O JPMorganChase

[Gość: Bert]

Why Gold Is Under Pressure

By James Sinclair and Harry Schultz
7-26-2

There is no question in our mind that the extreme
selling in gold by Chase/Morgan/Goldman, which occurred
for the third time at $322 and continues today at $305
from the same source, has the distinct purpose of
making sure that the enormous derivative on Morgan's
books (as reported to the U.S. Office of the
Comptroller of the Currency) does not show the loss
that, we believe, would have existed at $322, as
Morgan's credit standing is certain to be re-evaluated.
With the recent negative publicity concerning
derivative transactions at Morgan with Enron, it is
reasonable to assume that debt-rating services will
examine Morgan's status. That has become normal
procedure in such situations. Clearly this has
created an uncomfortable position for the gold bulls
who are themselves not yet fully convinced of the
integrity of the gold bull market. We can tell you
only that we believe in that integrity. The forces at
hand that are motivating the gold market lower, which
is the derivative situation, are just what will
contribute to the final higher prices. We have told
you that this is a battle of titans, and the public so
far has very little interest in the recent building of
the price of gold. This drama is very far from over.
It's barely into Stage 2.
___
James Sinclair is chairman of Tan Range Exploration
and a gold analyst with expertise in gold derivatives,
gold hedges, gold trading, and gold futures. Harry
Schultz is editor of the International Harry Schultz
Letter.

Dla tych, ktorzy nie wiedza a sa zainteresowani, chocby
na zasadzie ciekawostki:

1.JPMorganChase ?ma? $23.5 tryliona w pochodnych,
(notional value) co stanowi ponad 50% pochodnych we
wszystkich bankach w US. Jest to ok. 2.5 raza wiecej
niz wartosc calej amerykanskiej gospodarki w skali
rocznej. Wszystkie asety JPMorgan?a stanowia tylko 11%
asetow wszystkich bankow w US trudniacych sie pochodnymi.

2.Gdyby zrobic rachunki, to okazalo by sie, ze stosunek
?notional value? pochodnych JPMorgan?a do jego asetow
jest prawie 40, a do ?equity? jego udzialowcow
(shareholders) ok. 600 (szescset!). 100 uwazane jest za
szalenstwo. To nie jest bankowanie, to jest gorzej niz
ruletka.

3. Dla porownania, w przypadku bankructwa Long Term
Capital Management w 1998 roku, LTCM mial $3 biliony
kapitalu podpierajace $1,250 (szacunek) biliona
pochodnych co daje ?leverage? 417:1. (?tylko? w
porownaniu z JPM). FED uznal wtedy, ze sprawa jest zbyt
powazna i zdecydowal sie na 3.5 biliona?bailout?.

[Gość: pawel-l]

Ja nie wiem jak JPMorgan to robi, ale utopił pieniądze we wszystkich znanych
przypadkach: Brazylia, Argentyna, Enron, Worldcom. Kandydat na bankruta nr 1.

[Gość: Bert]

Ta wielka trojca (Citigroup, JPMorganChase, Bank of
America) siedza tez na ogromnych dlugach firm
olejowych/energetycznych. Wg. Weekendowego Financial
Times to sa zle dlugi ($500miliardow). Jesli fundusze
emerytalne (mam na mysli nie 401k, ale kompanijne
emerytury), ktore smierdza do samego nieba, padna razem z
dlugami olejowo-energetycznymi, oznaczac to bedzie cala
serie bankructw, niech Worldcom sie schowa. Nie widac
wyjscia z tej sytuacji, moze oprocz wojny w Iraku.
Scenariusz wojenno-gospodarczy moze byc np. taki
(spekuluje):
-jeszcze raz obnizyc oprocentowanie (na poczatku
sierpnia?) aby dac mozliwosc olejowo-energetycznym
dluznikom i bankom renegocjacji dlugow
-zaczac wojne z Irakiem (Arabii Saudyjskiej pewnie nie
beda ruszac, bo plotki chodza, ze tam sie przewrot
palacowy szykuje i ci chetni do kooperacji z US moga
wygrac, ale Iran ? kto wie?). Taka wojna pozwoli
gieldowcom podbic akcie firm olejowych, co moze nie byc
trudne wobec wojenno zwyzkujacych cen ropy.
Olejowcy/gazowcy moga zarobic poteznie na takim manewrze
i stac sie wyplacalni. Wyzsze ceny energii zwalic mozna
na Sadama.
Niedobrze mi sie robi, jak o tym mysle.

jeszcze o JPMorganChase, Citigroup...

[Gość: Bert]

Sinking Banks
In all the corporate disasters breaking out in the United
States, two names keep cropping up with uncanny
regularity: J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. and Citigroup. Both
were major lenders to Enron, and according to a report by
the U.S. Senate Permanent Subcommittee for
Investigations, both banks were active participants in
Enron's fraud, using offshore affiliates to help Enron
disguise loans as energy trades. Both banks lent heavily
to the energy-pirate and telecom sectors, and are
undoubtedly facing losses in the billions of dollars as
those sectors vaporize.

J.P. Morgan Chase is the result of the acquisition of
J.P. Morgan & Co. by the bigger Chase Manhattan. The
deal, which closed on the last day of 2000, has been an
absolute disaster as measured in ordinary?and therefore
misleading?market terms. The market capitalization of the
combined Morgan Chase is now less than that of Chase
alone on the day before the merger, with Morgan (or at
least its equivalent value) having simply vaporized
(Figure 9). This is not surprising, as it was likely a
bankruptcy at Morgan, and perhaps Chase as well, which
led to the takeover of the aristocratic Morgan by the
commoners at Chase.

The merger only bought a few months. Indications are that
Morgan Chase blew up in mid-2001 and was secretly taken
over by the Fed, similar to the way Citigroup's
predecessor, Citicorp, was in 1989. During the fourth
quarter of 2001, Morgan Chase combined its two lead
banks, Chase Manhattan Bank and Morgan Guaranty Trust. As
part of that process, $125 billion in assets and $7
trillion in derivatives simply disappeared from the
combined banks' books, suggesting major financial
problems. Still, with $24 trillion, Morgan Chase has more
derivatives than any other bank in the world, and more
than enough to make a spectacular explosion.

Citigroup may be under Fed control as well, as rumors of
major derivatives losses circulate. Citigroup is the
result of the 1998 takeover of Citicorp by Travelers
Insurance, creating what is now the largest bank in the
United States, with just over $1 trillion in assets and
$9 trillion in derivatives. On July 18, Saudi Prince
Alwaleed bin Talal, Citigroup's largest individual
shareholder, said that he had invested another $500
million in the bank, raising his holding to $10 billion.
Alwaleed, a nephew of Saudi King Fahd, obtained his
initial stake in the bank shortly after the Fed took it
over in 1989 and began arranging a bailout. The latest
cash infusion raises suspicion that Alwaleed is
performing a similar service for Citigroup.

Not to be left out is Bank of America, whose $620 billion
in assets puts it third behind Citigroup's $1 trillion
and Morgan Chase's $713 billion. Bank of America's $10
trillion in derivatives puts it solidly on the hot seat
in any financial crisis, and it has also loaned heavily
to bankrupt companies. Rumors are flying that Bank of
America has applied to the Fed for a secret bailout.

If the Fed winds up running the three biggest banks in
the country, who's going to bail out the Fed?