Title:   Rick Rule: What I'm Buying and What I'm Selling
Show:    Jimmy Connor / Bloor Street Capital (host James "Jimmy" Connor)
Guest:   Rick Rule (founder/CEO, Rule Investment Media)
Date:    2026-JUN-09
URL:     https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6z1mT8PfBdM
Length:  ~42 min
Note:    Auto-transcript, timestamps mm:ss. Saved for personal study. Indices/SpaceX, oil, uranium, gold/silver, copper.
         Auto-transcript garbles names ("Ross Bey"=Ross Beaty, "Eric Sprat"=Eric Sprott, "Agniko"=Agnico Eagle,
         "a Ramco"=Aramco, "Jeff Curry"=Jeff Currie, "Columbbo"=Colombo).

================================================================

(00:01) Rick, thank you very much for joining us today. How are things in the great state of Washington? Things are wet in the great state of Washington today, as is often the case this time of year, but life is wonderful, Jimmy.
(00:20)  Well, there's a lot to discuss, so I want to start by discussing the broader indices. The S&P is still up 8% on the year. The Nasdaq's up 15%, but we've seen weakness in the last few days, much of it driven by chip stocks which have gone parabolic — names like Micron still up 220% on the year, Intel up 150% — and we're only six months in. Are we at or near a top?
(00:55)  I'm conflicted, mostly because that's not what I do. Money is made on the intersection of price and value and I don't know how to value a stock like Nvidia or Intel. I understand the growth thesis. I'm personally not affected by fear of missing out. So I don't have a way to comment on the valuations. Similarly I don't express an opinion on the S&P 500 except that I'm concerned about the breadth — so much of the valuation concerns less than 20 stocks, some would say less than 10.
(01:48) And I suspect if I can't value them, most of the people who own them can't value them either, which is a real concern of mine. This is one of the things going on now — fundamental analysis, nobody does it anymore. It's all momentum, all passive money.
(02:29)  I love that because getting in front of that money is something I do fairly well. One of the great themes in small cap investing is to invest in companies that will either be consolidators à la Equinox or consolidatees. When those companies merge, the larger companies get more index inclusion and more passive buying. There's a time-honored way of getting into companies that the indexers will have to buy. A bunch of the money I made 15 years ago I made accidentally — I bought companies I thought were undervalued; they didn't become correctly valued, they became overvalued because of index inclusion.
(03:39)  I did a conversation with Ross Beaty earlier and he reflected on Pan American — early 2000s when the move in gold and silver was just starting. He almost went bankrupt with Pan American Silver, raised a little money to keep it going, and then silver took off. I was a major participant in that financing. Backing Ross Beaty has always been like owning a few slot machines in Las Vegas. I've been in 14 different stocks with Ross Beaty, and 12 of the 14 have gone 10-to-1 or better. A superb track record.
(04:43)  Before we do a deeper dive on resources, I want your view on SpaceX going public this week — hoping to raise $75 billion at a $1.75 trillion valuation. The largest IPO in history, surpassing Aramco. Trading at ~100 times revenues. Your thoughts, and comparisons to the late-1990s tech bubble? I have no thoughts, honestly. I don't understand how you value the prospect of settling space. That person's name is not Rick Rule. With Aramco I knew enough about oil and gas to form an opinion. With SpaceX I have no feasible way to understand its valuation.
(06:28)  I'd argue most of the research staffs at the sell-side institutions selling the stock don't have any better grasp than I. Many of the tech researchers I've met, although very bright, knew about as much about technology valuation as I do — which is to say nothing.
(07:07)  Just imagine the fees on that deal — lofty target prices. Those fees attract a lot of pretend experts. So let's move to resources. I want to begin with oil — I just paid $1.70 a liter in Toronto, about $4.60/gallon USD. What are you paying in Washington? About $5. The reason for high gasoline prices in Washington and Toronto is identical: onerous, excessive taxation. The price of gasoline has more always been about the enemy within (taxation) than the energy without (war).
(07:59)  Oil's been vacillating between $90 and $100 for the last few months, still up 60% on the year. Jeff Currie is calling for significantly higher prices — the futures market is mispriced, the real market is physical, and stressed countries in Asia are paying significantly more. Your thoughts? I'm not a geopolitical analyst, but if the Gulf conflict doesn't end soon, oil prices are going materially higher. There's as much as a $40/barrel premium for oil deliverable today. We've lived on strategic reserves and floating cargoes.
(09:48)  20% of the world's crude flowed through the Gulf, but more importantly 50% of the world's <em>export</em> crude. North American markets (US, Canada, Mexico taken as a whole) are self-sufficient — we won't experience shortages, but the rest of the world will. A place that couldn't afford a strategic reserve — Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Australia — in the near term oil is rationed by price.
