Generally agreed.Although, I'm of the view the primary thinking...

Generally agreed.

Although, I'm of the view the primary thinking with LME leadership is not so much about saving TS as it is about saving the LME itself to ensure to continued operations. TS is (perversely) likely to end up as somewhat of a partial beneficiary, by virtue of a lesser financial hit that would have otherwise occurred, but only because of the doctrine of mutually assured destruction.

TS should not and will not get off scot-free, imo. For starters, Monday's ~US$20,000/t price rise still stands. Not for nothing as far as TS goes. But that only relates to variation margins (security deposits).

The key, I believe, lies in forcing BS to take his bath by netting-off a sizeable chunk of his monster naked short position at 10% above Monday's closing price. Not necessarily all of it, but enough to get the exchange/clearing house's risk back under control.

The LME will then need to set about rebuilding trust and confidence by putting in place naked short position limit mechanisms, which I argue should have already been in place and would have very likely avoided the worst of this fiasco by preventing the build-up of such a Grand Palace of cards in the first place.

And to think that BS is still sprouting-off about wanting to remain heavily short. He can't possibly mean it. Surely it's just face-saving spin for the public and the party.

The UK govt may need to step in with the big stick.