First metals price fixing complaints

By Jonathan Stempel

 

NEW YORK (Reuters) - Goldman Sachs Group Inc (GS.N), Germany's BASF SE (BASFn.DE) and two other big platinum and palladium dealers have been sued in the United States in what the plaintiff's law firm called the first nationwide class action over alleged price-fixing of the metals.

In a complaint filed on Tuesday in the U.S. District Court in Manhattan, units of Goldman, BASF, HSBC Holdings Plc (HSBA.L) and South Africa's Standard Bank Group Ltd (SBKJ.J) were accused of having conspired since 2007 to rig the twice-daily platinum and palladium "fixings" and the prices of futures and options based on those fixings.

The plaintiff, Modern Settings LLC, a Florida-based maker of jewelry and police badges, claimed metals purchasers lost millions of dollars.

The defendants illegally shared customer data, used that information to engage in "front-running" of expected price moves, and manufactured phantom "spoof" orders, according to the plaintiff.

Platinum and palladium are used in catalytic converters to curb vehicle emissions, and are also used in dentistry and jewelry.

On Oct. 16, the London Metal Exchange said it will on Dec. 1 take charge of platinum and palladium price fixing, and use a new electronic platform.

The Hong Kong Exchanges and Clearing Ltd unit said the platform would replace a benchmark system established in 1989, and run by Goldman, BASF, HSBC and Standard.

The complaint said such changes "have come too late" for Modern Settings and other prospective class members. The complaint seeks unspecified damages for the defendants' alleged violations of U.S. antitrust and commodities laws.

Regulators around the world have tightened scrutiny of pricing benchmarks in recent years after uncovering evidence of rigging in currencies and the London Interbank Offered Rate.

The more stringent regulation has spawned new price setting platforms for gold, silver, platinum and palladium. Metals purchasers have filed similar lawsuits this year accusing banks of gold and silver price-fixing.

Goldman spokesman Michael DuVally and HSBC spokeswoman Juanita Gutierrez declined to comment. Standard Bank declined to comment.

A spokeswoman for BASF, the world's largest chemicals maker, said the group could not comment because it had not been notified of a complaint.

BASF generated 2.36 billion euros ($2.95 billion) in precious metals trading revenue last year. The London-based trading business is part of BASF's Catalysts division, which is the world's largest maker of catalytic converters.

The law firm Labaton Sucharow represents Modern Settings.

The case is Modern Settings LLC v. BASF Metals Ltd et al, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, No. 14-09391.

(Additional reporting by Ludwig Burger and Frank Siebelt in Frankfurt and David Dolan in Johannesburg. Editing by Andre Grenon and Louise Heavens)

AJ adds: There have been  complaints of illegal trades in a number of entities including interest rates. The price manipulation in metals is especially egregious. The role of the FED is especially dangerous. The FED is allowed to operate in the dark and without audit. AS a consequence, it is alleged that gold stored by the FED has been used to manipulate gold price and that the gold has either been sent to the East or is sold to multiple customers. AS a consequence, countries are beginning to demand repatriation of their gold at the FED. Venezuela was able to get all its gold, but Germany only got a pittance. The Dutch got about 1/3 and voices are heard in France to get their gold back. The Swiss have a referendum in December to restore their gold reserves that were depleted at the wrong time. Meanwhile, gold sales are brisk.

                 

1

The Japanese miracle.

Japan has invented a new form of economics. The Japanese government spends 80T yens a month on buying bonds, stocks and real estate ETFs in addition to forcing the retirement fund (127T yen) to buy stocks. The Japanese stock market is booming and doing well. The Japanese economy? Not so well. The yen has lost 37% of its value the last two years and the economy took a 1.6% drop in Q3, after a 7.1% drop in Q2.

Japan has ruined its currency and is on the way to bankruptcy in order to buy a recession. And the miracle? That the people put up with it.

Canaille

Canaille

They riot when there is a cause

Like a punk's early demise.

Their city they loot and they burn

To radical scum they all turn.

When will people say enough

And throw them in jail for a month?

And shut up the whining red press,

Sowing discord and distress?

Freedom's a fine golden tree

That requires weeding you see.

G20: how they got their goals wrong.

The G20, the 20 most prosperous nations, just finished their latest conference. At the end a Communique was issued. This document called for a 2.1% additional growth by 2018. It is not until you look at the details that you see this as the "same old...same old."

