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>