Thursday, January 29, 2015
Text Size

Search our Site or Google

Articles & Blogs

Central Banks Buying Gold For No Reason

Gold Commentary

Reading the ludicrous tripe in the mainstream media does present one with the risk of insanity. In particular, it is a strain on one’s sanity to be continually bombarded with mainstream fantasy-news which depicts a mythical realm which is the precise, mirror opposite of our real world.

We see yet another example of this with the mind-numbing disconnect in the gold market. Anyone who spends a significant amount of time poisoning their minds with the daily missives of the Corporate Media has heard the “news”: the gold market is about to crash, so all of the “smart money” is now bailing out.

Immediately the mainstream media points to Bash-and-Buy Soros, who once again claims to be “selling gold.” All gold investors are familiar with George Soros. He’s the respected tycoon who proclaimed that “gold was a bubble”…right before he went on another buying-spree himself. Indeed, if all the media reports of Soros “selling gold” were actually true, he would have personally dumped more gold onto the market than even the Bank of England.

But even the Chumps have been selling their GLD paper-gold recently; and (as we all know) the Chumps are never wrong. Case closed. But wait. One group of die-hard buyers have actually been buying more and more gold in recent months.

This is the cabal of private banks known to the world as “central banks.” A “central bank” is a private bank which has been handed (free of charge) the best/most-lucrative monopoly in any economic system: the license to print “money” (i.e. paper currency). These private banks then print their paper currencies (“our” currencies) and sell them to our governments. But that’s a story for another time.

The central banks do more than this. They are also given a monopoly over our monetary policy: these private banks have complete control over every aspect of our monetary systems. Why would our sovereign(?) governments hand complete control of our monetary system to a group of private bankers? Because these bankers are worshiped as the Oracles of Economic Wisdom.

Indeed, our governments lean upon these bankers heavily for advice on their fiscal policy; the half of our economic policy which our “sovereign” governments haven’t (yet) handed away completely. Stay tuned on that front however, as the central banks of Europe, and the (corrupt) EU central authority have been pushing hard for “full economic union” for Europe – giving these private bankers complete and absolute economic authority over all of Europe’s once-sovereign nations.

While the private bankers of these central banks may be greedy megalomaniacs, of one thing we can apparently(?) rest assured: they are the Supreme Experts of our markets and economies. And they are buying gold – at a rate unprecedented in history.

Some readers may be confused here. They have heard reports from the mainstream media, and even the World Gold Council itself stating that gold-buying by central banks is merely at “the fastest rate in 50 years.”

Such reports ignore the fact that ½ of the world (the largest half, by dollar value) is not allowed to buy any gold. The corrupt, debt-bloated regimes of North America and Europe (represented by their especially-corrupt central banks) can’t buy any gold. Why not? A little history is in order.

It was only a few years ago that these same, smug governments (and even more-arrogant central bankers) were dumping all their own gold onto the market (at market-bottom prices); all the while lecturing the rest of the world about how gold was now a mere “barbarous relic.” At its peak, this massive gold-dumping (and blatant gold-suppression scheme) reached 500 tons per year.


The Cyprus-Steal Versus Wealth Taxation

International Commentary

There are many things which need to be said about the deliberately provocative move by European bankers to engage in a sovereign version of an “MF-Global” style bank-heist. Unfortunately none of these things are being said by anyone in the mainstream media.

To start with, this “plan” was intended to fail. It was simply another staged event. In this case, the goal was first to isolate Cyprus politically/economically, and then “make an example” out of it to other Western governments, and their peoples.

Regular readers will recall a previous commentary about how Iceland successfully stood up to the banksters, threw them out of their nation; and has since prospered economically. Since that time I have iterated the mantra of the Financial Oligarchs on many occasions “no more Icelands.”

Thus first these Oligarchs engage in a blatant act of theft which was intentionally intended to be as punitive as possible to the masses. This would ensure maximum outrage within the Cyprus population, and thus make it political suicide for any politician to support the measure. A Bloomberg article spells this out clearly:

France’s Pierre Moscovici said he had wanted an exemption for accounts worth less than 100,000 euros ($129,500). Austria’s Maria Fekter said ECB demands made that impossible.