By now we know how to grow a prosperous economy: 1. you let private individuals invest to produce and 2. you let them keep as much of the proceeds as practicable so they keep doing it That's it. Those who argue for State control are simply wrong. Experience shows us that private individuals do the best job in using resources. When government agencies acquire the power of issuing permits and have the power to regulate, corruption results. Whether it is the subtle corruption such as in this country (where campaign contributions can buy you a lot) or as in the Ukraine, where you have a list of bribes and amounts, corruption is made possible by the power of the government. Simply put: economic growth is reduced by substituting political considerations for economic considerations and paying people without them contributing work.

So, how does the G20 Communique look in light of this? Not that good. First, the G20 will try to promote the pulling of 100M women into the work force. This is obviously a political move. Second, the G20 rails about reducing corruption, without reducing the economic power of the State over the economy. And third, the G20 wants to reduce "tax evasion" by equalizing tax rates. I was present in Hungary at a very tragic time. When? When Parliament was voting on the income tax. I tried to explain that people should take up arms because a horrible crime was being perpetrated against them. The income tax would be reformed, simplified, made more fair and made (you put in the words) - all these were euphemisms for raising the tax. Alas, I wasn't heard. What am I saying?

The G20 is trying to raise taxes, have governments control the economy for political reasons and "invest" in infrastructure. The same old. Like the Porkulus bill that Obama got through Congress to spend a Trillion dollars for "shovel ready" projects that turned out to be politically motivated projects. And that is not the way to grow the economy.

This Administration's lies about Obamacare.

Five years ago it was already obvious that the Obama administration and congressional Democrats were engaged in an elaborate deception, a series of them really. But back then most of the media and much of the public didn't seem to believe it. Now things have changed. (From Breitbart).

A list of administration lies might be a good topic for a book. But to just hit a few of the health care related highlights, we were told that the public option was not a Trojan horse, that it was about choice and competition. This was a bald faced lie. We were told we could keep our plans and doctors period, end of sentence. That was a lie. We were told Obamacare would reduce premiums by $2,500. That was a lie. That Obamacare was not a tax. Lie. That the VA was a model of socialized medicine. True, but not in the way they meant. All of these lies built upon one another, creating a vision of health reform that was all upside and no downside. And the Democrats barely, despite the obvious displeasure of citizens, forced it through, though only just barely.

 

What followed was several more years of various lies being told to adjust and protect the program. We were told, still incredible, that the White House had no idea what a disaster the launch of the federal exchange was going to be. We were told it was off to a great start, when in fact it only managed to enroll 6 people on the first day. We were told the problem with the site was too many excited customers when in fact the site crashed under just over a thousand users. We were told HHS had no enrollment targets when in fact there was an enrollment target memo. We were told the figures on enrollment were not available when in fact HHS was collecting data from insurers. We were told the rollout was just like the one in Massachusetts when in fact it was not. We were told the rollout was just like Medicare part D when in fact it was not at all. We were not told about a hidden Obamacare exemption that could have applied to almost anyone (it was finally added to the website after a WSJ report about it). On and on the administration and its allies in the media just lied about what was happening.

 

And slowly, slowly under the weight of all these lies and lies to cover up other lies, people got the message. The government isn't being honest with us. They're just saying whatever they need to say at that moment. And, despite the fact that the major media didn't touch a lot of these individual stories, word still got around as if by osmosis. The President's poll numbers started to go down and Obamacare's numbers went down or, at best, never went up.

 

And now, with the statement by Jonathan Gruber we may have reached the ne plus ultra of statements confirming this administration's essential dishonesty. Here you have one of the consummate Obamacare insiders--cited 71 times in DNC emails in 2009 alone-- saying on video that the bill was designed to fool stupid voters, in fact to fool them by fooling the non-partisan CBO which is supposed to be an honest broker.

 

Incredibly, even at this point, there are some, like MSNBC's Ronan Farrow and Washington Post writer Jose DelReal willing to suggest we're just missing the nuance. Somehow this plain admission of dishonesty isn't about what Gruber said or about what it tells us about the administration he worked closely with for years (even on the HHS payroll), it's about missing context.

 

This is standard operating procedure for the far left but unlike 5 years ago, I don't think many people are buying it these days. It has taken a long time, but Gruber's embarrassing admission may be the last one some people needed to see what has really been going on all along. What his statement shows is that if there's any possible political advantage in doing so, this administration is going to lie to your face. And that applies not just to Obamacare but to everything.

Description of a crime: how gold price is suppressed.

