My surprise was heightened because I had previously received an unsolicited telephone call from the CFTC back in January (I didn’t write about it then as I considered it confidential). The call from the agency (the first I can recall in 25 years) was a request to me to help them identify who I thought would make good prospective panelists for the precious metals hearing. It was a very pleasant and constructive conversation. Needless to say, I was encouraged because it suggested to me that I was dealing with a different CFTC than I had been dealing with for more than two and a half decades.

At this point, I would imagine that you would now expect me to launch into an attack on the CFTC for the personal slap in the face for the non-invitation. How they can’t handle the truth or my testimony; about how I am going to ask you to petition the CFTC to reconsider inviting me. Instead, I am going to suggest no such thing. In perhaps the biggest surprise of all, I’m going to try to convince you otherwise, namely, that after careful consideration, how I feel this is potentially a very constructive development.

It has to do with the reason I’m not going to the meeting. It wasn’t related to my knowledge or record on the matter of position limits; it had to do with me personally. More specifically, it had to do with my past dealings with the Commission regarding unresolved findings and fines for my involvement in an incident that occurred in 1984 in orange juice futures, when I was a broker for Drexel Burnham. Long time readers know I have discussed this before, and I don’t want to rehash it here, as we’re talking about something dating back from 25 years ago. For the record, no client suffered losses, no claims were made of any financial harm to my clients, nothing occurred that was substantive; this was all record-keeping in nature. I strongly disagreed with the Commission’s findings then and still do.

When I asked why I wasn’t invited, it was suggested to me that pointed questions about the OJ affair would come up during the meeting and that could prove to be a distraction to the important business at hand. That is something which I would choose to avoid at all costs. The issue at hand is much too important to risk compromising it with unrelated distractions. Besides, I have no desire to be bushwhacked in a Washington, DC political ambush. I am an analyst, not a political infighter. I know enough that you don’t bring a knife to a gun fight; you avoid such match-ups. I feel extremely grateful to have been forewarned.

Although I have been criticized by some for taking the high road with the CFTC in my writings over the past nine months, I intend to maintain that approach and not get dragged down to the level of those who would attack me personally. Whether this high road approach succeeds eventually is less important to me than doing what I believe is the right thing. Maybe I’m naïve, but I believe the issue of the silver manipulation will be determined by the facts and not dirty political tactics. Of course, the minute I feel that there is no chance the Commission will ever do the right thing, I will say so. It is a circumstance I truly hope never comes, but you have my word I won’t conceal any change in my belief and will change strategies immediately.

Most importantly, at the same time I was told I was not invited to the public meeting, it was also suggested to me that I would be given the opportunity to present my case to CFTC staff in person.  I was also invited to submit written material on the matter of position limits for the record. I am extremely encouraged by this development. Not once, through multiple silver inquiries over the past 25 years, have I ever been afforded the opportunity to deal with anyone at the agency face to face. Nor was I ever able to speak with anyone there on the telephone.

As an analyst, I am actually encouraged by the implications behind the intended ambush. Recently, I wrote how, when confronted with the facts in silver concerning concentration and manipulation, often the response involves a personal attack on the messenger, instead of a factual rebuttal of the message. The attempted ambush confirms to me that there are few good reasons for maintaining the status quo in silver position limits. You don’t resort to gutter tactics in a high-level debate if the facts are on your side.

Please don’t write to the Commission asking them to reconsider, as you have my word I would not attend the meeting in any event. I am more encouraged with the opportunity to make my case one on one with CFTC staff. I will be calling on you soon enough to write to the Commission in the public comment period after the meeting. Save it until then.