(10:35)  The extraordinary upside Mr. Currie envisions may be a mistake — in very poor countries high prices cure themselves via demand destruction. If you needed to drive to work you'd curse and fill up; a cab driver in Colombo who can't pass on the cost stops driving. So you'll see demand destruction soon. But in markets that can afford jet fuel, near-term price inelasticity is high, and if the conflict doesn't end and we can't replace depleted Far East inventory, you'll see a very different level of pricing.
(12:20)  Are you investing in oil or gas stocks? I was a big buyer of oil and gas stocks in the third quarter of last year — not because I knew there'd be a war. The attribute I like most is hate, and oil & gas were the only unhated commodities left. At the same time the industry was underinvesting in sustaining capital to the tune of ~$1 billion/day. I was telling people, including BNN, as recently as November that we faced $90–100 oil inevitably by 2028 or 2029. What I didn't see was a war — so the shortfall arrived sooner, as a consequence of war.
(13:35)  If we solved the Gulf problem today and the ~200 cargoes north of the Gulf began to flow, you could easily take oil down to $65–70 on demand destruction. That doesn't cure the systematic underinvestment — you'd still see today's prices in 2029–2030 from deferred sustaining capital. Whether you should invest today depends on whether you already have oil in your portfolio: if you do, you might not need more; if you don't, the upside is inevitable.
(14:21)  Are you still long the stocks you bought in Q3/Q4? Yeah, I haven't sold. I don't know whether the war ends. One thing to know about me: whenever you see a parabolic chart, I'm doing the opposite. If six weeks from now we see the same parabolic upside in oil stocks that we saw in January in silver, you'll know I'm a seller. If you see a parabolic <em>down</em> chart in a commodity I like, I'm a buyer. The back side of a hockey stick is just as steep as the front — much less fun if you're long. If the conflict doesn't end and you see $150–160 oil and today's tech investors rush in, I'll be on the back side of that trade.
(15:43)  Before gold and silver, I have to ask about uranium — a lot of people are disappointed; the price is grinding higher but the stocks aren't reflecting it. I love that they're disappointed. I wish they'd capitulate and sell. Uranium is a 10-year no-brainer, and most people, luckily for me, have trauma holding a stock over a long weekend. The biggest unsung beneficiary of the Gulf conflict will be uranium. It's been 50 years since the world focused on energy security (the 1973 Arab embargo built the French and Japanese fleets).
(16:53)  The Japanese diet said the only fuel dense enough that Japan can rely on is nuclear — in one warehouse they could store enough yellowcake to power Japan for 5 years. You can't store that much oil, coal or gas, or build a battery that big. This endures to uranium's benefit for a decade. I have a large position in uranium stocks and I'm praying they go lower — if you're certain something will go up, you want lower prices so you can buy more. Make no mistake, the easy money in uranium has been made (when people hated it; $20 uranium was a gift from God). The sure money is ahead of us.
(18:40)  The US is the world's largest consumer — 20% of the grid from nuclear, consuming 45–50 million pounds a year but producing maybe 2–3 million. Why isn't the US government stockpiling uranium? Until four or five years ago the US government was anti-uranium — I felt I might see my face on a post-office wall under "wanted." Now these same morons want to subsidize me; I felt cleaner when they hated me. You may see an American strategic stockpile, but American politicians believe they already have one — it's called Canada (recall Cheney: "we have Alberta"). You Canadians need to listen to that carefully.
(19:58)  Let's discuss gold and silver. Gold is flat on the year, silver down 8%. Gold peaked at 5,500, now ~4,400; silver 110, now 62 — down 43% from the highs. Does that surprise you? No. I began saving principally in gold in the year 2000 when gold was ~$250–260, so when people tell me it's down, it's really not down for me. It's savings. Silver was different — I made a fairly well-publicized sell decision in January as a consequence of a hockey-stick chart. Silver occupied a speculative part of my portfolio, not an investment part. I save in gold; I speculate in silver, and my speculation had to do with it being hated. In January it was anything but hated, so the reason to own it disappeared, and I sold.
(21:24)  I believe — unfortunately — that precious metals will do extremely well for the next 10 years. Unfortunately, because a set of circumstances good for precious metals is bad for most of the rest of your financial life. I take the audience back to the 1970s — gold $35 to $850, a 25-fold increase — but in 1975, when interest rates were pushed up to deal with inflation, gold fell 50% in nine short months in the middle of a secular bull. Two lessons: people who developed an almost religious belief in gold got shaken out; and that rate increase destroyed housing, autos, equities and bonds, so the political class lost its nerve, forced rates down, and gold ran from $100 (end 1975) to $850 six years later.
(24:04)  If you believe the next 10 years will see dramatically lower purchasing power in the US/Canadian dollar or in Treasuries/sovereign debt, you need to own gold — not as a speculative or investment asset, but as savings, a store of wealth. I don't understand how to shield my family's purchasing power by owning a stock at 100 times revenue. I can look at a thousand years of history, 73 of which I've been on Earth, 50 of which sentient — and own gold.
