The only way that Goldman could possibly make <i>more</i> money by artificially delaying shipments would be because of a market-distorting regulation. And sure enough, here it is:<p><pre><code> industry rules require that all that metal cannot simply
sit in a warehouse forever. At least 3,000 tons of that
metal must be moved out each day.
</code></pre>
Without looking I'd bet this is some kind of "anti-hoarding" provision, probably intended to prevent single manufacturers from cornering the market. As is typical, it caused exactly the opposite of the desired consequence.<p>Moreover, said rule means (among other things) that no manufacturer can hold a strategic reserve of aluminum for unexpected spikes in demand without playing the games that Goldman is playing. Naturally, the response of the New York Times is that we need more such rules and regulations, that next time we'll anticipate their consequences, that the only failing is that they haven't been "strict" enough.<p>But the "stricter" the rule, the more that little guys get hit with it while Goldman uses teams of lawyers to define and then exploit a safe harbor.[1] In this sense, Goldman and the NYT are in cahoots: "strict" regulations directly benefit big companies.<p>[1] <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safe_harbor_(law)" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safe_harbor_(law)</a><p><pre><code> A safe harbor is a provision of a statute or a regulation
that reduces or eliminates a party's liability under the
law, on the condition that the party performed its actions
in good faith or in compliance with defined standards.
Legislators may include safe-harbor provisions to protect
legitimate or excusable violations, or to incentivize the
adoption of desirable practices.</code></pre>
The New York Times is claiming that they have just discovered this scheme through investigative reporting, but the article is a rewrite of a July 2011 Reuters article by other authors.<p><a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/07/29/us-lme-warehousing-idUSTRE76R3YZ20110729" rel="nofollow">http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/07/29/us-lme-warehousing...</a>
They talk about the money made storing aluminium in the warehouse, who's paying that? It sounds like Goldman owns both the aluminium and the warehouses, so all they're doing is buying aluminium and refusing to sell it.
I think it's an old trick, called "cornering the market". One of the clearest ways Ayn Rand's vision of unbridled capitalism is not a practical reality.
Banks/big capitals are evil, I prefer them dead (well the financial instance not the person. The persons however deserve a good old fashion whipping, at the least.)