Peter Schiff said...I also note that another commenter wrote this:
NIA responded to my video by raising a straw man. They claimed they did not "pump and dump" the stock since they did not personally sell any shares. However i never accused them of that. I alleged that a third party paid them to pump up the stock so the third party could sell their shares. The fact that they never addressed this allegation is pretty compelling evidence that it's true. They also claimed that they warned their members that Mega's gold ounces were merely "inferred." That is my point --they did not warn them!. They did not define "inferred", and they counted on the fact that their members would wrongfully assume that "inferred" meant they actually had gold. That is why they fraudulently calculated the value of their "inferred" ounces based on today's gold price. They also included a list of legitimate gold recommendation. But they only make those "suggestions" to lay the foundation for future pump and dump schemes.
In addition, they accused me of running a failing brokerage firm that will soon be out of business despite the fact that my business has never been better. We have more clients, more revenue, and more profits than ever. We also generally charge much lower commissions than what they claim.
Posting the full "response" from NIA leaves a tar on EconomicPolicyJournal, so I bid farewell on your chosen path.To this second commenter, I note that I originally posted a negative video (written by "George") about NIA in November of last year, along the same lines as Peter. That said, if someone issues a response to something I have posted at EPJ, they are going to get the chance to respond. But this doesn't preclude me from further commenting on that response. As indicated in my posting of NIA's response to Peter, I also wrote:
I will be reaching out to NIA to see if I can get a few questions answered, so that a more light can be shed on what is really going on.
Which is my way of signalling that I did not consider the situation closed. Further, anyone who has followed EPJ for any length of time knows that if I am going to be making a second or third comment, it is generally not going to be pleasant for the person I am responding to.
Since Peter has already brought it up in his comment, I will address one point that NIA made, now. They said that Peter was running a failed brokerage firm, I found this to be a suspicious claim and planned to ask them how they knew Peter's firm was losing assets and failing. I suspected that wasn't the case and that NIA was making the charge up. Peter's response, "they accused me of running a failing brokerage firm that will soon be out of business despite the fact that my business has never been better. We have more clients, more revenue, and more profits than ever," backs up my suspicion. But there are many, many other questions I have about the NIA response and the way they run their operation, so lets see if they will give me the opportunity to question them on a number of points, which as I initially said would make things much clearer.