More proof the Wall St looters have rigged all the financial markets to steal from small investors
Posted by freedomforall 7 years, 2 months ago to Business
This example is european banksters, but this is just the tip of the iceberg. US banksters invented this kind of looting.
Excerpt:
The Deutsche Bank documents show, among other things, how two UBS traders communicated directly with two Deutsche Bank traders and discussed ways to rig the market. The traders shared customer order-flow information, improperly triggered customer stop-loss orders, and engaged in practices such as spoofing, all meant to destabilize the price of silver ahead of the fix and result in forced selling or buying. It is also what has led on so many occasions to the infamous previous metals "slam", when out of nowhere billions in notional contracts emerge, usually with the intent to sell, to halt any upside moment in the precious metals/
"UBS was the third-largest market maker in the silver spot market and could directly influence the prices of silver financial instruments based on the sheer volume of silver it traded," the plaintiffs allege. "Conspiring with other large market makers, like Deutsche Bank and HSBC, only increased UBS’s ability to influence the market."
Some examples of the chats quoted are shown below. In the first example a chart between DB and HSBC traders in which one HSBC trader says "really wanna sel sil[ver" to which the other trader says "Let's go and smash it together."
Excerpt:
The Deutsche Bank documents show, among other things, how two UBS traders communicated directly with two Deutsche Bank traders and discussed ways to rig the market. The traders shared customer order-flow information, improperly triggered customer stop-loss orders, and engaged in practices such as spoofing, all meant to destabilize the price of silver ahead of the fix and result in forced selling or buying. It is also what has led on so many occasions to the infamous previous metals "slam", when out of nowhere billions in notional contracts emerge, usually with the intent to sell, to halt any upside moment in the precious metals/
"UBS was the third-largest market maker in the silver spot market and could directly influence the prices of silver financial instruments based on the sheer volume of silver it traded," the plaintiffs allege. "Conspiring with other large market makers, like Deutsche Bank and HSBC, only increased UBS’s ability to influence the market."
Some examples of the chats quoted are shown below. In the first example a chart between DB and HSBC traders in which one HSBC trader says "really wanna sel sil[ver" to which the other trader says "Let's go and smash it together."
Did rules on short selling change significantly recently? I thought I could buy the right to sell a stock at its current price for a fee. Is that no longer true?
I have an open mind, and just don't know the specifics you refer to.
Small companies who need financing are restiricted by federal regs (and possibly state regs) that make it nearly impossible to comply with the law unless the company hires a Wall St company for legal expertise and connections to prospective investors. The excuse for the regulations is to protect investors, but the result is to give near monopoly advantages to the Wall St gang who helped design the regulations for their own benefit. Look at recent history and imo investors have more to fear from Wall St than from small businesses who want to raise capital. iirc, small companies cannot exceed 30 shareholders without SEC scrutiny and lots of legal expenses for the small business. Wall St firms commonly take shares as a large part of their fees and use their connections and market tools (like short selling) to manipulate the share prices of small companies. When the small business needs more funding (issuing shares) the prices are manipulated downward so more shares must be issued and the original owners lose control. With the large competitors in collusion with Wall St this results in bigger companies buying out innovative small businesses at fire sale prices. With the internet as a tool today Wall St's monopoly is vulnerable to competition, but banksters will use their access (Treasury Dept) to prevent it as they have for decades.
I do not understand your statements or wh
Read my posts on this topic and perhaps you will start to understand. If you actually want to know the truth, do some research. Richard Ney exposed some of this in his books on the Wall St Gang, and it is even more insidious today. Speculative bubbles are created by Wall St for profit, then when the public is in a frenzy from the media propaganda, Wall St unloads their positions and goes short. Then they reverse the propaganda and use their ability to manipulate the markets and the news to profit from crashing the shares they encouraged the public to buy.