I often write about how big banks suppress gold price. Here is an actual study by an economist from Casey Research that names names and cites amounts, times and shows effects. While, the graphs are copyrighted, Casey Research makes their publication available free of charge.

 

“Paper Gold” and Its Effect on the Gold Price

Bud Conrad, Chief Economist

Gold dropped to new lows of $1,130 per ounce last week. This is surprising because it doesn’t square with the fundamentals. China and India continue to exert strong demand on gold, and interest in bullion coins remains high.

I explained in my October article in The Casey Report that the Comex futures market structure allows a few big banks to supply gold to keep its price contained. I call the gold futures market the “paper gold” market because very little gold actually changes hands. $360 billion of paper gold is traded per month, but only $279 million of physical gold is delivered. That’s a 1,000-to-1 ratio:

Market Statistics for the 100-oz Gold Futures Contract on Comex
	Value ($M)
Monthly volume (Paper Trade)	$360,000
Open Interest All Contracts	$45,600
Warehouse-Registered Gold (oz)	$1,140
Physical Delivery per Month	$279
House Account Net Delivery, monthly	$41

 

We know that huge orders for paper gold can move the price by $20 in a second. These orders often exceed the CME stated limit of 6,000 contracts. Here’s a close view from October 31, when the sale of 2,365 contracts caused the gold price to plummet and forced the exchange to close for 20 seconds:

Many argue that the net long-term effect of such orders is neutral, because every position taken must be removed before expiration. But that’s actually not true. The big players can hold hundreds of contracts into expiration and deliver the gold instead of unwinding the trade. Net, big banks can drive down the price by delivering relatively small amounts of gold.

A few large banks dominate the delivery process. I grouped the seven biggest players below to show that all the other sources are very small. Those seven banks have the opportunity to manage the gold price:

After gold’s big drop in October, I analyzed the October delivery numbers. The concentration was even more severe than I expected:

This chart shows that an amazing 98.5% of the gold delivered to the Comex in October came from just three banks: Barclays; Bank of Nova Scotia; and HSBC. They delivered this gold from their in-house trading accounts.

The concentration was even worse on the other side of the trade—the side taking delivery. Barclays took 98% of all deliveries for customers. It could be all one customer, but it’s more likely that several customers used Barclays to clear their trades. Either way, notice that Barclays delivered 455 of those contracts from its house account to its own customers.

The opportunity for distorting the price of gold in an environment with so few players is obvious. Barclays knows 98% of the buyers and is supplying 35% of the gold. That’s highly concentrated, to say the least. And the amounts of gold we’re talking about are small—a bank could tip the supply by 10% by adding just 100 contracts. That amounts to only 10,000 ounces, which is worth a little over $11 million—a rounding error to any of these banks. These numbers are trivial.

Note that the big banks were delivering gold from their house accounts, meaning they were selling their own gold outright. In other words, they were not acting neutrally. These banks accounted for all but 19 of the contracts sold. That’s a position of complete dominance. Actually, it’s beyond dominance. These banks are the market.

My point is that this market is much too easily rigged , and that the warnings about manipulation are valid. At some point, too many customers will demand physical delivery and there will be a big crash. Long contracts will be liquidated with cash payouts because there won’t be enough gold to deliver. I saw a few squeezes in my 20 years trading futures, including gold. In my opinion, the futures market is not safe.

The tougher question is: for how long will big banks’ dominance continue to pressure gold down? Unfortunately, I don’t know the answer. Vigilant regulators would help, but “futures market regulators” is almost an oxymoron. The actions of the CFTC and the Comex, not to mention how MF Global was handled, suggest that there has been little pressure on regulators to fix this obvious problem.

This quote from a recent Financial Times article does give some reason for optimism, however:

UBS is expected to strike a settlement over alleged trader misbehaviour at its precious metals desks with at least one authority as part of a group deal over forex with multiple regulators this week, two people close to the situation said. … The head of UBS’s gold desk in Zurich, André Flotron, has been on leave since January for reasons unspecified by the lender….

The FCA fined Barclays £26m in May after an options trader was found to have manipulated the London gold fix.

Germany’s financial regulator BaFin has launched a formal investigation into the gold market and is probing Deutsche Bank, one of the former members of a tarnished gold fix panel that will soon be replaced by an electronic fixing.

The latter two banks are involved with the Comex.

Eventually, the physical gold market could overwhelm the smaller but more closely watched US futures delivery market. Traders are already moving to other markets like Shanghai, which could accelerate that process. You might recall that I wrote about JP Morgan (JPM) exiting the commodities business, which I thought might help bring some normalcy back to the gold futures markets. Unfortunately, other banks moved right in to pick up JPM’s slack.

