Well, you are right, that is the theory and the official position.

Funny how it just seems to affect prices too - in real life.

Just a point to ponder:

Why, when the Hunts were sitting on hugely profitable positions, would it be necessary - "to ensure that positions are adequately collateralized to cover prospective marks to market." - to raise the margin requirements on the winning (long) side of the trade?

I am sure that their "mark to market" was doing just fine.

I realize that I might be overlooking something, but it does seem strange to the average observer.

I welcome any insights into what I am missing.