In short: Long-term trend "firmly intact" — gold is still up 10%+ from $4,000 a year ago despite the fall from $5,500. Gold "is just a measurement" of paper money in circulation; with bond markets revolting against 40%-of-revenue interest costs, yield caps/QE are coming, and gold will be higher in 5 years. (GLD is the proxy; he speaks of the metal and buys miners, not ETFs.)
Gentile's case for gold is about debt. The US owes about $40 trillion, and at today's ~5% rates the interest bill is roughly $2 trillion a year — around 40% of what the government collects in taxes. Lenders are demanding higher rates because they expect to be repaid in dollars worth less. He thinks the government will eventually step in to hold rates down by creating money to buy its own bonds, and that more money chasing the same amount of gold pushes the gold price up.
He treats gold as a ruler for how much money has been printed, not as something that "goes up" by itself. Big drops like this year's fall from $5,500 are, in his view, normal in a long bull market — and central banks such as China's have been buying the dips.
1:20I think I have a long-term view on gold. We've talked before, Stein, about my 5 to 10 year view. So, if you look, last October, gold was 4,000. So, we're actually up 10% or more over the last 12 months. So, sometimes people get caught up in the noise. We obviously had a big run to 5,500 for a couple of weeks when gold went hyperbolic for a period in January, February of this year.
In short: "Long-term I would maintain the whole debasement trade." Japan devalued and Europe is about to, "and if everybody devalues, the only things that rise are the things that cannot be devalued: gold, commodities, crypto." Gold was also where his "zero duration" bond money went.
His big macro idea is that heavily indebted countries escape by devaluing their currencies. Japan did it and cut its debt; Europe will do it the hard way. When every currency is being cheapened, the winners are things no government can print: gold, commodities and crypto.
So gold stays a core long-term holding, the "debasement trade." GLD is simply a stand-in for owning gold bullion.
47:15Long-term I would maintain the whole debasement trade, because I do think that what I was describing, what Japan did, what Europe is about to do, is the solution. And at the end of the day we have to devalue. And if everybody devalues, the only things that rise are the things that cannot be devalued.
In short: "Now up to 10% gold again." Was 25% a year ago, "pared that back to five when it was up over $5,000, but now it's down to 4,300 and so back to 10" — a valuation-driven rebalance inside a permanent gold allocation.
Gundlach treats gold as a permanent holding but trades its size around price: 25% a year ago, cut to 5% when gold went over $5,000, and back to 10% now that it has fallen to about $4,300. The lesson is disciplined rebalancing — add when it gets cheaper, trim when it runs. GLD is just a fund that tracks gold.
11:57That's this time — when I did a year ago June — and sometimes you get lucky. This time it was exactly the right timing. So I have that and then I have 20% in real assets, which I'm now up to 10% gold again. — 10% gold. — Yeah. I had been 25% gold about a year ago, but I pared that back to five when it was up over $5,000, but now it's down to 4,300 and so back to 10.
In short: Not an alternative to land as a confiscation hedge: "gold you cannot carry with you and they will immediately say that ownership of gold is illegal" and make you hand it in. (Asset-class call; GLD as proxy.)
Asked whether gold would be a cheaper way to protect against a government seizing private wealth, Peterffy said no: the government can simply make owning gold illegal and demand you hand it over, and you can't carry it away. This is a narrow view about gold as confiscation insurance, not a call on the gold price. GLD is a proxy fund.
43:44Would gold be an alternative? — No, because gold you cannot carry with you and they will immediately say that ownership of gold is illegal and you have to submit it, you have to take it to your local whatever communist party headquarters. — I'm really struck by this being the rationale for you owning so much land, Thomas, because the reason I wanted to ask about it was actually your outlook, if it implied that your outlook is for a decade or multiple decades of elevated
In short: "You call it the gold trade and I call it the gold investment." Bullish since $1,000 in 2010; a "rock solid bottom at $4,000" (triple bottom) despite a strong dollar and record real yields; the view changes only when central-bank buying stops. ROSY owns bullion, not the miners — "one of your most effective hedges" against a dollar downtrend.
Rosenberg treats gold as a long-term holding, not something to trade in and out of. He has been bullish since it was $1,000 in 2010, and says the recent pullbacks found a very firm floor around $4,000 even though a strong dollar and high "real" interest rates (rates after inflation) normally hurt gold.