The central bank, Fekter said on Monday, wanted to lowball the tax on larger depositors, magnifying the hit on the smaller ones. [emphasis mine]

This is nothing less than a written confession. Individual European governments were pushing for the bank-robbery to at least be structured fairly – stealing the most from those who could most afford it. It was the ECB (the “front” organization for the Oligarchs) which vetoed those intentions, and insisted on “magnifying the hit” on ordinary people.

The final vote taken by the Cyprus government is ultimate, empirical proof of this staged event. Every member of the Opposition parties voted against the bank-robbery; every member of the government abstained. Obviously a proposal which fails to obtain the support of a single member of government was never a serious proposal to begin with.

Now (most likely) Cyprus will be driven out of the EU (i.e. separated from “the herd”), and then the jackals of the Western banking oligopoly will go to work. Forced to use its own currency (if it wants true, economic sovereignty); that currency will be manipulated to near-zero. Indeed with more than a decade of “competitive devaluation” under their belts, there is nothing that these banksters are better at than destroying the value of a currency.

Along with that will be more of the same fraudulent manipulation of interest rates on Cypriot debt (via the same credit-default swap fraud which Wall Street has used so successfully on the rest of Europe). With the capacity to drive those interest rates to any number they desire; they can totally freeze Cyprus out of international debt-markets.

With a virtually worthless currency, and no access to credit to help restructure its economy; the economic devastation of Cyprus will even dwarf what these same banksters had previously inflicted upon Greece. However, this is only one half of what is truly significant about this episode.


The Boy Who Cried ‘Exit Strategy’

US Commentary

Bloomberg News and Federal Reserve Chairman Benjamin S. Bernanke have been at it again. Their own, little version of the legendary Abbott & Costello “Who’s On First…?” skit, which they call “exit strategy.”

In their latest installment of the skit from March 11th, we have Bloomberg in its role of straight-man “Abbott” trying to make four years of empty promises of a monetary “exit strategy” by “Costello” (played by Bernanke) sound admirable.

The best Bloomberg could do is to proclaim that Bernanke is “provoking mystery” with year after year of his double-talk. This is followed by paragraph-after-paragraph of the same (mandatory) “maybe he should/maybe he shouldn’t” drivel we have been subjected to since 2009. Time to update your Script!

Most if not all readers are familiar with the fable “The Boy Who Cried Wolf”. For amusement, a shepherd boy began periodically shouting out “wolf”, in order to rouse all the other villagers and force them to run all the way out to the sheep’s pasture before determining for themselves that there was no wolf.

However, the villagers soon caught onto this game; and less and less of them began heeding the boy’s (false) alarms. Finally and ironically, on the day a wolf actually appears in the pasture; no one at all responds to the boy’s wolf-call.

While the boy of the fable engaged in his serial-lying purely for the purposes of amusement, it’s certainly easy to ascribe other, probable motives for such lying. An obvious strategy would be to engage in such lies as a stalling tactic.

For example, as things started getting ugly on the Little Big Horn for General Custer and his men; one of his troops gets the idea to start shouting “the cavalry is coming.” At first; Crazy Horse and his warriors hesitate, or even pull back from their attack. But soon they start disregarding the shouts, and eventually ignore them altogether.

The previous hypothetical example is illustrative in another respect. Engaging in serial-lying as a stalling tactic changes nothing. It merely delays the inevitable.

Our economies have what is known as a “Business Cycle.” While “full business cycles” are generally deemed to stretch-out over roughly a decade, there are clear-and-obvious sub-cycles within these longer intervals. Specifically, throughout our modern economic history; the average length of any particular growth cycle is a little more than three years, with 40 months being the number most typically quoted.

Yet, with the current (supposed) “Recovery” in the U.S. now four years in length; we still see B. S. Bernanke engaging in the same, absurd song-and-dance. Going all the way back to the early months of this mythical recovery; B.S. Bernanke has been promising an “exit strategy” every few months – like a lethargic cuckoo-clock.

However, Bernanke’s game is actually a two-step. First he teases the slack-jawed yokels with another promise of an “exit strategy” (from the most extreme/insane monetary stimulus ever attempted by any government). Then, in the proud tradition of P.T. Barnum; he “provokes mystery” by telling the yokels he won’t actually deliver on this mythical exit strategy…yet.

Why not?

Because (supposedly) it’s “too soon.” The Recovery “needs more time” to ‘gather strength’ and/or ‘build momentum’. Is this plausible?

