Assessing The Latest Bank Participation Report

Tue, May 10, 2016 - 11:22am

We monitor the daily open interest changes in Comex gold and silver. We also wait each Friday for the latest Commitment of Traders report. Once a month, however, we also get the Bank Participation Report and, though it might be complete garbage and full of lies, we also need to consider this report for some historical perspective.

We've written about these CFTC-generated reports so many times, it would be impossible to link every post. However, nearly every post began with these bullet points. Here they are again, just so that we're on the same page:

  • The CFTC's Bank Participation Report is issued monthly from a survey taken at the Comex close on the first Tuesday of every month. The report summarizes the combined positions of the four largest U.S. banks (primarily JPM, MorganStanley, Citi, Goldman but occasionally others) and the twenty largest non-U.S. banks (Scotia, HSBC, DeutscheBank, UBS, Barclays and others).
  • These reports might be utter nonsense and complete falsifications, designed to mislead you and get you leaning the wrong way. In 2014, JPMorgan was fined by the CFTC for "repeatedly submitting inaccurate reports relating to the required reporting of positions". See here:

Again, we know that what The Banks report as their "positions" provides an incomplete picture at best. Not only do The Banks maintain considerable long and short bets in the OTC market, they also operate numerous, offshore hedge funds and utilize these funds to take positions not included in the CFTC data as "commercial". So, what good are these reports? Similar to the weekly Commitment of Traders reports, the Bank Participation Report is only useful/interesting when considered historically. Here's an example. Note how the positioning of the 24 Banks changed through 2015:


U.S. Banks 20,927 29,543 -8,616

Non-US Banks 21,154 73,145 -51,191

TOTAL -59,817

Price rallied in early 2015, reaching the 2015 high of $1308 in late January and, by the first Tuesday of February 2015, the report looked like this:


U.S. Banks 9,163 65,901 -56,738

Non-US Banks 20,009 96,264 -76,255

TOTAL -132,993

As you no doubt recall, price then declined through the balance of 2015 as the bear trend continued. The 24 Banks used this price weakness to add a few longs and cover a bunch of shorts. By the December BPR, the data looked like this:


U.S. Banks 9,613 42,866 -33,253

Non-US Banks 39,407 36,911 +2,496

TOTAL -30,757

Yes, you are reading that correctly...The 20 Non-US Banks actually had a cumulative NET LONG position in Comex gold futures as of 12/1/15. And even as price began to rally in late December and early January, the report still revealed this:


U.S. Banks 6,387 49,447 -43,060

Non-US Banks 35,499 37,698 -2,199

TOTAL -45,259

And we all know what happened next. Aided by a sharply falling USDJPY and the installation of negative interest rates in Japan and in the Eurozone, gold has rallied strongly. Along the way, it has finally broken out of its 3-year downtrend, its moving averages have all bullishly crossed and the mining shares have soared by over 100%.

So, have The Banks...particularly the Non-US Banks...played along and made fiat cash? Have they just been neutral in their efforts to "provide and maintain orderly markets"? Hardly. The latest Bank Participation Report was surveyed last Tuesday and released last Friday. It revealed this:


U.S. Banks 10,791 118,437 -107,646

Non-US Banks 21,905 109,511 -87,606

TOTAL -195,262

Again, what good are these numbers without context? So, here's some context:

  • Last week's Commitment of Traders report showed the total NET short position of the Comex gold "Commercials" to be 294,901 contracts. We now know that 66% of this cumulative position comes from accounts specifically reported to be "Banks".
  • Note that during the price rally, The 24 Banks have not only added massive shorts, they've also sold existing longs. Are these the actions of entities looking to profit from higher prices or lower prices?
  • Adding together ALL of the 24 Bank positions you get 260,644 contracts. Last Tuesday's cumulative open interest was 565,774. Thus, as of last Tuesday, The 24 Banks held a stake in 46% of ALL open interest on the gold Comex. Compare that to 12/1/15 when The 24 Banks held 33% of all open interest.
  • And don't forget, the standard Cartel Shills and Apologists will argue that these altruistic Banks are just performing a public service. They're "making an orderly market" and simply "providing needed services" for miners wishing to "hedge and forward sell future production".