The main buyer is the world's central banks, and he will change his mind only when they stop buying. He also expects real rates to come down from record highs, which helps gold, and sees gold as the best protection against a long decline in the US dollar. His fund holds the metal itself rather than mining shares, to avoid stock-market risk.
31:13I said all along, and look I've been bullish on gold all the way back to when I was at Gluskan chef when I put out my first report at the beginning of 2010 when it was trading at $1,000 an ounce. Yeah, — it doesn't move in a straight line. You're right. I'm going to say right now we hit what looks to be a rock solid bottom at $4,000 an ounce.
In short: Collins: "I've had as much conviction in this precious metals [position] as I've had in anything in a long, long time" — central banks are swapping someone else's liability (Treasuries) for an asset with no debt; gold "just stays there. Everything else goes down," and the dollar's century-long decline "probably accelerates at this point because they're out of arrows." Last word: printing in a crisis or the status quo, so "gold continues to do well… that's where the majority of our capital sits." Gold as a metal, rowed via GLD per hub convention. (Eisman does not own gold — Sep 11.)
GLD is a fund that simply holds gold bars, so it moves with the gold price. Porter Collins and Vincent Daniel keep most of their money in gold, and their reason is the US government's budget: interest on the debt plus programs like Social Security already eat most of what the government collects in taxes, and nobody in power wants to cut spending or raise taxes.
That leaves printing money, whether things go badly (emergency rescues) or stay as they are. More dollars make each dollar worth less, and gold, which nobody can print and which is nobody's debt, tends to rise in dollar terms. Central banks, including China's, have been buying it for the same reason. Eisman disagrees on the urgency: he thinks the deficit is bad but not yet a crisis, and he doesn't own gold.
1:53— Yeah. — Long time. — And so I don't know what you do. You either got to raise taxes a lot, which — that's not going to happen. — Not going to do print, — right? And so, you can see why, — I think I've had as much conviction in this precious metals trade as I've had in anything in a long, long time.
In short: The regime tell is gold rising with yields: "today gold was up what a percent and a half with the 10-year up five basis points… when you have 120% debt to GDP and you are moving toward a fiscal crisis, when rates go up gold is a buy not a sell." The ninth inning is when they "do away with pretenses" and upsize buybacks without limit — "then you're going to see gold moving $100, $200, $300 days." Part of a ~40% gold-and-miners allocation; "you don't sell gold because some guy says he's a hawk."
GLD is an ETF that tracks the price of gold. Gromen's case here rests on a pattern most investors are taught to read the other way: normally, when interest rates rise, gold falls, because a bond paying more interest looks more attractive than a metal paying nothing. On the day of this recording the 10-year Treasury yield rose and gold still jumped about 1.5%.
His explanation: once a government owes more than it collects — he measures interest plus entitlement promises at 105% of federal tax receipts — rising rates stop being a sign of a strong economy and become a sign of a debt problem. Investors then buy gold because rates are rising. And the government's own response — buying back its long-term bonds, in amounts he expects to climb from $6 billion to $8 billion to $10 billion — is, in his words, the signal to "buy anything that is finite." About 40% of his stated allocation is gold and gold miners.
14:24And what the 10-year do, right? 10-year sells off five basis points. — Yeah. — Now, what's he want to do? So, right. So, check to you. So then now you're I think in the eighth he's going to have to upsize it again and when he does and the bond market runs away from him again then what and so then I think we quickly we get into because I also think it's very noteworthy that today gold was up what a percent and a half with the 10-year up five basis points right there's a literally an army of people on Wall Street and at RIAs
In short: "I think gold should be part of every portfolio." Looks a lot like commodities — a huge run into Q1 2026, a "pretty monstrous correction" below $4,000, now moving back up; as the dollar weakens, central banks and institutions prefer gold to a fiat currency.
Gundlach's gold call is simple: own some, always. Gold fell sharply after a big run early in 2026 and is climbing again. His reason is the dollar — as it loses value, central banks and big institutions would rather hold gold (which no government can print) than paper money. GLD is just a convenient fund that tracks the gold price; he talked about gold itself, not this fund.