What would we think if we saw a boy with a new bicycle, but four years later the boy is still riding around with the training wheels on his bike? A reasonable person would assume that the boy will never be able to ride the bike without training wheels – and should he remove them, he would instantly fall flat on his face.


Panic in Detroit

US Commentary

My apologies to David Bowie for ‘borrowing’ the title of one of his songs for this article. However, there is no better way to encapsulate the financial emergency currently facing this bankrupt shell.

What is a “panic”? It’s when people behave irrationally in a crisis, generally due to either being in a state of shock, succumbing to some form of (mindless) “herd behavior”, or both. In the case of Detroit we are clearly dealing with the latter condition.

What makes Detroit such a significant case-study here is not simply its size, but rather because it is well-known that the city is (was) a one-industry town. Specifically, “Motor City” got its nickname for being the hub of the once-thriving U.S. auto industry.

More importantly, as the city teeters on the brink of formal bankruptcy, we know what got the city to this state of ultimate crisis: the loss of its tax-base. We can establish this point not only on an individual basis, but also on a collective basis.

Individually, we have what has already been pointed out: the collapse of one industry in a one-industry town (state). More generally however, when the financial collapse of Detroit is examined more closely we see the same phrase crop-up that we see in the chronologies of every U.S. city/state/municipality with serious financial problems: “overly optimistic revenue estimates.”

The same governments, and the same people working in those governments who used to be able to make accurate revenue projections have not only seemingly and suddenly lost the capacity to perform this function; but they all suffer from precisely the same (wildly) optimistic bias.

What is the more rational conclusion for us to draw in assessing this situation? Is it more plausible that once-sober bureaucrats from all across the U.S. all suddenly and simultaneously morphed into cock-eyed optimists? Or is it more likely that the data they have been given on which to base their calculations has become severely flawed? Garbage in; garbage out.

Specifically, the macroeconomic “statistics” being passed-off on Americans (and the world) by the U.S. government have been demonstrated to be nothing but absurd fantasy-numbers. The mythical “job-creation” numbers from the Bureau of Labor Statistics can be proven to be fraudulent on many bases; however the most absolute proof was supplied by the Corporate Media itself: job and wage numbers supplied by the BLS grossly overstate what the U.S. government is actually taking in with tax-receipts. The jobs don’t exist.

Similarly, we have the U.S. government wildly understating inflation. The epitome of this occurred in July of last year. Asian governments were having an emergency summit to deal with the “global food-price crisis”; the World Bank was reporting food-inflation at an annualized rate of 120%; and the U.S. government claimed (in this global economy) that inflation inside the U.S. was literally 0%.

As I’ve noted in previous commentaries, when any government grossly understates inflation, this automatically grossly exaggerates many statistics which are directly derived from that inflation number, most notably GDP. The “GDP growth” reported by the U.S. government for the past four years of this so-called “recovery” is no more substantial than the fantasy-jobs reported by the BLS, and no more plausible than the U.S. government’s “0% inflation” claim.

What this means is that the “state administrator” being sent in to supposedly repair Detroit’s financial crisis has a 0% chance of succeeding. Garbage in; garbage out. Armed with the same fantasy-data as his/her predecessor, the revenue projections for “the New Boss” will be just as laughably optimistic as those of “the Old Boss.”


Too-Big-To-Fail (Now) = Too Big To Jail

US Commentary

A few years ago I wrote a piece entitled Why Too Big To Fail = Too Big To Exist with respect to the Wall Street banking oligopoly and its “friends” in other bankster-dominated Western regimes. This week U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder demonstrated the truth of that proposition by asserting that these criminal-banks were now “too big to prosecute.”

Translation: he, and the rest of the Justice Department, are refusing to perform their sworn duties and uphold the Rule of Law in the United States because it’s inconvenient. Outrageous.

Apart from the pathetically servile attitude which the ‘Justice’ Department is taking with respect to crimes committed by the Wall Street oligopoly, it’s argument is totally without merit. Obviously sending criminals to prison would not cause people to lose confidence in the U.S. financial system. What has already caused much/most of the world to “lose confidence” in the U.S. financial system (as evidenced by all of the banksters’ “markets” which have withered-and-died since 2008) is refusing to send the criminals to prison.

It is highly instructive (on several levels) to note that a U.S. Senator described the position/attitude of Holder and the rest of the ‘Justice’ Department posers as equivalent to giving the banksters a “get-out-of-jail-free card”. What is the origin of this metaphor? The game of Monopoly.