But lastly, here's the point of this post and the context of which you simply must be aware...

After peaking in September of 2011, paper price fell to $1525 in a few weeks. Over the next 12 months, price gradually recovered and, when The Bernank announced QE3 in September of 2012, every single precious metals "analyst" (including this one!) thought that even higher prices were a near certainty. We all knew what had happened to the paper price of gold through QE1 and QE2 and, more importantly, we all knew the long-term relationship between the price of gold, the level of U.S. debt and the Federal Reserve balance sheet. See here:

But a funny thing happened on the way to the coin shop. As we all know, gold DID NOT go higher. Instead, against all logic and intuition, gold went lower. Slowly at first and then all at once in the massive raids of April 12-15, 2013, which broke long-term support of $1525 and sent us to the final bottom and lows of late last year.

As a point of interest, perhaps we should check the Bank Participation Report from early October of 2012. Recall that price back then was near $1800 (versus near $1300 today) and total Comex gold open interest was 481,000 contracts (versus 566,000 last Tuesday).


U.S. Banks 40,625 146,809 -106,184

Non-US Banks 34,881 113,445 -78,564

TOTAL -184,748

So, let's summarize. Though the data provided by the admitted lying Banks is incomplete and though the report is compiled by the criminally-complicit CFTC, you should be certain to take note of the similarities. Just as in late 2012, the situation "feels" strong and the fundamental case for paper gold is compelling. However, which forces actually control the paper market? Do such things as physical fundamentals matter? Do macro-economic conditions matter? Or, does the positioning of the market-manipulating Banks play a larger role in determining the future direction of "price"?

As you can see, we're now three and a half years later and price is over $500 lower...yet The 24 Banks now have a summary NET short position that is more extreme than ever. Will The Banks lose this time? Will they be forced to cover shorts into higher prices instead of lower? Will there be physical delivery failures as gold ownership increases globally? Or will The Banks simply be successful again in rigging prices lower so that they can profitably cover their ill-gotten shorts?

We'll see. Chances are we're not going to have to wait long to find out. As always, prepare accordingly.


About the Author

turd [at] tfmetalsreport [dot] com ()


May 10, 2016 - 11:25am



It's been a while. laugh

May 10, 2016 - 11:32am


Truly a nice summary. Thanks, 

May 10, 2016 - 11:40am

Oh when the Saints

come Marchasing in... Oh Lord I want to be in that number!

You snooze, you lose ;^)


May 10, 2016 - 11:41am
Royal Flush
May 10, 2016 - 11:47am

Good read :)

Good read :)

May 10, 2016 - 11:49am

Yeah, #2

Been a while, for me two.

Please do remember our Second Amendment, a primary componant for enforcement of our Constitution, which, as a reminder, ALL US enforcement personel swear to protect against domestic threat.

Stack all primary metals: Gold and Silver, plus their wayward cousin Lead.

May 10, 2016 - 12:15pm

Is this important - Dudley white flag waving

It wouldn't be a stretch to have seen the IMF Spring Thing as a critical and perhaps final bargaining session for everybody to get on board - events before like the SGE opening and DB admissions and oil price indecision would have forced PTB to the table; not to mention Obama got/received marching orders in Argentina, from the Queen etal, and went to see Herr Merkel

So we pass a bit of time; oil indecision still exist although price keeps climbing and DB settlement gone wery quiet wabbit. Sssh!

A couple of other events I've seen, but this Dudley speech seems to be a bit of give-in and perhaps provide a way to move forward. Here's a couple other comments on his speech:

  • US would not necessarily lose if USD alternatives become reserve currencies
  • US need not fear challenges to US dollar
  • USD value can be driven primarily by events abroad
  • USD's reserve status can push its value “out of line”!/feds-dudley-says-us-dollar-should-remain-key-reserve-currency-if-us-keeps-house-20160510

don't think much of the word regime - but it fits sort of

A regime with many reserve currencies would imply a well-governed international economy. “I don’t see this as a zero-sum game,” he said.

