All About Silver - ... the buck stops here ...

Silver Guru Hall of Shame

There are a lot of people that spend their time actively promoting silver. However, they range from the very knowledgable to the clueless with good intent to the downright dangerous.

At About.Ag, we're all about the facts and truth. Speculation about what is going on is important, but must be labelled as such. Otherwise, the public gets confused! People writing about silver (or anything else!) have an obligation to tell the truth, and make it clear when they are speculating.

The Hall of Shame

Here they are. Note that we will be happy to make changes if these people change their ways.

Bullion Bulls Canada
Jeff Neilson
Harvey OrganBDFDn/a
Road to Roota - Bix WeirDn/aD???D
Silver Doctors

About the Grades

TruthSomeone reporting on silver has a responsibility to at least make a reasonable attempt to tell the truth. An 'A' is given to someone who always attempts to tell the truth about silver (while clearly labelling speculation as such).
AccuracySomeone can do their best to try to tell the truth, but get it plain wrong. Or they may mislead people by omitting facts. An 'A' is given for few mistakes and factual errors (errors in spelling, grammar, punctuation don't count!), and no attempt to mislead.
Hype-FreeOne trick of those attempting to mis-lead is to use HYPE! Yes, some "people" resort to hype!!! to mislead people. Hype downplays facts, and tries to get people to make decisions on emotion. It may attract visitors, but doesn't attract the truth. An 'A' is given to those that rarely resort use bold, italics, all caps, underlining, colored words, quotation marks to add suspicion, nicknames like "The Morgue" for J.P. Morgan, and derogatory terms (cabal, cartel, crooks, raid). Using the words/styles when necessary is OK (e.g. "I'm starting to think that there may really be a cartel", versus "The cartel just dumped massive amounts of silver to smash the price").
Bias-FreeSome people write about silver because they want to get the word out. Some do it for a living. It's OK to make money writing on the Internet, but you need to be careful not to become biased as a result. An "A" for Bias-Free is given if there are no ads that you are more likely to click after reading the webpage. So just having Google ads will probably give you an "A" (since you have little control over what ads are there, and they can and do change often), while you'll get an "F" for running a profit-making business selling silver (because you'll be much, much less likely to report negative information about silver).
LogicThis category is similar to the truth/accuracy categories. However, in this one, an "A" is given if conclusions made are logical, while an "F" is given if they are illogical. For example, stating that "the only conclusion" to the U.S. Mint suspending sales of silver Eagles is "that there must be a wholesale silver shortage" (whereas it is more likely just a shortage of 1oz silver blanks).


We aren't just going to randomly give out grades. There is a method to our madness!

Bullion Bulls Canada

Jeff Nielson grabs on to some theories, and keeps writing until he has convinced himself that he is correct. Hence, poor grades for truth, accuracy, and logic (as he 'proves' falsehoods). For hype, there is a lot of italics, underlining, bolding, and "suspicious quoting".

As an example, look at the www.bullionbullscanada.com page /silver-commentary/2887-your-etf-silver-is-for-sale . In it, he sees that the CPM Group has a chart showing "Silver Inventories". This includes silver backing ETFs, silver in COMEX (which belongs to investors, traders, banks, and the like), and government stockpiles. However, he assumes that "Silver Inventories" means silver that someone is offering for sale (like the inventory of a business). That assumption is incorrect (lowering his grade for "accuracy"). But then he goes on and on with that fallacy, spinning more falsehoods.

He tries justifying his position by saying that "The could be no possible justification for adding [ETF silver] to inventories", because someone owns the silver (but someone owns ALL the silver in the inventory!). ... A good example of failing the "truth" category is where he says that J.P. Morgan provides custodian service to SLV "free of charge" (in italics, too, so he is obvious certain of this). However, J.P. Morgan gets paid by SLV to be the custodian (that's where the majority of the .5% annual fee goes).

A good example of hype is where he states that J.P. Morgan claims to be the custodian of SLV. It doesn't claim to, it is; that's a simple fact, one that I've never heard anyone dispute! He writes "claim" to be derogatory, and imply that J.P. Morgan cannot be trusted and is likely lying. Another example is where he says "(getting suspicious yet?)", suggesting that people should be suspicious at that point (which they should, of course, but of him -- this is right after he lied and said that J.P. Morgan offers the custodian service to SLV free of charge).