A “get-out-of-jail-free card”, or (alternately) the Justice Department openly refusing to prosecute banksters means simply one thing: being above the law. And the only possible context where white-collar criminals could/can be above the law is if they are part of a monopoly (or oligopoly).

In my original piece from 2009; I explained why the instant that the Wall Street oligopoly (and its European brethren) portrayed themselves as “too big to fail” that this meant beyond any possible shadow of a doubt that they were now “too large to exist”.

TBTF is nothing less than an official mantra of blackmail, based on a perpetual/implicit threat: “keep us alive…or else”. There are no possible circumstances under which a society could/should allow itself to be perpetually blackmailed by what is literally a corporate crime syndicate. In claiming that they were “too big to fail”; the Big Banks immediately confessed they were now too large to exist.

Put another way, there is no possible (supposed) “harm” which could result from smashing this banking oligopoly into little pieces which could ever equal the harm of living in an economic system which was subjected to the perpetual coercion, blackmail, and endless acts of financial malfeasance of this white-collar crime syndicate.

Indeed, this same financial cabal tried to economically obliterate Iceland (as punishment) when it threw the Financial Oligarchs out of its own nation. Instead, by purging itself of this crime syndicate it became the first-and-only (formerly) banker-dominated economy to actually recover/escape from the financial carnage – created by this same syndicate – in the Crash of ’08.

Similarly, when the sycophant/apologist Eric Holder insists that the banksters themselves are now “too big to jail”, he has instantly-and-conclusively proven that these criminals must be brought to justice…immediately. Just as there is no possible scenario in which the TBTF crime syndicate could be allowed to engage in perpetual blackmail; there is no possible scenario where these individual banksters could be allowed to be above the law.


U.S. Corpse-Economy Still Losing Jobs

US Commentary

Ignore the fantasy-numbers. Ignore the inane hype which accompanies them. There is only one Truth with respect to the U.S. labour market and employment. It is contained in the chart below, produced by the Federal Reserve itself.

The picture is unequivocal. During the four years which the U.S. government has dubbed “an economic recovery”, the U.S. economy has been losing jobs at the fastest rate in recorded history – for every year of this so-called recovery.

Having a background in economics and statistics, I’ve explained in numerous previous commentaries precisely how/why the concocted “statistics” claiming to show “new jobs” have no basis in reality. The problem is that unless readers themselves have a reasonably sophisticated understanding of the mathematics involved, it may be difficult for them to follow such reasoning.

However, everyone can “understand” a line going straight down. This is the U.S. labour market (and has been for the past four years): a line going straight down. There is no “reality”; no set of conditions where a line going straight down can translate into “more jobs.”

This is the only “unadjusted” labour statistic produced by the U.S. government, therefore it must represent the Truth. What does that make all of the “adjusted” numbers which purport to show the U.S. economy “adding jobs” month after month after month? That’s right: lies.

But don’t take my word for it. Hear it from a friendly source: Forbes Magazine:

Our analysis of U.S. withheld income and employment taxes [in 2012] tells us that…job growth has been around 100,000 per month less than being reported by the BLS.

However, lest any of the more-naïve readers assume that Forbes’ numbers themselves represent any bottom-line “reality”, the Forbes writer goes on to add:

last year [2011] we reported better job and wage and salary growth numbers than the BLS and BEA.

Yes, in 2011 Forbes Magazine claimed that the line going straight down (U.S. employment) was going up at even a steeper angle than the fiction-writers at the BLS. The salient point here is that even Forbes Magazine (a producer of its own fantasy-job numbers) acknowledges that reported “job gains” by the BLS cannot be reconciled with actual taxation records.

Note that both the BLS and Forbes (and the rest of the mainstream media) have been claiming that there has been growth in jobs and wages during this so-called “recovery.” Below is a chart showing food-stamp usage in the U.S.


Paper Gold Isn’t Real Gold

Gold Commentary

When markets are manipulated (especially markets for physical goods), imbalances are created. The longer the manipulation continues and/or the more extreme the degree of manipulation, the larger the resultant imbalance.

The Corporate Media continues to attempt to describe the large gold-deficit which exists in India as a “current account deficit” – i.e. a currency deficit. Gold is a currency. It is and always has been regarded as such by our governments and the international cabal of private banks (the “central banks”) who are allowed to control/operate our monetary systems.