And here's the speech - I say its a roadmap for getting the USD out of the way and shifting blame off the fed (hard to do) and on to government - or at least sharing the bad guy rep. I have italicized what sticks out for me. Its also interesting that the Fed recently shat upon JPM living will process - affecting the stability of the USA if I remember the comment

Panel Remarks at the 7th High-Level Conference on the International Monetary System May 10, 2016 William C. Dudley, President and Chief Executive Officer Remarks at the 7th High-Level Conference on the International Monetary System, Zürich, Switzerland As prepared for delivery

It is a great pleasure to have the opportunity to participate in this panel. To me, the question posed for discussion seems relatively straightforward: Will more reserve currencies strengthen the international monetary system? My answer can be summed up in one word: “yes.” I believe that a reserve currency—or at least an enduring and important one—has to have a number of demonstrated attributes. These include that the reserve currency country has a strong and credible institutional structure; that its policymakers follow a sustainable fiscal regime as well as a monetary policy that keeps inflation low and stable over time; and that the currency is readily convertible and serves as a stable store of value. These are good attributes for any country—reserve currency or not. The greater the number of countries that have such attributes, the more stable and sound the global financial system is likely to be. Also, such a regime is desirable because it provides an environment that should encourage international trade and an efficient allocation of resources, which, in turn should lift productivity and living standards.

As always, what I have to say today reflects my own view and not necessarily those of the Federal Open Market Committee or the Federal Reserve System.1

Although a reserve currency can formally be defined as any currency that is part of a foreign country’s foreign exchange reserve holdings, I do not think this is what we have in mind when we talk about a reserve currency.

While the status of being a reserve currency can be conferred, the stature of being a reserve currency must be earned. As I see it, a successful reserve currency needs to satisfy a number of conditions. First, the currency needs to be fully convertible—with no risk of restrictions that could limit the ability to convert such holdings into cash denominated in the investors’ domestic currency. Second, the reserve currency country needs to have deep, liquid and transparent capital markets so that the sovereign debt instruments and other high-quality debt obligations can be bought and sold at narrow bid-ask spreads and easily converted to and from cash. Third, the assets in the country must be governed by a well-understood, consistent and enforceable legal regime. This is to ensure that investors’ rights will be well protected, regardless of short-term political developments or changes in the governing regime. Fourth, the financial system in the country must be strong and stable to ensure that liquidity will be available even during times of stress. Fifth, the risk of default on the country’s sovereign debt must be viewed as negligible, to ensure both that the currency is a stable store of value and that continuous, deep liquid domestic markets will be available regardless of the economic circumstances. Sixth, the country must have a credible central bank that is insulated from political interference and committed to keeping inflation low and stable—a necessary condition for a reserve currency to be a reliable store of value.

I think that the U.S. dollar satisfies these general criteria. That is why over 60 percent of foreign exchange reserve holdings are denominated in dollars—a share that has been quite stable in recent years. The dollar’s share has remained steady despite the presence of a number of currencies that broadly satisfy the attributes that I have just discussed.

But should the U.S. be concerned if more countries satisfy the attributes needed to be successful reserve currencies? Would it be problematic for the United States if the U.S. dollar share of foreign exchange holdings slipped over time because of progress made elsewhere?

I think the answer to both of these questions is “no.” It would seem positive to me if a decline in the U.S. market share reflected the following developments: a greater number of stable and effective central banks and fiscal authorities, more investors who are reassured about countries’ institutional arrangements and financial stability, and deeper and more liquid capital markets outside the United States. These attributes are a prerequisite for a vibrant international financial system and are supportive to global trade. A regime with many reserve currencies would imply a well-governed international economy. This should facilitate global investment, resulting in rising productivity growth and improving standards of living. In other words, I don’t see this as a zero-sum game. If other countries’ currencies emerge to gain stature as reserve currencies, it is not obvious to me that the United States loses. This is assuming, of course, that the emergence of alternatives is being driven by their progress, rather than by the U.S. doing a poorer job in satisfying the attributes that I discussed earlier.