When you buy the right to sell a stock at it's current price for a fee. I believe you mean is purchasing a put option, but they have what is called a strike price not current price. The current price of the stock may be higher or lower than the strike price. The price you pay for the option will be the intrinsic value plus the premium. The premium relates to the time to expiration. Could be one day or nine months and for some stocks even longer.
Another thing to keep in mind is not all stocks have options.
Shorting stocks is another story you have to "borrow stock" to short it and sometimes it not available or there is a charge depending on demand. I have also seen a short seller forced to buy back because the borrowed stock is called away.
I'm long puts on SPY because I think the market understates volatility, and at these multiples we're "due" for a correction.
I bought into the tech bubble in the late 90s, though, so you can't believe my predictions.
They are puts. I trade them (buying and writing) all the time. Lately, though, I'm buying them b/c I think the market understates volatility and overvalues stocks. I'm right maybe 50% of the time, though, so you'll get better results with a magic eight ball than listening to me.
1.) Instead of a bunch of bullshit regulations that are impossible by the losers at the SEC to enforce (many of whom are trying to get a job at a bank), lets try this - The government regulation is in the form of providing a cyber filter on the data connections to any licensed trading establishment. Guess what, no Twitter, no FaceBook, no text messages, emails are filtered through a SIEM for white and blacklisting, and phone call traffic is logged.
2.) The traders work in a SCIF. Guess what, their cell phones don't work. They go in ahead of the market day, and they leave when its over. They can return personal phone calls at lunch when it wouldn't make any difference in the market.
Ultimately, I happen to think the banks need to not be in the trading business and there needs to be a lot more transparency into what is bought and owned by pensions & 401k funds. On the individual investor level, let the buyer beware. Gold & Silver has always been a volatile investment, it ebbs and flows with the strength of the dollar (basically). Buying gold or silver is a bet against the dollar. I don't think I'd be betting against the dollar with a Trump presidency. 8 years ago when Obummer was firing up the printing presses at the Mint, it was the only investment in town.
The Euro is going to pretty much be in free-fall with Brexit and now France and others considering a removal of themselves from the EU. It won't be long before the euro is basically the Deutschmark.
The traders where the problem is are the ones trading for the banks and with the banks' money. They act for themselves, not on behalf of a client.
The dipshits with an art history degree that manage individual or mutual fund accounts and whatever are not these types of people, some of the bond desk and equity traders that work for the banks are in the tens and hundreds of millions in bonus dollar income range per year. They are the best of the best, and they don't bet on charts or intuition, they are certainly collaborating and "moving" the market in the direction they want. When you control hundreds of billions, you can make that kind of influence.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/how-one-g...
All of the banks are into the trillions of revenue and profit annually from their own market trading activities (not on behalf of a client).
http://www.forbes.com/sites/greatspec...
They also do high-frequency trading like most other large market participants, they have computer software that looks for momentary drops below average on a security and will buy everything available at that slight discount, then sell back when slightly above average, etc.
A major criticism of the practice in general has long been that these guys are controlling massive sums of investable capital, have nothing but incentive to take a huge risk (for a huge bonus), and if they lose, it's not really their own money, they can go somewhere else or just make it up on the next trade. The bigger issue is that there is no one day when everyone is a winner on Wall Street, it's a zero-sum game, so every winner has a reciprocating loser. These guys are operating with a lot of information that isn't available or affordable to the individual investors they normally beat.
While I agree in general daily trading Wall Street is a zero sum game, but in the long run this is just not so. Wealth is created by companies, and some of it is reflected in stock prices. Apple or Google for example did not take money from somewhere else to create their markets and stock value.
It seems to me, an argument can be made that high-frequency trading creates no value, is purely opportunistic and inappropriately favors the banks and large institutions. That might be an area some regulation is needed? Perhaps lift some ridiculous Sarbaynes-Oxley and add that.
(Hardcore sarcasm)--> I look forward to a shift toward tight fiscal and monetary policy. LMAO
0 +1 = 1. Your post does not deserve a zero or maybe you asked the wrong question.
Moving on to inspect three more zeros.