Schiff on Soar Financially: Wall Street Still Hasn’t Learned

Yesterday, Peter joined Kai on the Soar Financially YouTube channel to walk through recent moves in precious metals and what those moves reveal about the broader economy. He links a silver breakout and rising premiums to a deeper trend: eastward accumulation of bullion, growing doubts about the dollar, and a fiscal trajectory the markets may soon price in.  

He opens by describing silver’s manic run and the technical and psychological levels that finally triggered a major move. He frames the shift as both a short squeeze and a rediscovery of a long-standing resistance level that goes back decades:

Silver really went nowhere as gold went from 2,000 to 4,000. And then finally moved from 30 to 120. And in fact, the move from 80 to 120 was like a few days. So I think once silver broke out above 50, that was both a psychological and a technical overhead resistance going all the way back to the Hunt Brothers in 1980. So I think once that happened, a lot of money came into silver, came into gold, and silver obviously got ahead of itself.

He points out an important geographic split: buyers in the East are accumulating physical metal while much of the paper selling is concentrated in the West. That distinction, he says, changes the dynamics because eastern buyers are converting currency into bullion while some western actors are betting against physical delivery:

Gold is under accumulation in the East, and the selling has been coming from the West. And I think the East has it right. I think China is correct that buying gold is the right thing to do and that the price is going to go higher. To the extent there are speculators in the US that don’t get this and that want a short gold and silver or who want to sell the gold and silver they have because they think it’s some kind of a bubble, I think they’ve got it wrong. 

That accumulation, he argues, makes the current levels attractive for buyers who want real metal rather than exposure to price action. Peter frames $5,000 gold as a reference point and says buying near or below that level remains reasonable if you accept gold as money rather than a speculative asset:

I think buying gold anywhere below or close to 5,000, I think still makes sense. I don’t think there’s significant downside risk. To me, gold is acting around 5,000 the way it acted around 4,000, the way it acted around 3,000. But also buying gold is 5,000. You’re getting it 10% below its high.

Peter takes a dig at mainstream analysts who have long been bearish on the metals despite a twenty-year bull market. He notes that when gold was at $2,000 earlier in 2024, sell recommendations on major mining stocks were still common — a reminder that conventional Wall Street coverage often misses multi-decade structural shifts:

There’s a lot of room. Wall Street has pretty much been skeptical of the gold rally ever since 2000. So the whole time gold was going up, Wall Street was expecting it to go down. In fact, if you go back to early 2024 when gold was at 2000, major banks that cover mining companies were putting seller recommendations on Newmont and Barrett. And the rationale was ‘gold has peaked at 2000.’

He ties the metals rally to three deeper forces: inflation, de-dollarization, and a loss of confidence in U.S. fiscal and monetary policy. He warns that pushing for lower rates to ease debt service only undermines the dollar’s credibility:

I think it’s inflation, de-dollarization, which is a function of a loss of confidence in the U.S. in its ability to honestly repay its debts in the independence of the Federal Reserve, in the Fed’s commitment to maintain the dollar’s value or fight inflation. I think markets are coming to terms with the reality of thirty eight trillion dollar national debt rising in perpetuity by two, three, four, five trillion a year. Who knows? You’ve got Donald Trump wanting lower interest rates, putting pressure on the Fed to lower rates because we need lower rates, because we can’t afford to pay the rates because we have so much debt.

On top of that, the government just admitted their job stats were completely wrong last year. Check out Peter’s analysis here.