Having more countries achieve the stature of having a reserve currency may also be desirable for other reasons. First, with more reserve currencies available, portfolio diversification opportunities are enhanced. This is desirable because, all else equal, it would allow investors to move further out on the risk/return frontier. Second, more currencies are likely to be close substitutes, which could dampen currency volatility. With many viable reserve currencies available, no particular one would necessarily have to bear the bulk of any adjustment.

The dollar’s dominant reserve currency status has sometimes been referred to as the United States’ “exorbitant privilege,” implying that the U.S. benefits extraordinarily from this privileged status. I’d argue that the situation is much more nuanced. Yes, this status does allow the U.S. to benefit from seigniorage. More than half of all U.S. currency outstanding is held abroad. But, there are also costs of being the dominant reserve currency. For example, this can lead to shifts in the valuation of the dollar that are due primarily to developments abroad that affect risk appetites and international capital flows. In such cases, the dollar’s valuation can be pushed to levels inconsistent with U.S. economic fundamentals.

For the United States, I believe that the most important goal must be to keep our own house in order. If we do this, then I expect that the U.S. dollar will earn the right to remain the most important reserve currency in the world.

The United States has a number of advantages in sustaining the dominant reserve currency status of the U.S. dollar. First, there is a first-mover advantage. As the leading reserve currency in the world, there is no strong incentive for countries to move to other currencies as long as the dollar continues to have the attributes I discussed earlier. The history of reserve currency usage is characterized by considerable inertia. The U.S. dollar emerged as the leading reserve currency quite a bit after it became the world’s largest economy. Typically, the loss of dominant reserve currency status requires either substantial economic decline or political instability that motivates foreign counterparties to shift to a new reserve currency. Second, the U.S. has the deepest and most liquid capital markets in the world. This is important in making U.S. Treasuries and agency mortgage-backed securities attractive holdings as part of countries’ foreign exchange reserve portfolios. Third, the U.S. has an independent central bank—the Federal Reserve—which has been successful in keeping inflation low and stable. As a result, the dollar has been a reliable store of value in recent years.

Another point in the United States’ favor is the considerable steps taken to shore up areas of weakness revealed by the financial crisis. In particular, the safety and soundness of our financial system has been enhanced. Capital and liquidity requirements for U.S. banks have been raised significantly. Stress tests have been imposed to enhance the viability of large systemic institutions even in very adverse economic and financial environments. Reforms have been enacted to facilitate the recovery and resolution of troubled institutions. This includes living will requirements for the major systemically-important financial institutions, and the development of an improved resolution regime to ensure that institutions that do get into difficulty can be resolved without disrupting the stability of the financial system.

In conclusion, I welcome other countries’ progress toward achieving the preconditions necessary for their currencies to attain the stature of a reserve currency. However, we should not act as if this is sufficient to achieve a well-functioning global financial system. In particular, the current regime is inefficient in a number of important ways. Countries have found it necessary to self-insure against the risk of large capital flow reversals. This has led to a very sharp rise in aggregate foreign exchange reserve holdings. This form of self-insurance is very expensive—especially when the return on the foreign exchange reserve portfolio is less than the cost of the domestic liabilities that fund these holdings. As I have said in the past, I encourage more work to examine whether there are other more efficient regimes that, for example, would economize on required foreign exchange reserve buffers. In this regard, I think expanding the capacity of the IMF’s resources and working to further de-stigmatize drawing on the IMF’s liquidity facilities could be worthwhile steps in this direction.

Thank you for your kind attention.


May 10, 2016 - 12:30pm

Chuck Butler (Daily Pfennig)

" The latest CAPEX report from Canada. CAPEX is capital Expenditures, the lifeblood of any economy...And CAPEX spending is down again this year, following a down year in 2015...Declining investment in energy equipment is the biggest culprit here...I've long told you all how important CAPEX spending is for any economy...And here in the U.S. our CAPEX spending is just plain awful, with companies opting to spend their money on stock buybacks instead of new equipment, etc. Just another reason I'm not of the opinion that the dollar can continue being strong...".