22:17I think gold should be part of every portfolio. And it's quite clear that as the dollar weakens, central banks and institutional investors broadly are preferring gold to a fiat currency. Here's the CAPE, the Shiller PE ratio, which is at 42, which was higher in 1999, but not by much. You can see that we've got this plotted back to the 1870 period, and this is way higher than it was at the bubble days of 1929. So, stocks are not cheap.
In short: The clearest short statement of his position in the archive: "although I own a fair bit of gold, I'd like to own a lot more. The fact that I'd like to own it and the fact that the price I think for the balance of 2026 will be stable to down is attractive to me." The consumer analogy is the argument: "when you go shopping for clothes, you shop for sales… for some reason, when people buy financial goods, they seem to want to pay more. When people buy physical goods, they seem to want to pay less." The ten-year target is a debasement mirror, not a valuation: the dollar's purchasing power "will decline by as much as 75% in the next 10 years… the nominal price of gold… will rise in a way that mirrors the decline in purchasing power of the dollar." And the driver is explicitly not the Iran war: "in 50 years of studying the gold price, I have learned that gold is remarkably resilient to conflict. The thing that moves the gold price is deteriorating faith in the purchasing power of the medium of exchange and negative real interest rates" — defined as a 10-year yield "substantially below the rate in the deterioration of purchasing power," so against 8-10% real inflation "you aren't getting a 4.6% yield, you're losing 2.4 or 3.4 or 4.4."
Rule owns "a fair bit of gold" and wants considerably more, which is exactly why he is pleased to expect a soft price for the rest of the year. His analogy does the work: everyone shops for clothes on sale, yet with financial assets "people seem to want to pay more." He is a buyer, so cheaper is better, and he says so without hedging.
The long-term case is not really a forecast about gold — it is a forecast about the dollar. He expects the US dollar to lose as much as 75% of its purchasing power over ten years, as it did in the 1970s, and he expects the dollar price of gold to rise roughly in mirror image. Gold does not become more valuable; the yardstick shrinks.
The most useful part is what he says does not drive gold. Despite an active Middle East war, "gold is remarkably resilient to conflict." What moves it is loss of faith in the currency plus negative real interest rates — a term worth unpacking. If a ten-year government bond pays 4.6% while the currency is losing 8-10% of its purchasing power a year, you are not earning 4.6%; you are losing three or four percent in real terms with certainty. When the safe place to store money is guaranteed to shrink, gold's lack of a yield stops being a disadvantage. That, not headlines, is the condition he watches — and it is the condition he expects to intensify once rates are politically forced down after 2026.
13:57What that means is that although I own a fair bit of gold, I'd like to own a lot more. The fact that I'd like to own it and the fact that the price I think for the balance of 2026 will be stable to down is attractive to me. For some reason, when people buy financial goods, they seem to want to pay more. When people buy physical goods, they seem to want to pay less.
In short: Long-term conviction, short-term hedge — the most explicit two-horizon answer of the call, given in Q&A. "Gold is obviously seeing some pressure with rates rising. Gold is inversely correlated with real rates. What we're seeing is gold slightly weak, down about 18 bips, but silver is higher by about 50 bips. Now, long term, I still think you're going to see a sharp depreciation of all fiat currency and reserves going towards gold versus Treasuries over time. However, in the near term, if we see a hike, you'll see some temporary pressure before the uptrend resumes. So, if you want to trim some gold, or sell covered calls on your gold, it would make sense. But I would use this as a buying opportunity for adding to gold going into 2027." The structural case is the deficit arithmetic: "the debasement trade will still be the single biggest trade of coming years, driven by giant out-of-control deficits all around the developed world… we have 18 trillion of OECD debt issuance this year with 4 trillion net new issuance. It's really unbelievable. Two-thirds of that is the US alone." The near-term offset: "the dollar could strengthen a little bit… because of a hike, and then subsequently I think we'll resume the downtrend in all fiat currency." Sentiment tell: "Modi is trying to curb gold buying in India, but that I think will just push people to want to buy gold even more as the central bank is buying gold."
Gold pays no interest, so it competes with bonds. When the yield on a bond rises faster than inflation — what economists call the real interest rate — holding gold costs you more, and the gold price tends to fall. That is exactly the environment right now, with the market pricing a coin-flip chance the Federal Reserve raises rates on 16 September. Gold slipped slightly on the day; silver rose.
