Sete momentos mais marcantes de Centeno no Banco de Portugal

[Antunes]

...ontem na RTP2?

Será que vai acontecer à JPM algo semelhante ao que aconteceu à LTCM na altura da crise Russa?

[Jetlag]

Se isso é verdade já temos o próximo escandâlo nos states.

Mas cá para mim até o FED vendia ouro para não haver mais grandes falências como seria o caso da JPmorgan.

Se for verdade nos máximos dos máximos temos um settlement e ninguém fica a saber de nada.

Já agora qual é o interesse dos Bancos nacionais em baixar o valor do ouro? O ouro n baixou pq deixou de fazer sentido a equivalência entre moeda em circulação e reservas de ouro? (já há uns bons anos).

Digam à Ferreira Leite pa vender o Ouro q o Salazar acumulou qd tivermos a bolha no ouro!

[Ulisses Pereira]

Já agora actualizo a opinião do Task.

Aaron Task

four for the road
12/18/02 06:06 PM ET

"for those following the earlier JPM/ABX saga: "Barrick dismisses allegations of anti-trust behavior as ludicrous and without merit and will vigorously pursue its legal rights and remedies," a company spokesman said in regard to the lawsuit filed earlier today by Blanchard & Co. "Barrick hasn't had the opportunity to review the complaint in detail but the press release [announcing the lawsuit] contains numerous factual inaccuracies and defamatory statements."

J.P. Morgan hasn't responded to multiple calls seeking comment.

Meanwhile, one reader who works at a major Wall Street firm but claims to have no axe to grind makes the following observation: "In reading the details of the Blanchard lawsuit, it seems one of the main complaints is that the price of gold hasn't kept pace with inflation, thus there must be a some fix. In addition, ABX hasn't disclosed the size of their trading position. If this lawsuit is right, I guess we can all sue Goldman because our stocks haven't kept up with inflation and they haven't told us the size of their daily trading positions. Someone needs to point out that just because you lost money doesn't mean the markets are rigged."

Gotta say, I had a similar reaction after my first (non-lawyerly) reading of the lawsuit. I just didn't see a "smoking gun".

Then again, I'm not a lawyer and the thing that could be worrisome for JPM/ABX shareholders, imho, is the notion that ABX violated anti-trust laws, abetted by JPM. In this day-and-age those kind of charges will likely get (at least) serious consideration from the courts."

(in www.realmoney.com)

[Ulisses Pereira]

Aqui fica o link para quem queira estar por dentro desta questão:

http://www.savegold.com

[Ulisses Pereira]

Mais um comentário de Aaron Task a este respeito:

Aaron Task

JPM. gold, part 2
12/18/02 03:08 PM ET



"Looking over that last post and Blanchard's press release it seems the firm makes a lot about how JPM and ABX did all this wheeling and dealing in private, negating "the checks and balances that come from public scrutiny," according Blanchard's Doyle.

So the question begs: If all of this was done privately, how does Blanchard/Doyle know about it. Admittedly, this is something that's been discussed openly in gold circles for some time but concrete evidence has been lacking.

Does Blanchard have that evidence? If so, JPM/ABX could be in deep H20. If not, why bring the lawsuit? (Maybe it's a C.Y.A. move after Blanchard "advised our clients to avoid gold like the plague until such time as the free market laws of supply and demand were allowed to dictate the price," according to their release.)

Meanwhile, on a seemingly separate but related note: I was recently speaking with Michael Painchaud, director of research at Market Profile Theorems in Seattle.

We were talking about insider activity of various sectors and he mentioned that while there is normally heavy insider buying for financials, "right now we’re seeing financials scoring at lower end of the normal range. We’re looking over our shoulder that there may be some big problem here in this area down the road. It's an area of concern for us."

Just something else to think/worry about"

(in www.realmoney.com)

[Karamba]

An anti-trust lawsuit filed today accuses Barrick Gold Corp., Toronto, and J.P. Morgan Chase & Co., New York City, of "unlawfully combining to actively manipulate the price of gold" and making (US)$2 billion in short-selling profits by suppressing the price of gold at the expense of individual investors.