He then writes "Apart from the entirely ludicrous notion of a banker doing anything for free", which is full of hype, and refers back to his lie (the service is not being offered for free).

As for logic, he takes his repeated lie (J.P. Morgan offering custodian service for free), and states that the idea is irrational unless J.P. Morgan is pretending to hold silver. So he uses logic to come up with a falsehood (JPM is pretending to hold silver), based on a lie of his.

He further writes "Every ounce of ETF-silver is listed as for sale, as part of global “inventories”." Again, he misunderstands the word "inventory", and assumes that J.P. Morgan is offering SLV silver for sale because an organization included those numbers in its "silver inventory" calculation. So his whole statement is incorrect. Worse, he is saying that the silver behind SLV is for sale -- yet he also used logic to say it did not exist. How can silver that doesn't exist be for sale? He just doesn't make sense.

He even goes so far as to "prove" his point by saying "Anyone can walk up to these bullion banks, at any time, hand them the prevailing “spot” price, and buy your ETF-silver." Yet there is no truth to that whatsoever (and again, if true, it proves that his theory about no silver behind the ETFs is a lie). You can buy silver from bullion banks, but not the ETF silver (which has bar numbers; if they give away the ETF's bars to you, it will likely be detected in the next vault inspection).

He is also confused by silver supply and demand. Silver supply is the amount of silver mined and recycyled; demand is who buys that silver; therefore, supply and demand numbers are equal. But he assumes they should not be equal (and therefore there is a big conspiracy to make those numbers match every day).

Harvey Organ

TODO: "The total silver comex OI shocked the living daylights out of the bankers." [went up just 840 contracts, 4.2Moz; volume was astronomical today at ~1.7Boz]

Harvey Organ has the unfortunate trait that he has certain beliefs about silver that are not factual, and he is unwilling to bend. That said, he does have some very good and accurate facts (mostly the numbers from COMEX).

An example for the 'truth' grade is that after a decline in price, Harvey often says states something like it was because of "a raid by the banking cartel". That is his opinion; it never seems to occur to him that even if the price of silver and gold is manipulated, a hedge fund might sell a lot at once. Even stating that it was probably due to a raid would help with this grade, but he states it as fact. Another example is when he wrote that "the bankers want to make Obama look good so they bomb the precious metals so to make the paper dollar supreme."

As an example of his beliefs, he often states that SLV does not have any beneficial silver behind, and probably only has paper claims. Although it is technically possible, this is a great example of a conspiracy theory (if true iShares, Bank of New York Mellon, J. P. Morgan, Brinks, Johnson Matthey, Inspectorate, HSBC, Via Mat and others would have to all be in on it). The facts show that the silver is there, with only occasional speculation that it might not be. However, he truly believes there is no silver there (but magically believes that PSLV does have silver backing it), and continues to push his view.

As an example of hype, he writes "It looks like England may have trouble in finding gold and silver for its clients." Although stated as an opinion, it is designed to make it sound like there is a shortage of gold and silver (with nothing to back it, except his general belief).

As an example of logic, he writes "The study of gold/silver trading is absolutely useless in a manipulative environment." He states manipulation as fact, so using this logic he should not be studying silver or gold!

As an example of hype, one article started with "No doubt the bankers had their midnight oil weekend sessions and they all decided that another raid was essential today."

	o TRUTH: 'B' because there are lots of facts that are accurate.
	o ACCURACY: 'D' because he keep repeating fake stuff, saying things like "This upset the bankers" (assuming things to be true)
	o HYPE: 'F': First sentence (after facts) is 'raids', 'crooks', followed by 'fodder', "The bankers will do everything in their power to remove you from your money." [http://harveyorgan.blogspot.com/2013/02/greece-continues-to-implodegreek.html]
		o "fleeing this crooked casino", 
	o Bias: SD ad right there, with a promo code for him. But not his business, could just pay his costs.