As a matter of the most elementary logic, it is impossible for one to create a “currency deficit” when you are simply swapping one currency for another. If we were to trade McIntosh apples for Delicious apples, we could not end up with “an apple shortage.” So all these media reports of a “current account deficit” for India are a clumsy sham. India has a large gold-deficit. Period.

Why does India have a large gold-deficit? Why does this worry the Financial Oligarchs to such a great degree that they not only continue to obsess about it in their own, media propaganda-machine; but they also feel compelled to lie about the situation? Most importantly, why do these same Oligarchs believe they can fix/solve this gold deficit through selling “paper gold”?

There is only one, possible explanation for the large, persistent gold-deficit which exists in India: the under-pricing of gold versus their own paper currency. Understand that Indians are not only renowned as the biggest consumers of gold, but also the most-shrewd buyers with respect to price.

In short, India’s “gold deficit” could be solved tomorrow, with no financial contortions (or fraud) of any kind; simply through a substantial increase in the price of gold (to its fair-market value). In fact, this is the most elementary principle in our (supposedly) free/open markets: whenever a supply/demand imbalance exists – in this case gold currency versus paper currency – price rises for the good in short supply to whatever level is necessary to restore equilibrium in that market.

Note that with all our currencies maintained (i.e. manipulated) within relatively tight ranges to each other (what our governments call “competitive devaluation”) that if gold is (and has been) chronically under-priced versus the Indian rupee then it must also be chronically under-priced with respect to all the other variations of these paper currencies.

Presumably the bankers (and media talking-heads who parrot them) are familiar with the most basic mechanism of free/open markets. Presumably these same individuals actually believe our own markets to be free/open. Yet when these same individuals continue to fret (and lie about) India’s gold deficit; the only remedies they can suggest are fraud or manipulation.

The manipulation is already a fait accompli. India’s government has jacked-up the import duty on gold. Or to put this another way, it has artificially raised the price of gold in order to artificially decrease demand. The only possible way to characterize this action is “market manipulation.”

Now the (proposed) fraud. The other “bright idea” being floated by the media/bankers is to sell Indians more (imported) “paper gold” – lots more. The obvious question is how can you solve a gold deficit by selling “paper gold”, unless one is actually only selling paper, but calling it gold?

The fact that some sort of sham is being attempted here is obvious. The only remaining issue is to precisely clarify the nature of that sham. Examining this issue from a technical/legal perspective; in fact there are two ways in which “selling paper gold” could ‘solve’ a gold deficit.


A Golden Opportunity With Miners, Part III

Gold Commentary

Parts I and II of this series presented an overview of the precious metals mining sector. There it was noted that these companies have been (in the most neutral terminology possible) chronically undervalued in our markets.

The basic business model of these miners (and all commodity-producers) was described/explained. Specifically, it was demonstrated that over time all such producers must “leverage” the price of the commodity they produce – as a basic proposition of arithmetic.

However, despite being in the best-performing commodity sector for the past 12 years, and despite the superlative fundamentals for precious metals going forward; as the saying goes, all gold- and silver-miners “are not created equal.” Notably, there is a dramatic schism between the large-cap corporations in this sector (which tend to attract the most investor dollars and attention) and the smaller producers.

To understand the night-and-day difference between these companies, it’s best to begin by looking at the typical large-cap business model with respect to precious metals miners. As with large corporations in general, their philosophy is the epitome of simplicity – in other words utterly simplistic. Bigger is better.

In a world populated by small corporations, and blessed with abundant resources; this simplistic mantra was in fact a general economic truism…about a hundred years ago. In today’s world of scarce resources, already over-populated with mega-corporations; it is a dinosaur-strategy, assuring one’s path to extinction.

While this observation is appropriate to most of the corporate world, it is especially easy to illustrate the truth of this (modern) principle by examining precious metals mining. Look at every large gold mining company on the planet, and one will see the clear illustration of a strategic decision by management: the choice to operate a (relatively) small number of mega-mines, versus choosing instead to produce gold from a larger number of smaller mines.

At a very elementary level, this strategy may seem to represent wisdom. The simplistic corporate mantra is that larger operations must be “more efficient” than smaller ones. While this assertion is not necessarily true in general, it is patently untrue with respect to precious metals mining (and most forms of mining).

In a world of diminishing resources, resource-scarcity necessarily implies two realities in mining. The number of (undeveloped) “large deposits” in the world is steadily declining, and the “grades” (i.e. richness) of the ore is also steadily declining. This means extracting/crushing/refining more and more tons of ore to get less and less ounces of gold.