The suit was filed by Blanchard and Company, Inc., New Orleans, the largest retail dealer in physical gold in the United States, and by Blanchard clients who bought gold bullion. Blanchard (www.blanchardonline.com) is paying the costs of the suit, which asks the Federal Court to terminate the trading agreements between Barrick and J.P. Morgan Chase and other, as yet unnamed, bullion banks. It also seeks the payment of treble damages to Blanchard's clients for the losses they have suffered as a result of Barrick's and J.P. Morgan Chase's unlawful price manipulation, anti-trust violations and unfair trade practices.

"Since the end of 1987, when the collaboration between Barrick and J.P. Morgan began, the growth of global income and wealth would have lifted the gold price to approximately $740 if the price had been able to respond to the normal laws of supply and demand," stated Blanchard's Chief Executive Officer, Donald W. Doyle, Jr. "If gold had kept pace with inflation, the price today would be approximately $760."

The lawsuit claims that in the past five years Barrick and J.P. Morgan Chase injected millions of additional ounces of gold into the market - additions that were several times as great as the annual production of every gold mine in South Africa, the largest gold producing nation in the world. By using privately negotiated derivative contracts and concealing the addition of billions of dollars worth of (physical) gold with off-balance sheet accounting, Barrick was able to make it virtually impossible for gold analysts and investors to determine the size and the market impact of its trading positions.

"The same type of accounting maze that hid Enron's debts made it possible for Barrick to manipulate the price of gold without the checks and balances that come from public scrutiny. As a percentage of Barrick's total assets, its off-balance sheet assets make Enron look like a champion of full disclosure," said Doyle. "Is Barrick a gold mining company, or is it a hedge fund with a mine out back?"

The suit alleges that J.P. Morgan Chase financed Barrick's repeated short selling with remarkably advantageous terms not available to others, including deferred repayments and no margin calls. Doyle said the short-sales scheme between the bank and Barrick appears to be the proverbial "money for nothing."

"Over the past five years, J.P. Morgan Chase loaned gold to Barrick at approximately 1.5 percent; sold the gold into the market and invested the dollar proceeds at approximately 6.5 percent; then paid both the proceeds from the sales and the 5 percent interest differential to Barrick whenever it repaid any of the borrowed gold. During a period when the price of gold dropped by more than 25%, Barrick's annual operating cash flow increased by more than 400%."

"In 1983, Barrick was a start-up with a single mine in Canada, a founder with no experience in the gold business, and principal investors from Saudi Arabia. Today, through a combination of market manipulation and a 1992 transaction that the U.S. Secretary of the Interior described as `the biggest gold heist since the days of Butch Cassidy,' Barrick has amassed off-balance sheet assets that are worth more than the market capitalizations of the next five biggest gold mining companies in the world combined," said Doyle.

Doyle explained that "Blanchard and Company was founded on the belief that gold and other tangible assets are essential to proper portfolio diversification. However, because of the illegal manipulation of its price, we advised our clients to avoid gold like the plague until such time as the free market laws of supply and demand were allowed to dictate the price. We believe that the anti-trust lawsuit filed today will stop the illegal suppression of the price of gold and other hard assets and return them to their roles as stores of value and financial insurance."

The suit was filed by the law firm of Jones, Verras & Freiberg, LLC of New Orleans in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana. It is document number 02-3721 Section C, Blanchard and Company, Inc. V. Barrick Gold Corporation; J.P. Morgan Chase & Co.; and ABC Companies. A web site is being set up to provide ongoing information, www.savegold.com

[Ulisses Pereira]

Capablanca,

Oportuníssimo este teu comentário. Deixo aqui mais uma achega ao que disseste:

"The suit was filed by New Orleans-based Blanchard & Co., the largest retail dealer in physical gold in the U.S. on behalf of the firm and its clients.