(25:02)  In January 2020 M2 money supply was $15.4 trillion; now it's well over $22 trillion — an increase of over 40%. It's not that your house went up 30–50%; it's that the purchasing power of your dollars was effectively cut in half. I mentally price things in year-2000 gold — measured in gold, houses, gasoline, food and medical care are cheap; measured in dollars they're expensive.
(26:28)  Look at the probability of more quantum changes in money supply. US on-balance-sheet obligations (to bondholders) are almost $40 trillion, 115% of GDP. Off-balance-sheet liabilities (Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, military and federal pensions) have a net present value of $120 trillion. The chance the US can simultaneously satisfy bondholders and the social demands of its citizenry is nil. The IRS estimates private net worth at $172 trillion; we owe ~$160 trillion — a $12 trillion delta eaten up ~$4 trillion a year, so in three years we're flat.
(27:56)  How do we get out? Two ways: be honest like the Argentines and default (tell bondholders and pensioners too bad) — but that's not the American or Canadian way. So we'll have a <em>dishonest</em> default. If you think past money-supply growth was excessive, wait until you see how we deal with $160 trillion in liabilities over the next 10 years.
(28:45)  Back in January the consensus was rate cuts; that changed with the war — oil at $100, inflation percolating, and now the consensus is rate hikes in the back half, a stronger dollar pressuring gold. Your views on gold and silver in the back half? Until the political class really tries to cut rates… The market's taken control of the long bond — that's out of the Fed's control. To the extent the long bond stays strong, the dollar stays strong and gold stays relatively weak. But higher rates will murder the bond business and ultimately hurt equities (higher cost of capital). There will be political demands to do exactly the wrong thing — cut rates — just as in 1975 the US decided politics mattered more than the sanctity of the dollar. They'll do it again.
(31:06)  Whenever there's a fiscal crisis, the US response is artificially low rates and flooding the market with liquidity. In 2008 the Treasury said "we will do whatever it takes" — what it took was counterfeiting. The difference: in 2008 on-balance-sheet liabilities were under 40% of GDP; now they're 115%. The ability of the capital markets to absorb 2008-style QE is much less, and the probability of a 2008-style event (private-credit problems, war dislocations) is increased. If it happened, the ability to solve it the old way — create liquidity without lifting gold — is nil.
(32:57)  What's your message to investors who bought gold or silver equities in Q4/Q1 at much higher prices and wonder why they didn't just buy Micron or Intel? If they think they know enough about Micron or Intel to buy them, they should — I don't think they do. Money is made on the delta between price and value; most investors only pay attention to price. My old mentor and partner Eric Sprott isn't a one-way machine — he sells. He keeps two pricing scenarios (today's prices and a probable 3–5-year price) and does comparative valuations, selling holdings without optimal leverage and rebalancing into better ones. Most speculators follow "got a hunch, bet a bunch" and don't know what their stocks are worth — so lower prices traumatize them. For me, lower prices are goods on sale.
(35:31)  One more: copper. Up 12% on the year; BHP up 35%, Freeport up 25%. What's your view? Over 5 years, it's an absolute no-brainer — we've underinvested in copper for 30 years and it's a very long-lead-time item. In the near term I'm concerned: higher rates make it more expensive to carry copper inventories and speculators (particularly in China) are being forced to sell. Higher oil prices act like a tax, taking liquidity out of the economy and possibly tipping the world into recession. So while I'm an incredible bull over 5 years, the next 6 months could be more challenging than people think — the market is overwhelmingly bullish, and that buying has already occurred (Goldman won't publish a bullish copper report if they're not long).
(37:32)  I wonder what these IPOs — SpaceX, Anthropic, OpenAI — will do to liquidity, sucking capital from other names. The beginning of the end? I certainly hope so. There are a lot of names in conventional financial services and natural resources I'd like to own much more of — I'd be delighted to see Exxon Mobil, Agnico Eagle or Franco-Nevada fall by half. The only way I've found to become profoundly materially richer is to buy undervalued assets and wait until they return to value. So my hope is that higher oil prices and IPO-driven illiquidity lead to materially worse equity markets, particularly in financial services and natural resources — the markets I know best.
(38:59)  Very wise words. You have a big event in Boca Raton in July — tell us about it. The Rule Natural Resources Investment Symposium has been going 30 years; four days of programming (more than you can consume), with recordings for the rest of the year. We interview every exhibitor beforehand (on the Rule Investment Media YouTube channel) and we vet every single one — we have to be on their stock before they get on our floor; we've turned down more exhibitors than we take. Whether you attend live (sold out) or by livestream, if you don't think you got your money's worth, I give it back — we've done it 30 years, with under one-tenth of 1% asking for refunds. July 6th through 12th, livestream at rulesymposium.com.