From an environmental standpoint, this is an appalling dynamic. To begin with, the amount of environmental disruption/devastation which results from mining operations rises exponentially with the size of the mine. One large mine (typically) doesn’t produce an equal amount of “pollution” to four mines, ¼ its size; but often two or three times that quantity.

Yet even from the standpoint of corporate efficiency this is clearly an inept if not suicidal strategy. In our world of scarce resources, nowhere is this reality more apparent (and expensive) than with respect to energy. At best (i.e. producing high-grade ore from efficient mines), mining companies represent a highly energy-intensive form of industry.

Deliberately choosing to produce gold from deposits with rapidly declining grades, in an economic paradigm of soaring energy costs, in an energy-intensive industry is nothing less than a recipe for destroying one’s own profit margins. Out of desperation, the large-cap gold miners have turned to polymetallic deposits for their jumbo mines, bolstering their sagging bottom-lines by using the “credits” from these other metals to offset soaring production (energy) costs.


A Golden Opportunity With Miners, Part II

Gold Commentary

Part I of this three-part series dealt mainly with the general. It identified the basic premise of successful investing (“buy low/sell high”), and then explained both empirically and as a study in psychology how/why most investors violate this Golden Rule with their investing.

Readers were introduced to the Contrarian paradigm of investing. It was then shown how adopting this Contrarian perspective offered investors the only realistic possibility of buying low and selling high – on a potentially consistent basis.

The first part of this series then concluded by explaining what makes gold and silver mining companies a Contrarian’s Dream:  a “low tide” sector which is currently bereft of any investment capital; yet despite the un-loved status of this sector it has a 12-year bull market behind it.

The obvious inference here is that if a sector at “low tide” can have a 12-year rising trend behind it; imagine where it will go when the tide finally comes in. Emphasizing this premise; Part II will illustrate how/why precious metals and precious metals miners have the most-favorable fundamentals of any sector…going forward.

There are far too many bullish fundamentals backing gold and silver themselves to merely list them all. Indeed, summarizing only the reasons why precious metals “must rise” in price over the long term is beyond the scope of this piece. However, readers interested in such analysis have plenty of past commentaries from which to choose, beginning with The Three Legs of the Precious Metals Bull.

It will full occupy the space available for this analysis just to explain why gold and silver miners must leverage those gains in bullion prices over the longer term.

When one speaks of any commodity-producer “leveraging the gains” in price for the commodity they produce (over time); this notion is not a mere suggestion. It’s not a “theory.” It’s not even merely “conventional wisdom.”

This is simple arithmetic, and so (just as 2 + 2 = 4) it must be true. An easy, hypothetical example demonstrates this concept in tautological terms.

An investor enters the market with a specific quantity of capital to invest. The investor wishes to position his capital in the precious metals sector; however he is torn between investing in bullion or the miners, so he puts half into each. For simplicity, I will use a starting price of $500/oz per gold; however the principle is true with respect to any numerical values.

Making things even simpler, there is only one gold-miner in which investors can purchase shares; and it costs this miner $400/oz for each oz of gold it digs out of the ground and then processes.

The investor is successful. Gold moves from $500 to $1,000/oz. Now let’s see how this price-change has impacted this hypothetical portfolio. The effect of the rise in price on this investor’s bullion holding is simple. With the price moving from $500 to $1,000, he has doubled his money. However, the picture is much different when he looks at his mining investment.

With the cost to produce each ounce of gold being $400/oz; at $500/oz the miner was making $100 (or a 25% margin) on each ounce of gold produced. Not too shabby, but nothing to get excited about…yet.

With the price of gold at $1000/oz; this same mining company is now making $600 profit on each ounce of gold produced, as its profit-margin soars from 25% to 150%. The investor’s bullion has doubled in value, however the mining company in which he holds shares has become six times as profitable.


Page 5 of 29

Latest Comments

Disclaimer: is not a registered investment advisor - Stock information is for educational purposes ONLY. Bullion Bulls Canada does not make "buy" or "sell" recommendations for any company. Rather, we seek to find and identify Canadian companies who we see as having good growth potential. It is up to individual investors to do their own "due diligence" or to consult with their financial advisor - to determine whether any particular company is a suitable investment for themselves.

Login Form