Singh separates the next few months from the next few years, and gives different advice for each. Near term, if the Fed hikes, gold takes "temporary pressure," so this is a reasonable moment to trim a position or sell covered calls against it — that is, sell someone else the right to buy your gold at a higher price, collecting a fee now in exchange for capping your upside. Longer term he is emphatic: use the weakness to add "going into 2027."
The reason is arithmetic rather than sentiment. Developed governments will issue roughly $18 trillion of debt this year, $4 trillion of it genuinely new borrowing, two-thirds of that American. He does not think that debt will be defaulted on; he thinks it will be inflated away, which means every paper currency loses purchasing power together and the metal that cannot be printed gains it. He calls this the debasement trade, "the single biggest trade of coming years." The supporting anecdote is India, where the prime minister is trying to discourage gold imports — which Singh reads as a sign of how strong the demand is, not how weak.
Full passage: premium transcript (PDF).
In short: Gromen. The position is framed as insurance you cannot buy late: when trillion-dollar balance sheets finally agree, "they're going to go to hit the sell button and it's not going to work," markets shut for two or three weeks, and "when they reopen, you will own what you own at the new allocation… Gold will be where it is." The historical check is his Ukrainian friends' 1998 bank holiday: "how did people that own gold and silver do? … Oh, they were fine. Nothing changed for them."
GLD is the largest gold ETF — shares that track the gold price, so you get the metal's exposure without storing bars. In this conversation Gromen doesn't argue about where gold is going; he argues about when you can still buy it.
His claim is that the shift out of government bonds and into hard assets will not happen gradually. The people who matter run trillion-dollar balance sheets, and when enough of them accept that the debt arithmetic doesn't work, they will all try to leave at once — "they're going to go to hit the sell button and it's not going to work." His precedent is the silver market in 1980, when the exchange changed the rules on the Hunt brothers and effectively switched the buy side off. His second exhibit is a Jim Rickards story in which the US Treasury can telephone BlackRock and freeze roughly $5 trillion of capital with a single call. If that is even approximately true, then in a genuine crisis the exits are administrative, not economic.
So the position has to exist beforehand: "when they reopen, you will own what you own at the new allocation." The evidence he offers is personal rather than statistical — two friends whose Ukrainian family lost a fortune to a two-week 1998 bank closure, while "people that own gold and silver… were fine. Nothing changed for them." This is a pre-positioning argument, not a price forecast, and he is explicit that the timing is unknowable: "could it be next week? Sure. Could it be 20 years? Sure."
27:24Down from 120%. It'll be — and the money that used to buy five cars will buy a month of groceries. Have a good day. And when I asked my Ukrainian friends, how did people that own gold and silver do? Obviously, this is pre-Bitcoin. How'd they do? He said, "Oh, they were fine. Nothing changed for them.
In short: Liz Thomas's final trade — a repeat pick she likes more after it went against her: "gold. I used it last time, it's down 3% since then, like it even more now." No instrument is named in the audio (gold as an asset; GLD is used here as the row's proxy). It is consistent with the macro she describes in her main segment — a Treasury and a Fed "sending mixed messages," yields higher than investors have been used to for decades, and an inflation environment "investors are trying to grapple with."
Liz Thomas's final trade is gold, and she repeats it after being wrong on it: down 3% since she last picked it, and she "likes it even more now." (No instrument was named on air; GLD, the largest gold ETF, is used here as the row's proxy.)
The reasoning sits in her main segment rather than the final-trade slot. Her description of the environment is a Treasury and a Federal Reserve sending conflicting signals, yields higher than a generation of investors has ever dealt with, and inflation nobody has a confident model for. Gold pays no income and produces nothing, so it does badly when real interest rates are attractive and does well when people distrust the institutions setting them. Buying it after a fall, on an unchanged thesis, is the coherent version of holding a hedge — the alternative, dropping it because it dipped, means you never owned a hedge in the first place.
In short: The debasement trade won the week again, over the Treasury Secretary's objection. Flows: "physical and gold ETFs saw 6.4 billion in weekly inflow, the third largest weekly inflow in history, driving gold total ETF AUM to 615 billion, so almost two-thirds of a trillion" — a seventh straight week of inflows, North America $4.4B. Futures: "Gold speculators went all in before the Friday hawkish discussion. There's a record 22.2 billion surge in net gold futures bets, the biggest increase in over a decade," split $13.6B of brand-new longs and $8.6B of short covering over three weeks. "And Bessent wasn't able to prevent that." The crowding flag he attaches himself: "a lot of momentum buying from CTAs… traders aggressively paid high premiums for gold call options… taking open interest to the 93rd percentile of the two-year range," and the dollar bounced on Friday because the dovish central-bank expectation "didn't happen." He also suspects the same instinct at the top of the AI complex: "I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of these people are converting assets from vested stock into precious metals."
GLD is a fund that simply holds gold bars, so owning it is owning gold without a vault. This week produced the third-largest weekly inflow into gold funds in history — $6.4 billion — taking total assets in gold funds worldwide to $615 billion, a seventh consecutive week of buying.
Alongside that, speculators in the futures market did something more dramatic: a record $22.2 billion increase in net bullish positions over three weeks, the largest build in more than a decade, split between $13.6 billion of genuinely new buying and $8.6 billion of people who had bet against gold giving up. Singh's one-line summary of what this means politically: "And Bessent wasn't able to prevent that." The Treasury Secretary has spent weeks trying to talk down long-term interest rates; the gold market is voting on whether he can.
He also flags the risk in his own trade, which is unusual and worth noting. Much of the buying came from computer-driven momentum funds, and traders paid unusually high prices for call options — contracts giving the right to buy gold higher — pushing that activity to the 93rd percentile of the past two years. Crowded positioning is how sharp reversals start, and the dollar bounced on Friday precisely because the expected dovish central banks did not materialise.
The half-joking aside that carries the underlying thesis: watching hyperscaler default-insurance costs hit record highs, "I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of these people are converting assets from vested stock into precious metals."
Full passage: premium transcript (PDF).
In short: Asked what he is currently adding to, the answer is one asset: "I am adding to my position physical gold… Because that's what I do." The conference "made a lot of money. Some of that money I'm going to save. And most of what I save I'll save in gold. And I'm fairly price insensitive. Would I have preferred to buy it at $4,000? Yes. Will I buy it at 4,700? Yes." The driver is policy, not price: "If our government continues to signal to savers like myself that the sanctity of the dollar is of no concern, I'll have no choice but to increase my level of gold savings and decrease my level of dollar savings." Two caveats he volunteers — "that hyperbolic chart always scares me… whenever I see a momentum-driven chart, and I'm beginning to see it in gold now, I get concerned for the very near term," and the January precedent when he did hold off. He is "a systematic saver… since I was 16 years of age," and may park surplus in short-term Treasuries "for eventual redeployment in gold."
Rule doesn't treat gold as an investment at all — it is where he parks money he has already earned. That is why the price barely enters the decision: "I'm fairly price insensitive. Would I have preferred to buy it at $4,000? Yes. Will I buy it at 4,700? Yes." He has just been paid for a profitable conference, and most of what he saves out of it goes into physical gold.
The reason gold is winning that savings decision right now is a specific claim about interest rates. Normally, when bond yields rise, gold falls — a bond paying you more is a better place to store money than a metal paying you nothing. Rule argues that logic only holds if the yield actually beats inflation. His numbers: the dollar is losing 8–9% of its purchasing power a year while the 30-year Treasury pays 5.6–5.7%, so "you are not making 5.6 or 5.7. You are losing 2.5." When every place to store money loses value, the one that at least can't be printed wins — which is why he says gold and yields can rise together, "the same circumstance that we had in the decade of the '70s," and something not seen since 1981.
He is careful to separate that decade-long case from the next few months. The shape of the recent chart worries him: "whenever I see a momentum-driven chart — and I'm beginning to see it in gold now — I get concerned for the very near term." He held off buying in January for exactly this reason. So: buying steadily, expecting to be right eventually, and openly unsure about the short run.
38:13Is that correct? — That's correct. We punish near-term earnings in favor of long-term solvency. — Okay. Final question. Of all the assets and commodities that we discussed today, would there be anything that you're currently adding your position to? — I am adding to my position physical gold. — Right now? — Because that's what I do.
In short: The cleanest expression of the week's macro: "gold rallied the most in a year this week," with "GLD spiked from 370 all the way to 420," bullion "rallying to about $4,700 per ounce" and silver "back to about $69 an ounce." The thesis is not the flow but the escalation path: against a market that absorbed $742 billion of Treasury sales in a single week and a TBAC-flagged ~$1.45 trillion funding gap across fiscal 27-28, a $4 billion-per-operation buyback is not a defence — "precious metals are already looking past the flow and pricing the escalation path. Programs like this have a habit of growing."
