JPM Silver Rigging Dismissal Overturned

The Appeals Court Overturns the Dismissal Yesterday: The appellate court held that the plaintiffs did in fact submitted evidence that did in fact reach a level warranting further investigation. Therefore, the case should not have been dismissed.


In quoting the law, the 3 judges stated:





A plaintiff need only allege enough facts ‘to raise a right to relief above the speculative level,’ and ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’


They stated that Judge Enlgemayer’s requirements for such specifics were too high to reach, describing the proof bar being raised to “a level of detail not required to withstand a motion to dismiss”



 


In essence what Judge Engelmeyer asked of the plaintiffs was impossible to ascertain in those proceedings.  





Specifically: “Fact-specific questions cannot be resolved on the pleadings.”



 


Can JP Morgan Monopolize Silver? Yes


The appellate court noted that the plaintiffs' allegation of JP Morgan’s ability to control silver futures prices with reference to a particular market was proven correct. Thus,


"The District Court did not err in concluding that the Plaintiffs plausibly alleged a relevant market.”


This means that the plaintiffs showed plausibility that JP Morgan could control the far end of the Silver futures term structure via non-competitive bids.To traders, that means the JPM client who had to sell back month was faded way too low. [EDIT- And when one looks at the term structure from then, it is obvious that no true physical demand was in evidence based on the spot contango.- Vince Lanci]


Did JP Morgan Monopolize Silver?  To be Determined


The Appeals court did not say they believed JP Morgan exercised such ability to monopolize the Silver market. But the statement that they noted the power to do so was proven in the first hearing is significant in that it agrees with the District court’s findings.


 


Now What?



  1. The appellate court says the plaintiffs made a sufficient enough case for further investigation into a monopoly claim

  2. The findings of the appellate court will accompany the case file

  3. Judge Engelmeyer’s decision is removed and the case is remanded for further litigation and discovery


 


MarketSlant's Analysis post the decision in June, 2016





 SIFO IS KEY


Given the (lawsuits') failure both to explain why SIFO should track silver futures spreads, and to concretely plead that it did so consistently, a mere general correlation between these two is not sufficient to make SIFO a reliable benchmark such that deviations from it support a claim of irrational pricing animated by anticompetitive aims," Engelmayer wrote.


Analysis:  a poor job was done explaining the role of SIFO in spread pricing.


SIFO represents the spread between expirations of FORWARD physical contracts in silver. The futures spread markets are derivative of the SIFO spreads. SIFO represents the cost-of-carry for physical silver and is used in determining lease/borrow rates over periods of time. These are in-turn extrapolated and the dominant factor in determining futures spreads on COMEX. Comex spreads are a direct function of SIFO. Without SIFO there are no spreads. And since SIFO was a much bigger market than the Comex spread market. The pricing mechanism was not fully transaparent. It was in the hands of a few dominant cartel-like players, as it had been for 30 years.


 


Analysis: The demand was fabricated


The market was only partially backwardated. Spot was below the next 6 expirations. Translation: there was no massive demand for immediate delivery. There was only demand in months where the last remaining floor traders who took risk trading their own money had positions. JPM's own book was likely short and had to get liquidity to cover their own positions. We knew Shak from our floor days, and were trading spreads off floor when this happened. They should not have lost this case. Comex traders do not trade spot. Spot was under the backwardation. Smoking gun? No, but damning circumstantial evidence in the least. 


 


Bottom Line on the Trade


What most likely really happened then was a silver miner had to hedge forward and cover up front. JPM likely had this client cornered and faded their back month bids. The miner, having no where else he could go, hit them OTC, when they were much better bid on the floor. The floor locals were un over. Meanwhile no otehr Bullion dealer was involved on either end of the trade. ifthis is true, think about the lock down JPM had with that client. Once SIFO and COMEX spreads are proven to be linked, the case will be made.



Blythe Did a Mini Buffet to a Client


How come in 1997 when Warren Buffet, who actually stood for delivery, the market did not rally until AFTER the spreads backwardated all the way to spot? Yet in 2011, the market had rallied already, and all of a sudden spreads (literally overnight during asian and london hours) went into backwardation? In a real market, the spread activity predicts the physical demand before the flat price does. You see the spot price start to act squirrelly to the front month future in the EFP. There are exceptions to this. But it is rare.


This trader also remembers that in 1997, Buffet was asked by the Govt to defer his request for delivery a year. He happily complied by selling spot and rolling out to a 1 year future. Payout? He netted an ROR of 40% due to negative carry without selling. Effectively he lent the producers their silver back to them ($7.40) at a premium of approximately 40% higher than his cost ($4.50). So Blythe did a "mini" Buffet, that's all.


Why wasn't that opportunity afforded SHAK and other locals? Does that have to be answered beyond this: In Mr. Buffet's case "the integrity of the market was at stake"( Hunt Brother's anyone?). The whole Silver mining industry was in jeopardy. (TBTF). But  in Shak v.JPM only locals got burned. I'm sure each one of my arguments for manipulation can be taken apart by some lawyer or expert. But that is what they do. Facts against them? Argue the Law. Law against them? Argue the facts. Both against them? Use ad hominum attacks to shoot the messenger. 


Good Luck



 








< Prev 1 2 Next >

Sign Up

Get the InvestingChannel
Free e-Letter Today

Learn More

Independent market opinion, analysis and ideas - delivered every business day

Premium market opinions, analysis, and ideas - delivered every business day

Editor's Picks