May 10, 2016 - 12:32pm

A little something from Keneth Rogoff

CAMBRIDGE – Are emerging-market central banks overweight in dollars and underweight in gold? Given a slowing global economy, in which emerging markets are probably very grateful for any reserves they retain, this might seem an ill-timed question. But there is a good case to be made that a shift in emerging markets toward accumulating gold would help the international financial system function more smoothly and benefit everyone.

Just to be clear, I am not siding with those – usually American far-right crackpots – who favor a return to the gold standard, in which countries fix the value of their currencies in terms of gold. After all, the gold standard’s last reign ended disastrously in the 1930s, and there is no reason to believe that a return to it would turn out any differently...

Here's the article in full. Rogoff was the chief economist for the IMF in the early 2000's

May 10, 2016 - 12:35pm


My friend emailed me today and said he is just sitting in cash on the sidelines waiting to see which way gold and silver go.

i think bill holter might be right. there may not be a moment to just jump in and play. it might be too late way after the fact.

not sure how many of you feel but i'm sitting in my pm positions and just waiting now.

May 10, 2016 - 12:37pm

What if... futures were actually settled in gold

What if things 'got settled' - like agreement on reserve currencies, gold necklaces, and so on. If we follow Jim Willie's three stage solution : gold trade settlement - done and working with Iran and India setting oil for goods with Turkey in the middle doing gold messenger service; then bank recapitalization, and finally currencies.

Could the futures contracts be a way of distributing gold to banks? Yes, the really big assumption is that JPM gets the gold - but what if China leased to USA and USA provided to JPM and JPM sent it out and even back to China or other banks. The silver hoard of JPM could go the same way - they could keep a little as payment for services. The bigger set of shorts may be cause more banks are getting on board to recap.

Somebody made an earlier comment that 'real' speculators would not keep coming to get regularly fleeced - applicable now - whose fighting the big bad banks? banks masking as spec's?

Everything above board and legit - those pesky hedge funds would still have to take cash - probably agreed to it when they entered the casino.

I know SS121 - nothing actually movessmiley. Luv ya man, he said in a bro kind of way

May 10, 2016 - 12:50pm

Turd, (or anybody who understands these reports)

I still, after all these years, have NO idea how the nuts of and bolts of these reports work.

Question: Validity of the data aside, do the current numbers say that higher chart prices would be bad for the big banks position??

May 10, 2016 - 12:57pm

Sidelines with twippers

I am with you twippers on the sidelines. I will continue to hold all my stash and miners as some huge move in the metals to the upside is very possible. You mentioned Bill Holter and recently Jim Willie talked about China perhaps pushing the prices much higher overnight at some point. Turd also expressed holding strong as well. 

May 10, 2016 - 1:04pm

Someone on ZH just called me

Someone on ZH just called me an "unwitting dupe". That's beautiful. The next time I sign up for a website, I'm definitely using that moniker!

Dyna mo hum
May 10, 2016 - 1:16pm



May 10, 2016 - 1:16pm

From "Turd" to "Unwitting Dupe"

Your prestige is on the rise among the hoi polli. smiley

May 10, 2016 - 1:17pm


Dupe a victim of deception!!

Er !! that includes all of us, we are continually being deceived are we not?

Its just that we Turdites can see it and happily point it out to the real Dupes - those soft bastards that cannot see they are being shafted!!

 even if we cannot do bugger all about it!! 

Must admit I had a face like a bulldog licking piss off a thistle, looking at my miners yesterday but it'll pass!

May 10, 2016 - 1:22pm


Because it sets you apart from all those other, 'witting' dupes.

Copied someone else, didn't think about what he said before he said it.

May 10, 2016 - 1:23pm


Turd you will never be an unwitting dupe. You'll always be a huge pile of shit to all of us loyal turdites.

May 10, 2016 - 1:24pm

Must be Moriarty

That's the only dupe I've read in a long time

May 10, 2016 - 1:25pm

As opposed to:

"Wittingly duped" which is chanting in some memorized tone that any monetary transaction negated by non-enforcement of law, or, at best, punished with some inconsequential fine, is just the way it is. Get over it.

