the market like this, the short contract holder should probably have seen two or maybe three margin increases at a minimum and none for the Long contract holder. But those margin increases should only have kicked in on an individual basis as the price swings became a greater percentage from the original contract price and not for all short contract holder equally. It should all depend on where you entered the market, not where someone else did. Likewise when the market takes a dive, a long contract holder shouldn't be hit with a margin increase if he is still in the black with his contract, just because many others are going deep into the red.

    I know, there is more to the story, like volatility. That's a lot of hog wash and someone that is holding a contract that is well in the black should not be bothered by any such nonsense. And that goes for all those short contract holders that were hit with a margin call because of the price declines in their favor.

    Margin calls are justifiable, but there should be set procedures for them that every investor knows when it's coming in relations to "his/her" contract and only if the market is going against them and those margins should be returned if the market swings back in the opposite direction. It's not as if this would be some major paper work nightmare for the brokers, as they have computers to access the customers accounts to shuffle the margin call money back and forth at virtually no cost to them. If a customer doesn't have enough funds to meet the margin call, then let the broker charge a small fee for having to manually deal with that customer.

    Use margin calls to protect the brokers at a constant and fair rate, but don't use them to control the market at will and no one can tell me that hasn't happened. Just remember April 2011!!! It wasn't just the long contract holders that suffered all those rapid fire margin calls, everyone did as a result except the short contract holders or at least the short contract holders that could meet the margin calls.
    Last edited by valerb; 28th April 2013 at 03:05.
    I'm a proud member of Eggshellman's Liar, Shill, and bully club and a new member of the Super Jew Defense League!!!

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •