Bank of International Settlements Changed Silver Data

(From $203 to $93 Billion in Silver Liabilities?)

Silver Stock Report

by Jason Hommel, July 6th, 2011

The Bank of International Settlements (BIS) has changed, or revised, their silver derivatives data in their derivatives reports. The change took place between their June, 2010 report, and their December, 2010 report, for the period of June, 2009. The change was from $203 billion in “other precious metals” liabilities, changed down to $93 billion.

The change took place, in Table 22A: Amounts outstanding of OTC equity-linked and commodity derivatives, By instrument and counterparty, in the category of “other precious metals”, for June, 2009, Notional amounts outstanding.

In June, 2009, the silver price was about $15/oz.

This means that the $203 billion silver liability divided by $15/oz. shows that all the banks in the world that are tracked by the BIS owed 13.5 billion ounces of silver.

But the entire world silver mining production is only about 700 million oz. of silver annually, so this is an admission that the banks owed about 19.3 years worth of world annual mine production of silver.

The adjustment, from $203 billion, down to $93 billion was a drop of $110 billion, or more than half of the number! The lower number, $93 billion, is still absurdly large, at about 6.2 billion oz. of silver, or about 8.8 years of worth of world annual mine production of silver.

The obviously large and very excessive amounts are the smoking gun of silver fraud by the western world’s banks.

This BIS data is extremely important, because it is far larger than the excessive short selling amounts often noted at the COMEX, which typically is only about 1 billion ounces of silver, or less.

I attended the CFTC open hearings on silver manipulation. A banking representative was asked directly what the banks were hedging by being so massively short of silver at the COMEX. The answer was that the banks were “hedging client long positions in the OTC market”. That’s obviously an admission of manipulation, because client long positions do not need to be hedged, since the client obviously wants to be exposed to the changes in the silver prices, which is why they bought silver to be held by the large LBMA member banks in the first place. So if the banks are hedging client long positions, it means that the bank has not bought the silver, and that they want to prevent silver prices from going up, because if it does, then the banks will owe their clients a lot of money, so, to “hedge” that exposure, they short at the COMEX, which is the market that generates “price discovery”, since trades there create a trail and record of prices.

After all, imagine what the silver prices would be if the LBMA banks actually went into the market to buy 13 billion ounces of silver, or 19 years worth of annual production. Clearly, the silver prices could go hundreds if not thousands of times higher, and it could destroy the entire financial system of paper money.

The revision was an adjustment from $203 billion down to $93 billion, and the adjustment is strange, because it was the only number that was repeatedly and consistently highlighted in this silver stock report. It’s also strange because the amount of the value of the gold contracts, at $425 billion, and other commodities contracts, at $3101, went unchanged for that reporting period.

This BIS change is significant, both in the relatively large silver amounts, and the reporting period. The change took place after I began publishing this BIS data, and soon after I filed the first anti trust complaint against JP Morgan with the Justice Department, in April, 2010.

This data change also took place after the filing of approximately 25 lawsuits against JP Morgan over silver manipulation.

It has been difficult to document the BIS data change, since they often change the web links to their reports, and they change the reports directly. But a helpful reader has discovered the original reports at the BIS website.

From 2009, Dec report: $203 billion for the June, 2009 period.

From the 2010, June report: $203 billion for the June, 2009 period.

From the 2010, December report: $93 billion for the June, 2009 period.

From the 2011, June report: $93 billion for the June, 2009 period.

Since the BIS changes their urls and reports, I saved all of these pdf files, which are archived here:

And since the BIS changes their urls and reports, I also captured a print screen of these pdf files being opened directly on the BIS website:

In conclusion, it’s not a “conspiracy theory” that the banks are manipulating the silver market. The BIS bank data shows the conspiracy.

And when the banks are saying indirectly, “don’t trust us”, given both the large amounts and large changes in their published data, it would be foolish to trust them.

It’s a mathematical certainty that silver prices will explode upwards in price, and only people who hold their own silver will benefit from the major value change that’s coming.

You can buy real silver from us at

We have much lower prices, or premiums over spot, right now. Everyone wants to buy on a dip. Now’s your chance!


I strongly advise you to take possession of real gold and silver, at anywhere near today’s prices, while you still can. The fundamentals of silver indicate rising prices for decades to come, and a major price spike can happen at any time.

Follow me on facebook!

JH MINT & Coin Shop, Grass Valley, CA — minimum order $5000 for free shipping, USA shipping only.
Open 10AM to 5PM Pacific Time, Monday to Friday, closed weekends and bank holidays.
(530) 273-8175
Kerri handles internet phone orders:
(530) 273-8822

You can also buy silver from my mom at
Mom will ship overseas, and also in lots of more or less than 100 ounces.
3510 Auburn Blvd #12
Sacramento, CA 95821


Jason Hommel

Mathematical Proof that God Exists

(No math higher than pre-algebra required.)

Silver Stock Report
by Jason Hommel, June 24th, 2010

I first began to take the Bible seriously after a personal 6 month study of the topic of creation vs. evolution. I did this in the year 1998, about 2 years after I graduated from college. I started the study because I was feeling guilty about the way I was living my life, because of what I knew from the Bible. I felt I could cast off the guilt if the Bible were not true, and if man evolved. I actually wanted God to not be there. But after looking to see if he was there or not, I found Him.

After independent study, after going to a college that emphasized critical thinking skills, and with an adult brain, and actually looking into the matter, I could not deny the mathematical truth that God created the universe and man, and that man did not evolve as they taught in college. Basically, it boils down to two choices, not an infinite array; either the Creator made us, or not. The “not” category is the only one with an infinite array of wild choices, such as “we were made by evolution,” or even an infinite stack of turtles, or some other fantasy. The other choice is “the creator”, also known as “intelligent design”, or God exists.

I got A’s in Astronomy I and Astronomy II, in fact, I got the highest grade in my class on the final in Astronomy II, blowing the curve — yes I’m that guy, sorry. And I got the grade because I didn’t realize the final was open book, and I forgot to bring my book, so I studied “too hard”. Oops! Typical book geek smart. I mention this to quiet down the fools out there, who think I’m just a fool, or that I have not studied the issues or who falsely assume I’m merely a “believer” because I had the accident to be born in the USA, most of whom also believe in God. Note, the Astronomy I learned teaches evolution, the big bang theory and that God does not exist. This was not a Bible collage I went to, it was the University of Colorado at Boulder. But I later learned the discernment to think for myself, to determine if what the facts of what they had taught me was true, or not, and I was given the skills in philosophy classes to think logically about things. The final exam just was a test to see if I had memorized enough of the basic doctrine of what they taught. And yes, I got it. The highest grade. So I got all they taught, and then, I learned more, so now I know more than my former teachers in college do, about the implications of the basic information that they teach. I hope that does not sound too arrogant, but yes, that’s how it works, that’s how all knowledge of all mankind advances, and I hope to God that I’m advancing it.

So that leads me to be able to share with you, THE proof that ultimately convinced me, which is probably only one of the many irrefutable mathematical proofs that God created life, and that it was no accident of evolution.
Probabilities are rather easy to calculate, it’s simple math. If you need to roll nothing but 6 sixes on one roll of the dice, it’s 1/6th chance times 1/6th chance times, etc., 6 times, or 1/6th to the 6th power. That’s .0000214 of a chance, or, taking the inverse, you will roll it, on average, once in 46,656 attempts. It’s undeniable math.

Let’s say you have two chances to roll the dice? Well, then you have two chances in 46,656 on average that you will need, and to express that more simply, you simply divide the odds, which reduces it to 1 in 23,328. Note, to knock one digit off the odds, you need at least ten chances, which reduces the odds to one in 4,666 attempts, when the numbers are rounded off.

To get a cell of life to spontaneously form from a sea of amino acids, was, at one time, say, about 150 years ago, a matter of faith. Darwin put his faith into the idea that single cells were extraordinarily simple, and he said that if they were not, then his entire theory was wrong. Fools have believed this wrong idea, on faith, ever since.

Modern microscopes show that Darwin was wrong. Even modern evolutionists believe Darwin was wrong, since, in the mid 1990’s, they taught “punctuated equilibrium”, which is something like “fast evolutionary steps” rather than Darwin’s gradual processes, but that’s besides the point.

More and more, modern science shows how complex single cells are.
Do You Know How Complex a Single Cell Is?

Do You Know How Complex a Single Cell Is?

For a cell to spontaneously fit together from random pairings of all the amino acids in a “soup” would require them to be in a certain order, and would require some, but not all, amino acids joining together.

Now, here’s the kicker. All the possible combinations are larger than the time necessary to even contemplate them all on the fastest supercomputers. But the necessary exclusions are even larger, and give us a way to calculate the many possible combinations required for life.

Even the fastest supercomputers cannot compute all the possible chess moves in a single simple game of chess!

Given the number of amino acids required, and excluded, for even the most simple living cell, various math scholars have estimated the “chances” of life forming, at up to 1 in 10 to the 40,000th power. I remember finding the book that says that, in the library at the University of Colorado, in the days before there was an internet widely available.

Today, some say the chances are much, much higher.
Probability of Single Cell Evolution

According to a Hoyle, it’s 1 in 10 to the 57,000th power, and that’s only for a theoretical cell much simpler than any that exist.

According to another author, the chance that a single cell could evolve by chance is 1 in 10 to the 340 millionth power.

Mathematical Probability Shows Evolution is Ridiculous

But what I have not seen anyone calculate is how many chances the Universe gives us to see if that can happen. I’ve done that, to help put it into perspective.

Most people don’t understand big numbers. I do. In this silver stock report letter, I talk about big numbers all the time, but even these numbers are tiny compared to contemplating single cells, and the entire universe.

Astronomy teaches big numbers. Remember please, I got the top grade in the class, and I used to tutor people all the time in school, so please bear with me, I think I can explain this so anyone can understand it a bit more.

Evolution is based on the idea that with enough time, evolution can happen. But, that’s not true, as the numbers show. Here’s why it’s not true.

A single cell forming would be an event. Nobody can argue with that.

Every event requires both a time and a place. Nobody can argue with that. I once forgot the time of a final exam, and missed the event, but that’s besides the point.

The smallest event, at the least, requires the smallest length of measurable time, and at least two particles to create an interaction.

According to the science of Astronomy, we can calculate the rough time of the Universe.

According to the science of Astronomy, we can also calculate all the atoms in the Universe, giving us a maximum number of possible events that have ever happened, given all atoms, and given all time.

The total possible number of events gives us a maximum number of “lottery tickets,” so to speak, to see if enough time and enough galaxies could make the very low probability event of a single cell forming, possible, or not.

So, we simply need to determine the total number of atoms, times the total number of the smallest measurable unit of time.

And actually, since a single cell forming, would be a complex mix of many atoms, and many molecules and many amino acids, this would require many many simultaneous events to take place, so the chances are much smaller than my rough estimate, as follows.

And actually, most atoms in the universe are not capable of representing a chance at evolution, since the vast majority of the atoms of the universe are burning in the heart of stars, where evolution cannot happen, but let’s assume each atom is a chance anyway, just to humor the opposition.

There are about 10 to the 80th power number of atoms in the entire universe.
Ah, you don’t need to rely on my education. The web confirms:

Two approximate calculations give the number of atoms in the observable universe to be a minimum of 10 to the 80th power.

The reason they can nail it down so precisely is that there is a problem of “dark matter”, which, if counted, would only add 1 to the exponent, so it would be 10 to the 81st power, but they might have already done that. When I was in college, the number I remember was about one in 10 to the 79th, power, but there are multiple confirming ways to get about that number.

Let each particle then, stand for a place.

To have an event take place, such as a cell being created from amino acids, you need both a place and time, and, again, both are limited.

From the same Astronomy class, there are only a certain number of seconds since the universe was created, from 15 to 20 billion years ago, and only a certain number of parts you can divide a second into, to create a maximum number of times.

The current best evolutionary based theory is that the maximum age of the Universe is 13.7 billion years, so let’s go with that. (I actually believe the Universe could have been, and was more likely formed, in 6 literal 24 hour days, about 6000 years ago, but that’s also besides the point, and not required to get into for the purposes of our discussion here.)

Age of the universe

Wikipedia also tells us how many seconds per year.

In the Unified Code for Units of Measure, the symbol a (without subscript) always refers to the Julian year aj of exactly 31,557,600 seconds.

The smallest fraction of time is actually determined by the smallest wavelength vibration, by which particles can be measured, which is a fraction of a second.

Quantised time

Planck time (~ 5.4 × 10 to the -44 seconds power) is the unit of time in the system of natural units known as Planck units. Current established physical theories are believed to fail at this time scale, and many physicists expect that the Planck time might be the smallest unit of time that could ever be measured, even in principle.

So, now we simply multiply:
13.7 billion years = 13,700,000,000 years.
31,557,600 seconds per year
x Planck time.

In scientific notion:

Years = 1.37 x 10 to the 10th power
Seconds = 3.1 x 10 to the 7th power
Planck time = 5.4 x 10 to the 44th power number of parts of a second.
To multiply, you simply multiply the first numbers, and add the exponents.
1.37 x 3.1 x 5.4 = 22.9
10 + 7 + 44 = 61

So, we get 22.9 x 10 to the 61st power number of times in the entire age of the universe, or:

2.3 x 10 to the 62nd power number of times in the age of the universe.
Now, we multiply that, by the total number of atoms, which is 10 to the 80th power.

Simple, add the exponents: 62 plus 80 = 142. Nobody can argue with that.
Surely, nobody can have difficulty following such simple math, so I assume everyone is with me then?

2.3 x 10 to the 142nd power represents the maximum number of “atom level” events that can take place in the entire universe, over 13.7 billion years.

An event that would require hundreds of thousands of molecules made up of atoms and thousands of amino acids made up of molecules would mean that you would have thousands and thousands of times fewer chances, of course, so the number of chances for life forming from molecular amino acids would be far less, perhaps a million times less, or perhaps only by 10 to the 7th or 9th power, but we can work with the higher figure.

Again, a low minimum number of chances needed for life forming at random are about 1 in 10 to the 40,000th power.

And a high maximum number of chances in the universe is only 1 in 10 to the 142nd power.

To get the actual odds then, we merely subtract the exponents.
40,000 minus 142 = 39,858.

In other words, the total number of chances available in the entire universe didn’t help increase the possibility of evolution in the slightest bit!

We actually need to use standard scientific notation rounding standards to take that number and round it right back up to 40,000 again, because the original number, 40,000 is accurate to only one digit, so the final number must be rounded back to one digit.

See “significant figures”.

And if we use the larger figure of the chances needed for a cell forming of 1 in 10 to the 340,000,000th power, and subtract 142, we can really see how ridiculous it is, as:

340,000,000 – 142 = 339,999,858.

In other words, there is no discernible difference, no increase to the chances that life happened by chance, given all the billions of years and all the billions of galaxies available, particularly since a billion is not some hugely unimaginable figure, but rather, is a simple and small and unintimidating number described as only 10 to the 9th power.

Here is another way to express all of this math.

Anyone who doubts that God made the simplest form of life, the simplest virus or bacterium like cell, by design, requires 10 to the 40,000th power or 10 to the 340 millionth power more blind faith and gullibility than the Christian who believes that “God created life”.

Now, there are fools out there who will say, “Well life didn’t have to evolve on earth, it could have evolved elsewhere, and then those other life forms created life on earth”. And that is the popular lore of the “Star Trek” fantasy. Well, as we know, fools don’t pay attention. See, according to the calculations, the other forms of life could not be organically based, because I already included all other places in the universe.

So, according to the calculations, those other life forms who created life could not be organic based; they would have to exist in another dimension, or be entirely spiritually based, and we would have to use other words to describe them, such as “4th or 5th dimensional imps,” “angels,” “demons,” “fairies,” or “God”.

Let me translate that again, and discuss.

Modern science and basic math has improved to the point that we can prove that other dimensional, or spiritual, and intelligent beings created life on earth! For a while, I thought that was just too vague to make conclusions about, but bear with me some more.

The one who created life, by definition, is called “the creator”. That helps a bit. This creator would have to have the ability to pre exist, outside our current 3D universe or space time continuum, and furthermore, he would have to have the ability to interact and “reach into” our current 3D world to change and manipulate matter on the atomic and molecular level, with either His hands, mind, thoughts, or words, just to put things together in the right order to create life. This means that the creator would have to have miraculous powers to totally suspend the laws of physics to do and effect absolutely anything he wants to in our dimension, therefore every miracle in the Bible is easily seen as possible. Furthermore, if the creator can violate the laws of physics, he might have also created the laws of physics, which hints at the creator actually sustaining the laws of physics, and also sustaining the existence of all atoms and even all wavelengths of light and energy that were also created.
The creator clearly was, and is, intelligent, and He created willfully, purposefully.

Astronomy was looking for a “unified field theory” that explains everything. I see nothing wrong with using the words “The creator”, or “God” since “The Creator” is what God is called in the Bible. I see nothing wrong with using those words to describe the process of life, and the existence of the Universe, to explain as the answer, since that’s what those words mean, and we are supposed to use the right words to describe the right concepts if we are to understand, and be understood by others.

Said another way, “God exists”. Wait, there’s more.

I think that God is going to grow a bit more upset as time goes on at the fools who refuse to believe that he created us. If I were God, I would be a bit more angry at the fools who say “God does not exist”, given that humanity now has enough knowledge to prove, by simple math, that God created life.

Therefore, I will no longer tolerate fools who berate me for believing the Bible is the word of God. And I will no longer tolerate them if they claim the Bible is a fantasy story, becaus, clearly, they believe that on far less grounded faith than my mathematically based reason. From now on, I will refer them to this page:

See, the math proves you have to start by assuming that God created all life. Whether the Bible is the word of God or not, is another issue, yes. But there is no other written record that explains who God is in such extensive detail; there is no other book like the Bible that exists, including the book of Mormon and the Koran; they are just not the same.

Since God does exist, a God who was smart enough to create life, to overcome the odds, you have to also belive that God created life on purpose, for a purpose, and that God must also have communicated that purpose to mankind in a clear enough way for most of mankind to have gotten the message.

Well, the Bible is the most popular book in the world, with no other book even coming remotely close, so that qualifies it as THE message from God, since that’s also what the book itself says it is.

The world has printed from 2.5 to 6 billion copies of the Bible, enough for nearly every person on earth.

The purpose of life, as I understand it, since I have read the Bible, is to glorify God, and to enjoy the life he gave us, and that we will enjoy it more, when we follow his instructions for us, and the Bible is His instructions for mankind.
God actually wants us all to live forever, in peace.

To start on the path to becoming a Christian to hopefully obtain that eternal life is easy. You can start by reading the Bible.

You will discover Jesus, who died for all of our sins, so that you and me, we don’t have to die, since Jesus paid the price for our sin, by dying in our place. By one man, Adam, (who is described in the first part of the Bible, the part that’s really easy to find), sin entered the world, and by one man, Jesus, we can all be reconciled to God.

Suprisingly, God actually wants you to testify about your faith, to other people, and in this way, Jesus testifies to God that He knows you, and that you are His.

Rom 5:8 But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.

1John 1:8 If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.

1John 1:9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

Rom 10:9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.

Rom 10:10 For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.

Mat 10:32 Whosoever therefore shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven.

Some people ask, “What about people who never heard about Jesus?” Well, what about them? I’m sure they will get their chance in the resurrection, when God will resurrect everyone, both the just and the unjust.

Acts 24:15 And have hope toward God, which they themselves also allow, that there shall be a resurrection of the dead, both of the just and unjust.

But now the discussion is moving towards the study of the last things, and that is another subject for another time. I discuss these things further, at my other website,

In the meantime, let me conclude with this. If the numbers can prove that God exists, don’t you think the numbers that I’ve shared with you over the years about the tiny size of the silver market show that you will have no choice but to make a fortuney by investing in, buying, and taking home, real silver? To me, it’s almost as irrefutable, and just about as certain.


I strongly advise you to get real gold and silver, at anywhere near today’s prices, while you still can .
Price Board:

Our Coin Shops are open 10AM to 5PM Pacific, Monday to Friday
100 oz. silver minimum, USA shipping, wire transfer only!
Janelle (530) 913 0553

JH MINT & Coin Shop, Grass Valley, CA
(530) 273-8175

Rocklin Coin Shop, CA, 15 min north of Sacramento

Or visit
(Mom will ship in lots of more or less than 100 ounces of silver, and overseas, and take credit cards or pay pal.)
Jason Hommel

Why Silver will be a Better Investment than Gold

(And Both are Better than Dollars)

Silver Stock Report

by Jason Hommel, November 17th, 2009

Recently many of my readers have been asking, “Why is silver lagging gold?”
After all, in March, 2008, gold hit $1020, and silver exceeded $20, yet here we are now, with gold now above $1145, and silver at $18.33, not even at $19!
The really funny thing is the way the popular media spin the price relations.
When silver underperforms gold, they say, “Silver is not confirming gold’s rise, therefore, gold prices are due for a fall.”

And when silver outperforms gold, they say, “Silver is exceeding gold’s rise, therefore, this bull run is overdone, and thus, gold prices are due for a fall.”
In other words, we have a manipulated market. Not only is the price manipulated, but so is the news coverage!

Of course, the media could give opinions the other way, and say, “With silver lagging gold, it shows that gold has much further to run, and also silver is due to catch up and exceed gold’s pace, thus making silver the much better buy now.” Or, after silver outperforms, they could say, “Silver’s outperformance has confirmed everything the silver bulls have been saying for the last ten years.” But they never do that, do they?!

As it is, the price ratio changed from 64 on Friday to 62 on Monday, so silver far outperformed gold on Nov. 16th.

Gold moved from $1118.50 on Friday to $1139.80, a rise of $21.3/oz., or a 1.9% increase.
Silver moved from $17.42 on Friday to $18.40, a rise of $.98/oz., or 5.6% increase.

Silver sure didn’t lag behind gold on that day!

So, is all news that is bearish on silver evidence of “manipulation?” Of course not. Some commentators are not colluding on purpose, they are simply willfully ignorant.

For example, here is an independent Christian newsletter writer named Gary North who writes:

Why Silver Is a Poorer Investment Than Gold (Nov. 14th)

You’d think he could have timed his article better. He published on Nov. 14th, and was proven wrong in less than 48 hours!

Nearly everything Gary writes in that article is not really the whole truth. I’m shocked to read his take on silver. After all, he has written perhaps the most thorough economic commentary on the Bible that exists (very long, quite good, but could use a bit of improvement).

So I don’t think he’s an agent of the banks, so I think it must be ignorance that is distorting his judgment, or perhaps his age. I’ve tried to answer his questions on silver over the years, but he has not replied with reason, but rather with emotion, so there must be something more at work here, but I don’t know what it could be. He wrote last year:

Jason Hommel Tells Me Off: I Do Not Understand Commodities, Silver, and Especially the Bible. He Demands That I Answer Him.

So, this and his other essays go to show he is not unfamiliar with my work, but rather, he has some sort of emotional rage against it. This is why I cannot excuse Gary as simply being ignorant of the statistics that he mocks, but rather, he is willingly ignorant.

But that’s in the past. I want to refute his recent article, and get to the recent ten year relative performance of silver vs. gold. All we need is a gold/silver ratio price chart.

A quick search on google reveals a source. I trust Gold-Eagle: Here it is:

The silver to gold ratio is the red line. You can see it topped out at 100 in 1990, when it took 100 oz. of silver to buy 1 oz. of gold. This ratio dropped to nearly 50 in 1997. It went back up to 80 both in 2003, and 2009, and now has gone back down to about 64, and now 62 today.

So, depending on the time frame, silver has out paced gold, or gold has out paced silver. As the red line goes down, silver is better. As the red line goes up, gold is better.

But if you use a selective time frame, only 10 years, you can see that the silver to gold ratio was about 60 ten years ago, and is 62 today, showing that gold slightly outperformed during that selective time period in question. But what is the main thrust of Gary’s argument? That the future must be like the past? And that the past only consists of the last ten years? Clearly, neither premise is not even remotely true, and the entire argument would deny the reality of economic cycles. Clearly, Gary is not ignorant of the economic cycle, so why did he forget that his argument would not be valid? Did emotionalism get the best of Gary?

As we can see from the big picture, Gold would have been a better investment than silver until 1990, the key turning point. Gary’s claim to the foundation of his “correctness” is being good at making interim market calls, and that he is old. Did he tell his subscribers to load up on silver in 1990? I have no idea. Did Gary tell his subscribers to load up on silver when it hit $8.50/oz. in the last year? No. I know. I’ve been a paying subscriber of his since he tried to discredit me. In his own words, “His “market calls” were utterly useless when it mattered.”

Furthermore, the dollar/gold price charts, and dollar/silver price charts do not “tell all” as he claims. Such charts contain zero information about how many dollars have been printed up in the past, and have yet to show up in futures prices of the metals. Such charts contain zero information about how much silver has been consumed and lost in the age of electronics that have ended up in landfills at concentrations too low to economically recover. It is only bad theory that the price charts contain “all the information” you need to know to make a future prediction on prices.

The charts Gary chose to present are not even “objective facts”. All gold/dollar and silver/dollar price charts are misleading, as the dollar is not a constant measuring tool, but a varying one. What if I showed you a growth chart of my 15 month old boy, but used a ruler made out of silly putty and stretched it at different rates at varying intervals? Certainly, nobody would call such a chart an “objective fact”. Charts are also not “objective facts” when you can produce them over select time frames to distort the overall picture. Gary’s price charts from the year 2000 are not as useful as the long term ratio chart above, if you want to try to use a chart to make long term predictions.

Is anyone here planning on living for longer than a time frame of the next ten years? (Well, Gary might not, he’s old, remember.) If you plan to live longer, you might want to consider longer time frames. I know I want to. After all, I’m only 39, and if I live to be 90, I can use an investment that might not pay off in 10 years, or even 20, but should come to fruition within my time frame of up to the next 50 years. For me, silver is it.

After Gary claims that non-facts are facts, he then tells his readers to beware of statistics, because the long term statistics that the silver bulls have been presenting for the last 10 to 40 years have not yet shown up in relative price performance (even though they have).

But the facts from the ratio chart prove that silver has been outperforming gold for 19 years now, and thus, perhaps Gary should have been paying attention to both the facts and statistics for silver.

In fact, it might be considered somewhat of a miracle that silver has outperformed gold for the last 19 years, while no nation on earth has yet returned to using silver as money! Think about that!

Since Gary seems to not want to be bothered with either facts or statistics, I’ll just paint the broad picture, with limited numbers, so that maybe he can wrap his mind around the major changes that have happened during his lifetime.

Nearly 300 years ago, back in 1717, the Bank of England started devaluing silver, in favor of a “gold standard”.

This was really a change to a paper standard, since gold was valued in terms of paper money, no longer valued in terms of real silver, but only “token” silver. This continued until Germany left silver in the late 1800’s. This created a glut of silver, which continued to devalue silver, until all nations on earth stopped using silver as money, and as each one left silver, it created a glut of silver on the world marketplace. This reduced monetary demand has continued to make silver a bargain for the last 100 years. The last great mintage of silver coins was in the US in 1964. After that, the US only made 40% half dollars for a few years, (we have three $1000 face value bags of 40% silver for sale at 6% over spot, that’s 295 oz/bag x spot x 1.06). Call us at (530) 273-8175 to own a true “abomination”, a real life example of an “unjust weight and measure” from our own nation’s recent history, today!

You can see the declining value for silver over a 600 year inflation adjusted silver chart:

You may note that this chart is in stark contrast to the flatline chart showed by Gary North.

But something interesting happened towards the end of this multi hundred year long trend of demonetizing silver.

At the end of World War II, the age of electronics began. Prior to WWII, most families in the US did not have many electrical devices. After the second great war, homes began buying things like refrigerators, washing machines and dryers, dishwashers, blenders, toaster ovens, electric can openers, TV sets, air conditioners, and much more, of course.

If you look at the “statistics” you can see that the per capita consumption of silver in the USA increased by about ten times in about a 3 year period, and it has stayed rather high at about 6 tenths of an ounce per person per year ever since.

Another funny thing happened. The age of electronics was not limited to the USA, but went out to many nations, even our former enemies in WWII, and even other nations around the world began to industrialize, and they, too, began consuming silver in electronic gadgets.

Gary has written a lot of crazy things like “you can safely ignore” arguments because it would show up in the price if true. Well, it already has, and it probably continue to do so, even more so, in the future! Trends well established for over 100 years that get hit by another major counter trend that began over 60 years ago might take a bit of time to show up, and it appears it began to, 19 years ago. It did show up rather spectacularly in the 1980 spike, where a tiny bit of money from one man who tried to buy some silver on leverage was smashed by the paper money powers. That was merely the foreshadow warning of what will happen when many billionaires or tens of thousands of millionaires demand real money (silver).

But Gary ignores all that, saying that the only thing that matters is recent price performance over 10 years as measured by a bad measure, the dollar. Wow.

He also has the gall to claim that men like myself issued no warnings about the decline in the silver price. Again, another example of his willful ignorance.

I have been warning that the gold and silver markets are manipulated by the selling of paper futures contracts for at least 8 years now.

In fact, I specifically warned about the manipulation when silver hit $16/oz., on the way down from $20 from early 2008. The article is very easy to understand, even for an old man, even though it does include a few numbers.

A Tribute to 7th Grade Math August 31, 2008

In that article, I pointed out that two banks sold 40 times as much paper silver as physical investors buy silver, in one month, which crashed the price. What followed was other paper longs selling out of their positions that continued to crash the price. This real world market action utterly refutes the textbook lie that futures contracts are supposed to help smooth out market prices. No, they do not. In actual fact, and truth, futures markets manipulate prices to great exaggeration, in both directions.

The manipulation of the markets by selling too much “paper gold and silver” is one of my main themes as a writer. See here:

Controlling Gold with Paper June 10, 2002
The Moral Failures of the Paper Longs Jan 22, 2003
Major Frauds of the U.S. Monetary System Feb 26, 2004 Silver Users Fear Silver Shortage Oct 27, 2005
The Silver ETF: What’s the Deal? Feb 23, 2006
The Money Chart: The Fundamentals of Gold & Silver Feb 25, 2006
No Excitement by $800 gold November 2, 2007
Silver: There’s Never Enough! January 15, 2008
I Don’t Trade Futures April 4, 2008

Here’s another good one for Gary:
Silver Keeping Pace with Gold; Set to Outpace Gold January 9, 2008

The last article, from Jan 2008, makes a good point:

The dollar, as a measuring stick, is broken. Gold at $850 in 1980 is not a valid price number as a reference, because a dollar in 1980 was worth more than today. We must adjust for inflation. And there are two ways to do that, first with lying government “consumer price index” statistics, which would give a price of about $2500/oz., or you can measure by money creation, which gives a price of about $7000 to $14,000. The $14,000 figure is if you include the recent $11 trillion in government bail out promises. By the time those prices are hit, adjusting for future inflation might give us even higher numbers. and a higher level of public participation in the gold and silver markets, and thus, higher relative silver prices to gold.

After all, let’s remember that most Americans are trend investors, and gold and silver are putting down a nice, safe, solid, trend!

I’d also like to point out what I was saying in nearly every article I wrote in 2003-4:

“Long before 1% of U.S. paper dollars tries to buy gold, gold will be going up well over $1000/oz., and silver will be headed up over $50/oz.”

Now that we are well over $1000/oz. for gold, we can easily measure how much US money is flowing into gold, and, in fact, I just measured that in my recent essays:

Grass Valley Buys 12 Times more Gold than National Average November 9th, 2009
Historic Gold Mine Area Residents Know Gold Prices are Too Low November 6th, 2009

America spends 00.013% of annual wealth (GDP) on less than 2% of the world’s annual gold production.!!!

America needs to buy about 77 times more gold than at current rates, to exceed the spending of 1% of U.S. paper dollars on gold!!!

“One percent of $14.4 trillion is $144 billion. In a gold market that sees annual production of 80 million oz., such buying could double or quadruple the price, depending on how tight the market gets from competition from other nations buying.”

Yes, I see, silver is not over $50/oz.!

But neither has 1% of the money in the USA started to buy gold, we are not even close! So just wait.

I did not buy silver to wait for the day that 0.013% of USA money would be flowing into gold. Did you?

No! I bought silver for the day when the dollar would become like toilet paper, and this implies that well over 50% of dollars will try to buy gold and silver at some point.

In actual fact, gold investors are buying silver. I know. We sell silver for gold! Furthermore, no customers have given us silver asking for gold. But we have had many customers trade their gold for silver!

I suppose i should not have tried to “tell it to Gary North” as he seems to suggest his retort will be to “tell it Jerome Smith”. I know, I know, Jerome Smith was a silver bull who died. Maybe Gary is brain dead, too.

Gary is also such a fool that he has no idea that his own recommendation to buy 80% gold, and 20% silver, would cause silver to move up far more than gold. After all, the gold investment market is a $92 billion market. (80 million oz. x $1145/oz.). The silver market is 600 million oz. produced per year, which, at $18.50, is an $11 billion market. If you spent 1/4 of $92 billion on silver, (20/80), that would be $23 billion.

Please Gary, please tell us all how $23 billion will fit into the $11 billion silver market without the price moving up far more than for gold? And let’s remember now, that the statistics show that most silver is consumed by industry, so if investors bought $23 billion worth of silver and consumed all new mining production, then no new mining production could go towards any industrial consumption!

The silver investment market is a much tinier $2 billion market (100 million oz. out of 600 million oz. produced x $18.50/oz.). Gary is suggesting that more than ten times as much money should go into silver as currently does! If everyone followed Gary’s advice, silver would probably have to move up at least five to maybe ten times higher than gold, just to accomodate the 80/20 investment that Gary suggests! Of couse, that’s mine production. But if we consider above ground supplies, well, I’ll let Gary try to research that. He may well find that above ground supplies for silver are more rare than gold, and I did say I was going to try to stay away from such statistics.

I’ll leave out the numbers, and I’ll note that all the gold ever mined in all of human history would fit into two Olympic sized swimming pools. And probably less silver than that is remaining!

So ironic. Gary’s analysis is so poor. But if it were any better, would silver prices remain so low? When men like him continually mock silver, while speaking out of their own ignorance, is it any wonder the price remains low?

But since I’m a silver investor who has 3 times as much silver as gold, I really can’t complain. After all, if the world knew what I knew, silver would already be several thousand dollars per ounce, or much higher!


I strongly advise you to get real gold and silver, at anywhere near today’s prices, while you still can.

See the JH MINT, and some of our gold inventory, at Youtube here (we also now have Gold Buffalo 24k coins):

You Tube

Call us today.

Yes, we sell silver, and gold at the JH MINT!
Buy it now! Buy Silver or Gold Now!
Inventory & Price List
Call the JH MINT, 10AM to 5PM Pacific, Monday to Friday:
100 oz. silver minimum, USA shipping, wire transfer only!
(530) 273-8175
Janelle (530) 913 0553

Active, live price quotes list:


Jason Hommel

In case you miss an email, check the archives:

Or visit
(Mom will ship in lots of more or less than 100 ounces, and overseas, and take credit cards or pay pal.)

If you are in Northern California, see:
Rocklin Coin Shop
4870 Granite Drive, Rocklin, CA 95677

Fekete and Hugo Price Hinder Free Market Development

(With “free market” advocates like these, we’ll never return to honest money!)

Silver Stock Report

by Jason Hommel, October 29th, 2009

Sometimes well meaning “experts” do more harm than good.
Antal Fekete explains “free coinage of gold” — to New Zealanders

Antal Fekete wants government to open their mints to the people, for free coinage of precious metals, to allow people to turn scrap gold, or newly mined gold, into gold coins for free.

Thus, he wants government to provide free (subsidized) services of four different businesses: assaying, refining, minting, and retail coin shops.
As he says, “the proper role of government is to provide coins for the realm”.
He also wants no seigniorage nor any tax nor cost associated with such conversions. Seigniorage is the extra value of precious metal in “official” coin form.

Antal is living in a fantasy land.

Government “help” can never be free. Subsidies and bail outs always come at a cost, it’s only a matter of who pays.

What’s especially troubling about Antal’s advocacy is that government subsidies are inconsistent with free market theory!

Since we handle three of those four services ourselves (all but refining) I think I’m qualified to speak on this topic.

Government bail outs are uneconomic, don’t work, and always come at a much higher cost than when provided by businesses in a competitive free market.
Government minted Silver Eagles already cost more than privately minted 1 oz. rounds, showing that government is not providing the service better or cheaper than private industry already does.

Furthermore, the US government’s current minting program sells retail “collectable” silver and gold to the public at the mint’s web site, but only at extremely high prices. The mint sells cheaper bullion to about 15 major wholesalers, who then re-sell to other dealers, like ourselves, who then sell to the public. This private-industry re-sale market is more efficient, and less costly, than direct purchases from the US Mint.

Assaying gold, refining, minting, and selling retail gold coins are all businesses that involve advertising a place of business, hiring skilled employees, paying for equipment, installing security systems, and training skilled people. Also, such businesses need to know how to offset the risks of price movements in the metal such as avoiding taking a short position in a bull market, and providing these services more efficiently than the competition.

Assaying requires a skilled and trained assayer making a quick and accurate estimated value of the underlying bullion. That estimate must also include all such costs of the business, such as advertising, rent, salaries, time taken away from other customers, etc.

One time, I needed to cover a silver order, and I was talking to some customers. Due to my 10 minute delay, I lost $150, because the silver price went up.
It is simply impossible for any government or any entity to sustainably pay everyone 100% of the bullion value for their bullion. Doing so would only create another government program that is open to being scammed and defrauded, at the ultimate cost to the taxpayers.

There are simply not enough real world resources, such as fire crucibles, to give every customer an individual 100% accurate fire assay, and it would be completely uneconomic to melt a single $25 pair of earrings in a special melting pot, which could cost well over $25 in energy just to melt, if melted individually, to obtain 100% accuracy. 100% accuracy would come at a loss of efficiency, and only businesses are able to understand this, and allocate resources to most appropriately meet these real world trade offs in the most efficient way. In some cases, it might cost 100% or more to give a 100% accurate assessment, which could result in offering nothing to the customer, or costing the government everything.

We pay from between 60% to 85% of our estimated bullion value when we buy scrap gold, which is higher than all other locations that we have heard of in the Sacramento Area. The difference is explained by the amount of time it may take to do an assay, and also by the accuracy of our assays, and also by the amount brought in by the customer. If a customer can bring in over 5 ounces of gold, we are simply able to pay more. If the quality of the gold is difficult to determine such as is the case with placer nuggets, or smaller 10k-18k jewelry items, we must offer less. Scrap gold comes in many forms, with many contaminants, and refining is a real, added cost.

Refining is a separate business which must aggregate, or pool together, enough scrap or placer gold to melt them economically. Our current refiner only works with established businesses like our coin shops, who will bring in repeat business of about 30-50 oz. of scrap gold per month. Refiners operate on the slimmest of margins. A man called us this week to sell us a new $1 million dollar machine to refine gold, so we could do our own refining, instead of using our current refiner. I said, “Great, we can pay for that machine, given our current refiner’s costs, in about 100 years!” At $1 million in start up, compared to our current great prices from our refiner, it’s just not economic for us to try to do it ourselves!

Minting coins is a business that today requires a minimum of 10 different machines and processes. We have a pre-melt bucket, a continuous caster, a rolling mill, a slitter mill, a punching machine, a rimming machine, an annealing oven, a burnishing vat, die making machines, and stamping mills. We are looking to buy a wrapping/tubing machine. All of those machines cost money, the installation costs money, the rent costs money, employees cost money. And we are still not yet set up to mint a single thing! How can it be provided for free?
Bottom line is this: Antal’s position assumes that these services should be provided by government for free, or essentially, at prices substantially less than the prices charged by existing, sustainable, competitive businesses in the free market today. Antal is thus claiming that the prices charged by businesses today are too high for his theoretically optimum scenario. It he accusing these businesses today of price gouging?

If current assaying, refining, minting, and retailing prices are really too high, then Antal should go into the market, and provide those services cheaper than industry is already providing. Go ahead Antal, start up your own scrap gold buying business if you think prices charged are too high. Nobody is stopping you. There is little government regulation, thank God, so the market is already free, and highly competitive in this area.

Many investors who could provide these services instead choose to buy mining stocks, as real business involves real work!

But Antal should not claim to be a free market advocate, while asking for government intervention and subsidy. That kind of rank hypocrisy can win no support from the public, who is sick of seeing government handouts, and can easily see they hypocrisy of a “free market” gold advocate who seeks government handouts.

The gold market does not need government welfare. We need government to get out of the gold business, and stay out.

What’s especially ironic about Antal’s position is that the government is already providing gold at “below market” costs, as they are dumping gold onto the market through the leasing of government central bank gold to bullion banks, who dump it into the market at opportune times, which is helping to manipulate prices lower than they should be.

In essence, Antal is already getting what he wants, that is to say, cheap gold provided on an uneconomic basis, but those of us who can see this correctly, are correctly identifying this as market manipulation, and we recognize that it is unsustainable, and is ending, which is leading to the higher gold prices we are seeing.


Another advocate of using precious metals as honest money is billionaire Hugo Salinas Price, in Mexico. Here’s some of his work:


Hugo wants the Mexican Central bank to provide a price quote that would be a virtual nominal currency value for a 1 ounce silver round, a value that will never go down, just as nominal values on notes and engraved values on coins never go down. It sounds elegant at first glance. Hugo maintains that this “price floor” for a silver coin is essential for helping it circulate as currency, since money holders should not be taking on the role of speculators.

But expecting to be able to ask the Mexican central bank for a favor that works against its own interests is self-defeating. Would I ask any of my customers to shoot themselves in the foot? Of course not!

Nobody expects the dollar, or any other currency, to “never move down” compared to other currencies of the world! There might be an exception. True, China is trying to let the value of their currency “only move up” against the dollar, but this is after they already devalued their own currency by 40% against the dollar a few years ago. Such attempts are normally and appropriately called price fixing, and are widely recognized as totally contrary to free market principles.

Nobody should expect society to return to free market money by violating free market principles!

Why should silver investors, or silver holders, get a government guarantee that the nominal value of the silver coins they hold will never go down? No other investor gets such a guarantee. No other currency holder gets such a guarantee. Why should silver investors be so special?

Hugo is just another billionaire looking for a government hand out or bail out.
When silver is already the lowest valued thing on earth you can buy, value for value, why would a “price support” system even be necessary?

The problem here is that asking for government intervention hinders what Hugo could already be doing if he simply decided to do it himself.

Hugo could already mint his own 1 oz. rounds privately. He could reduce the spread if he wants, all on his own. He owns a chain of Mexican electronics stores, and he could sell 1 oz. privately minted rounds emblazoned with his own store’s logo, and he could sell the coins at 10% over spot, and even accept them at up to 10% over spot, or 9% over spot, or whatever he may choose, in return for his store merchandise.

But he will never even think to develop his own plan, as long as he wastes his time and money on seeking a handout from the Mexican government. Or, as he said to me a few years ago in his own words, “It’s too late in the game now to try and change tactics. I’ve already gotten so many on board with the current plan, I don’t want to confuse anyone.”

And so, his refusal to change, and his insistence on seeking government handouts, prevents the actual implementation of real world silver as money that could be issued by his own stores directly, within a few weeks!

No government is preventing Hugo Salinas Price from issuing silver as money.
No government is preventing Antal Fekete from buying scrap gold as from the public.

Both of these men are hindered only by their own hypocritical cries for government intervention.

Two warnings:
The firearms manufacturing industry, after WWII, fearing the dumping of surplus military weapons onto the market, pushed for gun restrictions, or “government protection” for their businesses, as if they didn’t make enough money during the war years! Today, those gun restrictions have mutated into nearly destroying the firearms industry who has been beset with lawsuits for selling “assault” weapons.

Another story: Over 100 years ago, silver advocates pushed for a government handout. They wanted the silver price to be guaranteed to be set at a 15 to one ratio with gold. Western states wanted to be able to pay their debts with silver. This would be price fixing, completely contrary to free market theory, and would have cost the government their entire gold hoard. The compromise? Silver advocates (Democrats) lost to Republicans, who demonetized silver, and made the paying of all debts greater than $5 due in gold only. The ‘gold standard’ advocates ended up being the champions of the banking industry, who eventually demonetized gold as well.

Moral? Government subsidies backfire! They always do.
Yes, I advocate silver and gold to be used as money, as Hugo and Antal do. But I’m not asking for the government to do anything.

I’m doing it.

I’m using silver and gold on a daily basis. We buy scrap and sell to a refiner. We have coins minted. We sell bullion to the public.

I’m helping people to use gold and silver as a form of savings, since I sell it to them. I’m helping others liquidate it, both of which help to monetize it.
Nearly every day I explain to people why we can pay 99% of the spot price for a gold Eagle, but only 60% to 85% of the spot price for jewelry. One is fungible, the other is not. One is money, the other is not. One is similar enough to be like any other similar piece of gold as to be easily exchangeable and interchangeable. The scrap stuff is not. Scrap must be assayed, then refined, then minted, and then it can be sold in a coin shop (yes, at one more small mark up), as a stable form of money.

Warning, numismatic silver and gold items are not fungible, despite the claims of many numismatic dealers who attempt to make them fungible with quote books, and grading slabs, etc. It can cost up to $60 just to grade a silver Eagle. What a rip-off market! if you spend $300,000 on numismatic investments you “ARE” the numismatic market! It’s a horrible trap.

Those who ignore the danger of non-fungible gold have to pay the price.
Asking government to pay, really just gives the government a license to steal from others to be able to pay for it. Gold and silver stand in the way of such government theft, if properly used and understood.

Besides, when silver was money in the USA, the markup on silver coinage was up to 400%. The government bought silver for 29 cents per oz., and turned it into $1.40 of coinage! ($1 of 90% silver coinage contains .72 of an oz. of silver. $1.40 x .72/oz. = 1 oz.).

So if the government gets into this game of “FREE” coinage, you will likely trade 1 oz. of scrap silver to the government, and get maybe a 1/5th of an oz. of silver back in an “official” silver piece! That’s not free at all!

You can turn your 1000 oz. bricks of silver into fungible and usable 1 oz. silver rounds, by contacting in LA. They are not affiliated with us, but they are one of our trusted suppliers.

For $.75/oz., they can make bricks of silver into commonly recognized, easily assayed, easily tradeable, easily exchangeable, one ounce rounds.
If you want them to pay to ship to them your 1000 oz. silver bars by Fed Ex, the cost is $.85/oz.

They have been doing hundreds of conversions of these bars in the last few months, which, to me, means they are helping the national silver supply play “catch up” for when the world ran out of silver rounds in 2008 last year, and only had 1000 oz. bars available.

Phone 909-792-5756
Golden State Mint asked us to wait 1 week to manufacture 2000 rounds that we ordered today. Often, they can deliver immediately!

Sometimes, a true free market advocate, like me, hinders his own business, in the pursuit of truth and free markets, and for the best deals for the customer. Why would I advertise my competitor? Because I think there will be more than enough business for us all. And, like Fekete, I do recognize that minting is a valuable service that is desperately needed by the world if the world is going to use silver and gold as money. Besides, my mint is still not yet up and running, so I pose no competition as of yet.

But we have over 20,000 oz. of silver, and over 100 oz. of gold for sale for immediate delivery.

I strongly advise you to get real gold and silver, at anywhere near today’s prices, while you still can.

Call us today.

Yes, we sell silver, and gold at the JH MINT!
Buy it now! Buy Silver or Gold Now!
Inventory & Price List
Call the JH MINT, 10AM to 5PM Pacific, Monday to Friday:
100 oz. silver minimum, USA shipping, wire transfer only!
(530) 273-8175
Janelle (530) 913 0553

Active, live price quotes list:


Jason Hommel

In case you miss an email, check the archives:

Or visit
(Mom will ship in lots of more or less than 100 ounces, and overseas, and take credit cards or pay pal.)

If you are in Northern California, see:
Rocklin Coin Shop
4870 Granite Drive, Rocklin, CA 95677