I believe I'm an "informed dupe". Thanks to TFMR.

Response to ZH namecalling.

Whitecastle123 C1
May 10, 2016 - 1:30pm


Turn brainwashed me and Pining is lurking in the shadows following my every move. I think I have neurotica .

May 10, 2016 - 1:37pm

The stackless, unwashed masses

are getting rambunctious and petty. Tsk, tsk. And we are supposed to save them?!?

edit: Let them vote for hitlery and serve in the US diplomatic corps in Benghazi, for all I care.

Safety Dan
May 10, 2016 - 1:39pm

Ready For South China Sea Disputes To Go" Hot"?

"The US Threatened China's Sovereignty" - China Scrambles Fighter Jets After US Warship Sails Near Disputed Reef

Following the latest escalation in South China Sea territorial tensions, which culminated with China refusing to grant the Stennis aircarrier group access to the Hong Kong port, overnight the US decided to provoke some more Chinese anger when it sailed the guided missile destroyer the USS William P. Lawrence within 12 nautical miles of Chinese-occupied Fiery Cross Reef, according to U.S. Defense Department spokesman, Bill Urban said. This was the third warship the US has sent into contested waters in the South China Sea in less than seven months.

Chinese facilities on Fiery Cross Reef include a 3,000-metre (10,000-foot) runway which the United States worries China will use it to press its extensive territorial claims at the expense of weaker rivals.


Since the entire purpose of this latest provocation was to observe China's response, it succeeded when China promptly scrambled two fighter jets in proximity to the U.S. navy ship, a patrol China denounced as an illegal threat to peace which only went to show its defense installations in the area were necessary. China's Defence Ministry said that in addition to the two fighter, an additional three warships shadowed the U.S. ship, telling it to leave.

The U.S. patrol "again proves that China's construction of defensive facilities on the relevant reefs in the Nansha Islands is completely reasonable and totally necessary", it said, using China's name for the Spratly Islands where much of its reclamation work is taking place.

Foreign Ministry spokesman Lu Kang said the U.S. ship illegally entered Chinese waters.

Additionally, China's foreign ministry expressed anger after a U.S. navy warship carried out a freedom of navigation operation near a disputed reef in the South China Seas. Ministry spokesman Lu Kang told a daily news briefing the ship illegally entered the waters without China's permission and that the move threatened peace and stability.

"This action by the U.S. side threatened China's sovereignty and security interests, endangered the staff and facilities on the reef, and damaged regional peace and stability," he told a daily news briefing.

This will not be the end of it. China claims most of the South China Sea, through which $5 trillion in ship-borne trade passes every year. The Philippines, Vietnam, Malaysia, Taiwan and Brunei have overlapping claims.

As Reuters adds, the Pentagon last month called on China to reaffirm it has no plans to deploy military aircraft in the Spratly Islands after China used a military plane to evacuate sick workers from Fiery Cross. Ironically, the US makes sure China does just that with its recurring "freedom of navigation operations" in what China considers its own territory; the same way Russia reacts to US spy plans flying in close proximity to its borders.

"Fiery Cross is sensitive because it is presumed to be the future hub of Chinese military operations in the South China Sea, given its already extensive infrastructure, including its large and deep port and 3000-metre runway," said Ian Storey, a South China Sea expert at Singapore's ISEAS Yusof Ishak Institute. 

"The timing is interesting, too. It is a show of U.S. determination ahead of President Obama's trip to Vietnam later this month."

The good news is that while China has reacted with anger to previous U.S. freedom of navigation operations - including the overflight of fighter planes near the disputed Scarborough Shoal last month, and when long-range U.S. bombers flew near Chinese facilities under construction on Cuarteron Reef in the Spratlys last November - so far responses have avoided more dramatic escalation.

Adding to the potential volatility of the situation, Rodrigo Duterte who looks set to become president of the Philippines after an election on Monday, has proposed multilateral talks on the South China Sea. A Chinese diplomat warned last week that criticism of China over the South China Sea "would rebound like a coiled spring."