The lawsuit claims Barrick was able to use "privately negotiated derivative contracts" to conceal the addition of billions of dollars worth of (physical) gold with off-balance sheet accounting, making it "virtually impossible for gold analysts and investors to determine the size and the market impact of its trading positions," according to Blanchard's press release. JPM is accused of providing the contracts at advantageous rates.

"The same type of accounting maze that hid Enron's debts made it possible for Barrick to manipulate the price of gold without the checks and balances that come from public scrutiny," Blanchard's chief executive officer, Donald W.Doyle Jr. is quoted as saying in the release.

This notion that Wall Street firms (led by JPM) have conspired with gold hedgers (led by ABX) to supress the price of gold is the raison de etre for many gold bugs, who believe the U.S. govt, Bank of England, BIS et al are also involved in the conspiracy, or so the theory goes. Proving it in court is another thing.

Meanwhile, I'd like to share the view of SocGen's Jean- Marie Eveillard who's often said that any attempt to manipulate gold (or anything else) will prove futile if the fundamentals support a rise in the asset in question.

Who knows how this will shake out but JPM is off 3.5% vs. a 1.8% decline for the BKX. Barrick is down 4% vs. a 1.9% rise for the XAU. "

Um abraço,
Ulisses

[Capablanca]

... por alegadamente terem manipulado o preço do Ouro, que caso tivésse respondido às normais leis da procura e da oferta estaria neste momento a 740 $ (segundo a empresa que colocou a acção em tribunal).

Apenas para o registo, o JP Morgan está alavancado 725 vezes nos derivados, sendo uma grande parte short no Ouro por causa dos bullion banks e da carry trade entre ouro e obrigações - pediam ouro emprestado a taxas de menos de 0,5% aos bancos centrais, vendiam-no short no mercado e punham o dinheiro a render 5% nas OT´s (ou mais). Foi o melhor negócio do Mundo nos últimos 20 anos, mas agora ... agora, cuidado JP Morgan, por isso há pouco eu falava do corner do Ouro, os montantes short equivalem a 4 anos de produção de todas as minas do Mundo. Até a Barrick, que é produtora de Ouro, extrai o metal, vive disso, está short em vários anos de produção, é impressionante o negativismo que se criou, seria a mesma coisa que o Bill Gates andar a shortar acções da Microsoft :-) O que acontecia se todos quiséssem fechar shorts ao mesmo tempo? Não era possível, não há oferta ... eu não queria falar já sobre isto, mas não resisto, embora seja muito raro, por vezes na história os pequenos ganham aos grandes, quando a sua força se começa a catapultar e expandir por muita gente, é como se fosse uma Revolução, em que o poder é temporariamente assumido pelo povo.

Certa vez, em 1979-1980 no mercado da prata, o público e Baker Hunt começaram a comprar prata, aos commercials, aos institucionais, aos floor traders, que estavam do lado vendedor. Quase invariavelmente o público perde e os institucionais ganham, mas naquela ocasião aconteceu um «corner», que é quando os grandes ficam a perder nas suas gigantescas posições. O mesmo pode acontecer agora no Ouro. Estes JP Morgans, Goldman Sachs, estão todos shorts no Ouro de forma muita alavancada, por causa da «carry trade» de que escrevi há pouco. E eles normalmente ganham, pois o público desiste de comprar porque não sobe, eles não deixam. E eles não queriam deixar, de facto, se vocês forem ver o commitments of traders, a posição dos commercials está no máximo de shorts de sempre no Ouro. Os commercials costumam ganhar. Mas desta vez, com esta ruptura violenta dos 330 $, não sei não, se eles têm de cobrir, se são forçados a isso pela price action, o Ouro pode ter o tal corner e ir aos 5.000 $ nos próximos 2 anos (para depois crashar). Impossível? No mercado, nada é impossível ...

EMHO, que será aprofundada, não conselho de investimento.