Banks can’t suppress gold forever. They need physical gold bullion to continue the scheme, and there’s just not as much gold around as there used to be. Some big sources, like the Fed’s stash and the London Bullion Market, are not available. The GLD inventory is declining.

If a big player like a central bank started to use the Comex to expand its gold holdings, it could overwhelm the Comex’s relatively small inventories. Warehouse stocks registered for delivery on the Comex exchange have declined to only 870,000 ounces (8,700 contracts). Almost that much can be demanded in one month: 6,281 contracts were delivered in August.

The big banks aren’t stupid. They will see these problems coming and can probably induce some holders to add to the supplies, so I’m not predicting a crisis from too many speculators taking delivery. But a short squeeze could definitely lead to huge price spikes. It could even lead to a collapse in the confidence in the futures system, which would drive gold much higher.

Signs of high physical demand from China, India, and small investors buying coins from the mint indicate that gold prices should be rising. The GOFO rate (London Gold Forward Offered rate) went negative, indicating tightness in the gold market. Concerns about China’s central bank wanting to de-dollarize its holdings should be adding to the interest in gold.

In other words, it doesn’t add up. I fully expect currency debasement to drive gold higher, and I continue to own gold. I’m very confident that the fundamentals will drive gold much higher in the long term. But for now, I don’t know when big banks will lose their ability to manage the futures market.

-

Click to Comment on This Article

Russia raises ante in the Ukraine.

Russia has recognized the results of recent elections in the Luhansk and Donetsk areas. This fundamentally alters the situation. It not only legitimizes these Provinces as INDEPENDENT entities as far as Russia is concerned, but allows Russia to help them openly. Thus, they are at the same point that the Crimea was when Russian troops openly invaded.

Russia's move follows Ukrainian decisions to cut off payments to Ukrainian citizens in these provinces and to launch an all out attack against the Luhansk and Donetsk areas.

These military and political moves come after escalating attacks on Russia by the Western powers. In addition, EU figures now expanded the attacks to include Hungary, which does not want to adopt an anti-Russian policy.

Why are these two countries so antagonistic over the last 3 centuries having a rapprochement now?
Let me list the reasons:

1. Both Russia and Hungary are breaking with the W. European mold of increased their debts;
2. Both Russia and Hungary have large diasporas of their people living in adjacent countries;
3. Both countries have adopted pro-family laws and are resisting the glorification of homosexuality.

The two countries have arrived at a diaspora in separate ways. Hungarian territories were cut off and given to neighboring countries. The Russian diaspora has come from Russians moving into neighboring countries. Be as it may, neither Russia nor Hungary will countenance their people being denied equal cultural rights. W European meddling is destabilizing Europe.

Gold and QEIV.

Recent events in the Gold Market reflect a number of financial trends that are converging: 1. the inability of QE to lift us out of economic problems; 2. the inherent contradictions of the FED's policies; 3. the deteriorating condition of finances in the world; 4. the loss of confidence in fiat money and 5. the lawless actions of fiscal authorities.

 

1. Contrary to the rosy reports of the Press, the US economy in the aggregate is not getting much better. The employment figures show that. We have the lowest labor participation rates in over 40 or 50 years. While, the Press is breathlessly reporting that 200,000 jobs were added last month, they fail to report that 100,000 people dropped from the labor force just in the black community. It takes about 300,000 new hires every month just to stay even, so a 215,000 figure is nothing to be jubilant about.

 

2. The FED has ended the QE program, or so they say. But, in order to keep interest rates low, they have to buy more bonds of one sort or another. As the FED continues to add more money, it also creates the money to finance the deficit. The FED is trying to fight deflation, yet it forces the banks to maintain excess reserves and to channel the new money into equities.

 

3. Europe continues to stagnates and even Germany is slowing down. In Japan, the government and the JCP are determined to destroy their currency. The conflagration in the Middle East (a result of Obama's capitulation to Islamic forces) is forcing money into the US Dollar, which makes it harder for American companies to export. In addition, the Saudis are determined to put American oil companies out of business by overproducing oil in order to drop the prices to a level where American companies have to stop producing. The break even price for our companies is about $90/barrel.