The Chinese navy over the past week carried out combat drills in the South China Sea, led by the Hefei, one of the country’s most advanced missile destroyers, according to official Xinhua News Agency. Five other vessels participated, along with three helicopters and dozens of “special warfare” soldiers.

May 10, 2016 - 1:54pm


Turd ( Unwitting Dupe) Fergurson. 


TUD for short has a ring to it. Might have some merit as well.


@ Twippers- stock allocation -30% miners, 20 % CEF/PHYS/PSLV, 20% TGLDX, 30% cash. I am also concerned with what Holder said. However, calling the time is always the issue. Until that happens we could always see some down side and I want to be able to pick up more individual miners then.

Safety Dan
May 10, 2016 - 1:54pm

Indict Hillary and ....

This is something I've been concerned about; the Justice Department (Snort! Yeah, right!) finally indicts Hillary and dyed-in-the-wool Democrats, who would never vote for a Communist/Socialist like Bernie and really hated the idea of voting for Hillary (so much so that they would have stayed home), finally have a candidate they can get behind. 

May 10, 2016 - 1:56pm

HUI Reversal Day

Happening now... if that means anything.

May 10, 2016 - 1:59pm



May 10, 2016 - 2:06pm

Thanks Turd for opening my eyes

Turd, years ago I was an unwitting Dupe fooled to believe all the nonsense and lies being fed to the masses. Thanks to you and others like you I have a chance to survive and prosper in the years to come.

May 10, 2016 - 2:07pm

@Turd Re: Someone on ZH just called me

I sense great irony were that troll to be on the gubberment payroll

Edit: I take it back, I just read BobEore's comments in context, and he reminds me of the fellow who posted a couple of articles on the SRSRocco Report a few years back. He had a website, since defunct, called "beyondjimwillie", where he posted dire warnings that the end of the West was nigh, then dropped out of sight.

His handle was roguefaction, and if he is not BobEore, they sure write a lot alike and appear to be to be coming from essentially exactly the same place. Roguefaction definitely practiced what he preached. He was totally GOTS, and long gone, man, somewhere deep in the Australian outback!... I appreciated his point of view, and if I was a younger man with no attachments, I'd be sorely tempted to follow suit!

By 'unwitting dupe' I think that he, both or either is of the opinion that if those of us investing in metals and miners think that is all we need to do to avoid consequences of what they see as inevitably coming down with TEOTGKE, then we are not looking anywhere near deeply enough down into the rabbit hole. 

That's my take on why BobEore is classifying Turd an unwitting dupe..., while also demeaning many of us turdites as participants in a hapless circle jerk. All I can say is maybe he's right, time will tell. Here is a very important podcast along these lines that I recommend everyone take the time to listen to. I'm sure BobEore/roguefaction would heartily approve:

Become a gold member and subscribe to Turd's Vault


Donate  Shop

Get Your Subscriber Benefits

Exclusive discount for silver purchases, and a private iTunes feed for TF Metals Report podcasts!

Key Economic Events Week of 1/21

1/22 10:00 ET Existing Home Sales
1/24 9:45 ET Markit Manu and Svc PMI
1/24 10:00 ET Leading Econ Indicators
1/25 8:30 ET Durable Goods
1/25 10:00 ET New Home Sales

Key Economic Events Week of 1/14

1/15 8:30 am ET Producer Price Index
1/15 8:30 am ET Empire State Mfg. Index
1/16 8:30 am ET Retail Sales
1/16 8:30 am ET Import Price Index
1/17 8:30 am ET Housing Starts
1/17 8:30 am ET Philly Fed
1/18 9:15 am ET Capacity Utilization and Ind. Prod.

Key Economic Events Week of 1/7

1/7 10:00 ET ISM Services Index
1/7 10:00 ET Factory Orders
1/9 2:00 ET December FOMC minutes 
1/10 Speeches from CGP, Goons Bullard and Evans
1/11 8:30 ET CPI

Recent Comments