Since there are a lot of sketchy websites out there, many want to know if Green Bull Research is a scam.
In this article, we promise to give you the truth. It may seem peculiar to review ourselves, but the goal is to address questions readers may have.
Of course, unlike most of what we review, we are not an investment research service. But we do exist in the same universe, so knowing more about us will benefit readers for sure.
Also, the comments section below is open. You may ask us questions and clarifications, and our team will try our best to reply.
Most of our readers know what we're about. The site exposes teasers, reviews newsletters, and talks about so-called experts. All these services are free.
We know there are others with the same intention. So what makes Green Bull Research stand out? Is the content really independent? Can readers expect objective analysis from its team?
We will tackle all these below, so keep on reading.
- Name: Green Bull Research
- Editor: Anders
- Website: www.greenbullresearch.com
- Service: Research and articles on investment teasers, newsletters, and personalities
- Cost: Free
Green Bull Research is a website that contains reviews on financial research newsletters, teasers, and editors.
Anders leads a small team of researchers and writers who provide the service to readers. People can access these directly from the website, and they may subscribe via email as well.
We emphasize on our website that all of this is free. As well, our reviews are independent since we are not "on anyone's payroll." However, Green Bull Research has ads and promotes a newsletter.
What is Green Bull Research?
In a nutshell, Green Bull Research indeed provides the following:
- Exposés of hyped-up investment teasers
- Investment service reviews you can trust
- In-depth research of these so-called "experts"
Now why do we "expose" editors' stock teasers?
By experience, we know how exaggerated the marketing can be. Investment research newsletters hype their picks and services so much to get subscribers.
As a result, many readers submit their email addresses and pay for what they will eventually find out as subpar content. They find out about it when it's already too late.
Before they know it, they're already bombarded with gazillions of spam emails every day. As well, their credit card's already set up for auto-renewal.
Based on the many complaints we read online, unsubscribing and getting refunds are often not as easy as the publishers portray them to be.
It's actually heartbreaking for many because some services cost thousands of dollars. Moreover, a lot of those who fall into these traps are elderly people.
Most of them are not tech-savvy. As a result, some can only complain on BBB or TrustPilot hoping the research companies would respond to them.
Also, we are certain there are a lot more who do not have the technical know-how and mental fortitude to go after these publishers.
It is in this light that Green Bull Research exists. The group wants to help people cut through the noise by giving them reliable, fair, and complete information.
We believe that only when readers have these can they make an informed decision about subscribing to a service.
In the end, it's still up to you. However, when you do decide, at least you already know the positives and negatives.
One example of an exposé is our article on Jim Woods’ Biden Rupture Stocks.
According to Woods, we are about to see an economic calamity caused by President Joe Biden and his policies. Everyone will be affected by this "financial storm."
However, he has three investments that will help you survive the impending catastrophe. It's the surefire way for you to protect your wealth.
Of course, before you get the special report, you must subscribe to Woods' Intelligence Report newsletter.
This is the usual MO. The narrative may be long and full of charts, graphs, and testimonials. But they all have the same template.
There's a crisis. You need the privileged info the editors have. BUT FIRST, you must avail of the newsletter subscription. It's all good when it's worth it, right? But what if it's all hogwash?
This is where we try to come in. We dig deep into the clues so you can get an idea of what they are really selling. This way, you can have a better understanding of the stocks and newsletter.
In this specific case, based on the clues, the three rupture-proof stock picks are:
- Exxon Mobil Corp. (NYSE: XOM)
- Medtronic plc (NYSE: MDT)
- McDonald’s Corp. (NYSE: MCD)
Are they what Woods project them to be? Here's what we said in our Biden Rupture Stocks article:
Jim’s trio of blue-chip stocks are very likely to survive a major downturn, but they also don’t have much upside given their already ginormous size. You’re likely to get the same or an even better return from a diversified ETF.
But to be perfectly honest here, we're not able to give you the stock picks all the time.
This is the case in our What Are Louis Navellier’s “A Phase” Stocks? article.
The editor boasts of "a secret income blueprint used by many of the richest people in America." According to him, the five stock picks he has will surely give you great returns based on his "A Phase" system.
Although we were able to detail what the system is actually like, he didn't drop a clue about what his stock picks are. In the article, we even said this:
He must be wary about the Green Bull being hot on his trail and decided to play it super safe.