 

4. Loss of confidence in the Euro and the Japanese Yen is causing a loss of confidence in these currencies.

 

5. The FED continues illegal manipulation of gold prices. A graph of it is shown below.

 

 

The graph shows the latest smash of the gold price that began Oct 21. One hundred tons of paper gold was dropped into the Market within a few minutes. Since, a ton of gold costs $40,000,000, a hundred tons is not chump change if money is actually deposited.

 

Notice something else though. After the smash, gold bounced back on large volume. Is this the beginning of a turn around? Hard to tell. The turn around was larger than in June. But, the FED is capable of dumping in more confetti (or work through the BIS). Larry Edelson forecasts gold to go to $900+ in January before it turns around. Will the new Congress demand an audit of the FED? Will the true figures stop the illegal price fixing? Some people anticipate a new formal QE and an end to gold price suppression.

Ukraine: back in th news again.

There are reports that the Ukraine government has decided to retake the rebellious Provinces of Eastern Ukraine (Luhansk and Donetsk) and has resumed full-scale military operations. The City of Donetsk and the City of Luhansk are once again being shelled by government troops and government soldiers have advanced into the outskirts of Donetsk.

The Ukraine government has also gone back on its promise to federalize Ukraine so the provinces can have more political power. The latest Ukrainian election (without the participation of the East) produced an even more recalcitrant government. The Separatists have also held elections which hardened their positions.

Some Russian volunteers have entered the Ukraine with 32 tanks and a couple dozen artillery pieces and ammo trucks. That may ensure that the Separatists can fight on. But, what is needed is a full scale Russian intervention that will force the govt of the Ukraine to live up to its promises to federalize the country and remove anti-Russian laws designed to deprive Ukrainians of Russian descent of their cultural rights. Russian "peacekeepers" could also make sure that the Provinces of Luhansk and Donetsk are rebuilt.

The 2014 elections.

November 6, 2014 4:00 AM Winners, Losers, and Lessons Learned

Understanding this historic landslide

By Stephen Moore

Colorado senator-elect Cory Gardner on election night. (Marc Piscotty/Getty)

Print

Text  

           

 

                           

The magnitude of the GOP’s tidal wave in Tuesday’s election is just coming into focus.

Just as in 1994’s landslide election that gave Newt Gingrich and the GOP control of the U.S. House for the first time in half a century, the media are underplaying the rout and portraying the 2014 midterm as a temper tantrum on the part of the electorate. NBC said that it was a bad night to be an incumbent. No: It was a miserable night to have a D next to your name. Only one major Republican, Governor Tom Corbett of Pennsylvania, lost.

Here are some observations about what happened and why:

Republicans grabbed hundreds of state legislative seats. They now control more seats in state capitals than at any time since the 1920s, unofficially. Down-ticket is where Republicans really blew out the Democrats.

Why was the blowout so severe? The Fox News exit polling tells a lot of the story:

A 59 percent majority feels dissatisfied or angry toward President Obama, while 41 percent are enthusiastic or satisfied with his administration’s performance. This is similar to his job rating: 44 percent approval vs. 54 percent disapproval.

Nationally, a third of all voters said opposition to the president was a reason for their . . . vote in House races, while only 20 percent expressed support for Obama in their choice of candidate.

Advertisement

It was a huge victory for the supply-side agenda. The tax issue was a major factor in many state races. All the GOP tax-cutting governors — Brownback, Scott, etc. — won. In many states with Democratic tax-raisers — Maryland, Massachusetts, Illinois, etc. — Republicans won. Liberals had said this election would be a referendum on taxes. It was.

The big winners among the governors who want to be president were John Kasich of Ohio (who won in a super blowout), Scott Walker of Wisconsin (who won with surprising ease), and Chris Christie of New Jersey (who ran the RGA).

The big loser was Tom Steyer, the billionaire hedge-fund manager who spent $50 million to $100 million and all he got was a lousy T-shirt.

Hillary Clinton took a big hit with her “businesses don’t create jobs” statement, and it hurt Democrats, coming as it did one week before the election. She is still the front-runner, but it was not a good night for the Clinton enterprise.

I see the Keystone Pipeline getting done quickly — Obama may even attend the ribbon-cutting ceremony — and while Obamacare might not be repealed, it will be rolled back with more exit options from the mandated benefits. The green agenda is on hold for now.

Look for Joe Manchin of West Virginia to change parties soon. How do you stay a Democrat in West Virginia when an open Senate seat goes to the Rs by more than 25 points?

If Ed Gillespie doesn’t win the Virginia recount, he is the odds-on favorite to be the next governor of the Old Dominion State.