Kidding aside, we don't always get to expose the exact picks. In such cases, we also tell you this directly. But in the article, we continue to still provide value by detailing what his system actually is.
Green Bull Research also tries to create a community in its comments section. We admit we can't know everything and encourage readers to share their insights.
Often, we see great insights from you guys who give your opinions on what you think the picks are. So that's always a great thing, investors helping each other based on their own experiences (and subscriptions).
Aside from the teasers, we also have lists of teasers we exposed from specific editors. Here are a few of them:
A typical example of this is our write-up on Keith Kohl's Technology and Opportunity Newsletter.
We give you details on what to expect from the service, as well as who the editor and publisher are. You will also see negative and positive reviews from those who have tried the newsletter.
If you are already familiar with our work, you know the lengths we go to provide you with a fair assessment. We tell you what the comments are. But we also caution you not to generalize from a small sample of reviews.
Also, we give our assessments on noteworthy aspects of a service. In Kohl's newsletter, we said this about his instincts and experience as the main basis for his recommendations:
Unfortunately, apart from these, there is no deep explanation of a process we can examine. Since the claims are huge, including turning $500 into $1.5 million, we expected more.
The article discusses why we think the editor cannot get away with it. Subscribers want to know what his process is so they understand where he is coming from.
After all, readers will be paying him and they will invest based on his analyses.
Unlike other review pages, since our posts are not sponsored by those specific newsletters or publishers, we can be honest and discuss even the do-betters that we see.
In fact, we have called out a few already for scammy tactics on refunds and charges. It's disheartening to read from elderly subscribers who complain about these and lose their money.
When we say we are committed to providing you with in-depth research, we mean it. Our team subscribes to the newsletters themselves so we can see inside and give you a better assessment.
Sure, we unsubscribe after a while. But that in itself is part of our process. We give you updates on how smooth it is to disengage with them within the cancellation period they advertise.
No matter what, it's still a risk. First, we are now subject to the spam emails most editors are famous for. Second, there's a chance we don't get our money back right away, or at all, based on other reviews.
So we do strive to give you a deeper review of newsletters.
An example here is our article, Chris Curl’s Crypto Cycle Review – 10X Your Money?. We've gone full Sherlock on this one because there's a technical issue with Curl's portfolio.
You would not be able to see the whole thing on the website itself. At first, we thought it looked questionable. But it was only after finding a manual workaround did we see what his full portfolio was.
Apparently, there's a limitation on his display screen. We had to select the whole thing and paste it on an Excel worksheet to see everything.
Read about our in-depth Crypto Cycle review so you can better understand what we mean.
Another type of research we do to benefit our readers is exemplified by our article on the Raging Bull fraud. We looked at court documents to find out what the key issues are in the publishing company of Jeff Bishop, Jason Bond, and Kyle Dennis.
According to the headlines then, Raging Bull was accused of $137 million fraud.
The suit from the Federal Trade Commission was serious, for sure. That's why we were also careful and accurate in how we presented the facts.
Although they are already back in business, the issues tackled in the case are instructive for the industry:
- False advertising
- Recurring charges
We hope you read the Raging Bull article as it also contains tips on how subscribers like you can protect yourself.
Aside from the two, we also research and write on investment research personalities. Since it is a lucrative industry, a lot want to be in on it and have a share of the pie.
There are names you've heard before, but there are also up-and-coming editors.
We believe it's critical for readers to know about these personalities. Most of the time, they have various newsletters attached to them. Others even have various companies under their umbrella.
This is why we wrote an article about Bill Bonner. As the Founder and Chair of The Agora, he has a vast network of advisories and companies. To say that he and his tactics are controversial would be an understatement.
Why? Many of the newsletters associated with him have had issues with misleading claims, deceptive charges, refund hassles, and the like.
Despite these, Bonner's The Agora boasts that its financial research network is the biggest in the world.
As well, it's supposed to have more subscribers than The New York Times and Washington Post combined. In terms of revenue, Bonner claims that it's close to a billion dollars annually.
All of these are fascinating, right? Is he a scam artist or a genius investor? Our past article on Bonner will help you decide for yourself.
Basically, we try to write about anything you guys would be interested in. Another article we have written is a review of the reviewer.
In Stock Gumshoe Review – A Reliable Investing Detective?, we examined the prominent site. Readers were able to see relevant information about Stock Gumshoe through our research.
If there are other topics you want us to cover, we are also open. Just drop us a comment below.
Who is Behind Green Bull Research?
The team behind the website provides very little information about themselves. All that we know is that Anders leads his team of researchers and writers.
To be honest, I have never met him personally or the other writers. But we do communicate a lot online. Heck, I'm not even sure that's him in the photo there, but the caption does say it's him on a hike.
To be fair, since the first day of my intensive training with him, it has always been clear. We are to provide quality research and fair articles.
Anders thoroughly reviews each of my outputs, and comments on what can be improved. As a writer, I am free to give my assessments as long as they are fair.
If I am too soft or too hard on a newsletter or its editor, he tells me as well.
Even in this article, we cannot give further information about the Green Bull Research team. We are aware that this can be an issue for some readers since knowing who the information comes from can establish trust.
We admit that this can be a stumbling block for some. After all, we are unforgiving of editors who do not exert efforts in establishing credibility.
Indeed, how can they expect readers to trust them if they will not be transparent about their background?
Case in point here is what we said on our profile on Shah Gilani:
At the onset, we will be honest with you. Our extensive research has provided us with very little personal information about Shah Gilani.
The truth is, we visited many leads and websites. However, most results only generated surface-level information about the man. It seems like he has curated his online persona to generate preferred content.
In this Shah Gilani article, we even suspected that he must have used a software or program.
The team has also been tough on another editor. In Roger Scott – Scam Alert or A Legit Expert? we exposed that he changed his name.
Before changing it, he used to respond to Yuri Plyam. If you are not aware of the controversies surrounding him, you wouldn't have a clue about his background.
But because of our deep dive into the editor, we were able to investigate why he needed to rehabilitate his image.
If you want to know more about it, read our Roger Scott profile. It unexpectedly became juicy -- containing sex cults, heiresses, and millions of dollars. Do check it out.
So if we are so strict with the editors we review, why aren't we divulging more information about our team?
It's a fair question, and we do have an answer.
For us, we believe our identities come secondary to the work we produce. After all, we do not give investment recommendations the way editors do.
You need to know more about them because you base your investments on their word. So you deserve to know who they are, how knowledgeable they are, and where they're connected.
Our role here is to review their newsletters. It's the editors who have a direct impact on your investments based on their analyses.
Given, you may decide to subscribe or not to subscribe based on our articles. But the newsletter editors are still the ones giving stock recommendations, not us.
At the same time, you do pay for them and their output. In our case, we provide our services for free. The threshold to know more about them is higher for them than for our team.
As well, ultimately, our work can speak about who we are. We are indeed not on anyone's payroll for us to give them a glowing review while disparaging competitors.
We do recommend a newsletter, but it does not affect the reviews we publish on our website. You would see upon reading a few articles that we give you the good, the bad, and the ugly based on our research.
Pros v Cons
- You may read our articles for free. For the teasers, readers have to option to subscribe to our exposés so they won't miss an article.
- We try our best to be thorough with our research. Our editorial policy is to only publish what's accurate, factual, and true.
- The articles are fair. We may be tough in some instances, but we present all sides so readers can have their own informed decision in the end.
- Many readers tell us they appreciate the kind of articles we do. According to them, it helps them as they do not have to dig as much because of the hours of research we put in with every writeup.
- There are ads on the website.
- As is the case with most, our teasers rely heavily on the clues editors provide in their pitches.
- Green Bull Research promotes a newsletter.
- Readers do not know much about the team behind the website.
Conclusion - Misleading or Truthful?
Why would we write and examine if Green Bull Research is a scam or a legit review site? So meta, right? But that's just the kind of honesty you can expect from us.
Just like the other reviews, we didn't hold back. The article contained what we believe are good points as well as sketchy details about this website.
For those who read our articles, you know we expose teasers, review newsletters, and write about investment research personalities. We give this service for free.
You have also read some examples of these kinds of articles. We hope you get to read those because they reflect the kind of work that we do for our readers.
The team is also aware that there's not much transparency as to who we are. We get that. However, we believe that our articles speak for themselves. Res ipsa loquitor.
There's a decent amount of research. Our assessments are always fair and balanced. You know where we are coming from. Readers see all sides so they can make their own decisions.
Aside from these, you also see a transparent pros and cons discussion on Green Bull Research. After reading all these, we hope you will agree with the team that the value we provide readers is not a scam.