Look for Doug Ducey, the newly elected governor of Arizona, to emerge as a star over the next four years. The Cold Stone Creamery founder is a pro-growth supply-sider who may eliminate the Arizona income tax.

Obama is turning out to be like Bill Clinton in one important way. Just as Clinton was the last Democrat standing at the end of his presidency, the same is looking to be true for Obama.

— Stephen Moore, a frequent contributor to National Review, is chief economist at the Heritage Foundation.

 

AJ adds: Some Pundits on our side are wrong about one thing: they believe that Republicans did not nationalize the 2014 election. But they DID. It was an anti-Obama vote.  Every Democrat was tied to Obama. Some escaped the voters' retribution, but a lot of them did not. The man (Obama) who was adored by the Media became a tar baby for the Democrats that they tried to desperately avoid.

 

The Media is now trying to distort the meaning of the election by asking Republicans to compromise with Obama and his radical regime. But, we did not send Republicans to Washington to implement half of Obama's agenda: we sent them to stop Obama. Just the same, the next two years will be perilous. Obama does not believe in the Constitution and will continue to try to destroy America before remaking it in his image of Marxist philosophy. He believes that he can act without Congress and simply issue Ukases (Executive actions).  

 

I predicted in an earlier post that as the failure of Obama's radical agenda would touch the Democrats, the Media would blame not Obama's ideas, but his implementation of those ideas. My next prediction is that Obama would not back off, but force a Constitutional crisis and perhaps worse.

Will the FED raise interest rates?

The Fed's Lost Grip on Interest Rates

By Peter Krauth, Resource Specialist, Money Morning • November 4, 2014 

9

Text size
A++ A+ A

Peter Krauth

As widely expected, the Fed finally ended its massive bond-purchasing program.

Now the market will turn its focus to interest rates.

Will the Fed raise rates next year? If so, what effects will that have?

The Fed is ultimately reactive, exerting little, if any, control in the long run. Low rates are here only as long as the Fed can manage them.

At that point, it is time to look out.

Here's what will cause us nightmares, and what we can do to avert a crisis in our investments…

Americans Tighten Their Belts… While Their Government Races Toward Disaster

The International Center for Monetary and Banking Studies recently published its 16th annual Geneva Report. It's authored by a group of senior economists and former senior central bankers.

The report highlights a sustained increase in (especially) government debt in the developed world, as well as in China. Any deleveraging in the last few years has been minor, mostly limited to the private sector.

It goes on to caution the importance of low rates to stave off another crisis, while pointing out that, as the graph below shows, world debt has mushroomed from 160% of national income in 2001, to 200% in 2009, only to climb further to 215% last year.

As a group, the report's authors expect interest rates worldwide to remain low for a "very, very long time," so that all borrowers (governments, companies, and individuals) will remain solvent and keep paying the interest on their debts.

So too does Ben Broadbent, deputy governor of the Bank of England, saying interest rates could remain "permanently" low.

All of this echoes what the Fed's been saying for years in order to reassure and stimulate the markets: there is no rush to raise rates.

None of this is really any surprise to us. But it's not quite that simple….

The Fed's Dangerous Catch-22

As we discussed recently, many expect the Fed to raise rates next year (more on this below), while Europe and Japan recently pushed their rates below zero to help fight off deflation.

Sweden's central bank, the Riksbank, recently cut its own key interest rate to 0% from 0.25%. Swedish central planners there think inflation is still too low, and want a monetary policy that's "even more expansionary" as they target 2% inflation.

In mid-October we heard noise from two regional Fed presidents, John Williams and James Bullard, countering expectations for the Fed to take its foot off the gas. First Williams of the San Francisco Federal Reserve said, "If we really get a sustained, disinflationary forecast … then I think moving back to additional asset purchases in a situation like that should be something we should seriously consider."

Next, the St. Louis Fed's Bullard said it might make sense for the Fed to delay ending its bond-purchase program to halt lowered inflation expectations, and that, "We could react with more QE if we wanted to."

Much more intriguing, however, is research by Citigroup on just how much stimulus the markets need.

Their report estimates that zero stimulus would lead to a 10% drop in equities every quarter, and that central banks need to inject some $200 billion quarterly just to sustain market levels.

Strategists at Bank of America Merrill Lynch figure that another 10% drop in U.S. stocks could lead to a fresh new round of stimulus, QE4.

With all these conflicting signals, what's an investor to expect, really?

Well, now that the end of bond-buying is official, let's look at the Fed's next nemesis: interest rates.