GLD is simply a fund that holds gold bars, so owning it is owning gold without a vault. Gold had its best week in more than a year, with the fund moving from about $370 to $420 and bullion reaching roughly $4,700 an ounce.
The reason is not fear of inflation as such but a judgement about a policy that will probably have to grow. The US Treasury said it would buy back its own long-term bonds to push borrowing costs down — at $4 billion per operation, perhaps $15-30 billion in total. In the same month the market had to swallow $742 billion of Treasury sales in a single week, and the government's own advisory committee warns of a roughly $1.45 trillion shortfall over the next two fiscal years. The defence is a fraction of the problem.
Singh's argument is that once a government reveals it is defending a level and brings too little firepower, the market keeps pushing until the government escalates or gives up. Japan escalated for years and ended up owning half its own bond market, with its currency absorbing the strain. If the US goes the same way, the dollar weakens — and a weaker dollar mechanically lifts gold, silver, farmland, property and crypto. "Precious metals are already looking past the flow and pricing the escalation path."
Full passage: premium transcript (PDF).
In short: The whole appearance resolves to it: "all roads lead to gold." The line in the sand makes it a both-ways trade — "if it goes over 4.8 and goes into a debt spiral, you want to own gold. And if they inject liquidity to stop it at 4.8, you want to own gold." Gold is now "a bigger share of FX reserves than treasuries are — that's just a fact," central-bank buying returned to record highs in calendar Q2, and his own one-month fix has the ESF bidding gold aggressively before Warsh revalues the certificates.
GLD is the largest gold ETF — shares that track the gold price, so you own gold without storing bars. Everything in this interview funnels into it: "all roads lead to gold."
The argument is a fork with the same answer on both branches. The US government's interest bill plus pensions, healthcare and veterans' benefits already costs 105% of everything it collects in tax, and those costs are growing at 7.5% a year while tax receipts grow at 4%. So there is a level of long-term interest rates the government simply cannot afford — he puts it at about 4.8% on the 10-year Treasury. If yields break above it, the debt compounds faster than the country can pay and you want gold. If the authorities print money to hold yields below it — which is what doubling the Treasury's bond buybacks on the day of this recording was — you also want gold. "If it goes over 4.8 and goes into a debt spiral, you want to own gold. And if they inject liquidity to stop it at 4.8, you want to own gold."
What's changed structurally is that gold is no longer a fringe hedge: it is now a larger share of the world's central-bank reserves than US Treasuries are, and central banks bought at a record pace again in the second quarter. That is why gold fell during the war — countries that needed dollars sold their most liquid reserve, exactly as a working reserve asset is supposed to behave — and it did so without needing anyone's permission, unlike selling Treasuries. Gromen's own fantasy policy, if he ran the Treasury, is to have the government bid gold up aggressively and then formally revalue the US hoard, which would create roughly $5 trillion of spending power out of an accounting entry.
43:56What has to happen? — Oh, that's simple. I take the exchange stabilization fund. — Okay. — I start bidding gold. Aggressive. Aggressive. And then I also announce that from now on all deficits with China, all trade deficits will be settled in gold. We've kind of been de facto doing that. Once gold's run up to a really big number, I instruct Warsh to revalue the gold, and in doing that that creates a deposit free and clear of dollars into the TGA.
In short: Gold is coming off its worst day since the end of July and copper is at a two-week low, yet the options tape flips bullish on the buyback news. Renick from the Cboe: "today's Treasury buyback announcement is sending big ripples across all macro assets, but in particular gold. In GLD, calls are outpacing puts nearly three to one on 2½ times the average volume. The most bought contract is the 420-strike call expiring October 16th, which goes for 12 bucks a pop and needs the ETF to jump 5% by expiration." Wells Fargo reiterated a positive precious-metals outlook with gold at $4,900 for 2026. Liz Thomas is back on side after stepping away: "I liked it for a long time while it was rising in spring, then I stopped understanding what was going on with it, so I stopped liking it because I couldn't build a good thesis. Now what we're seeing is renewed interest — and I don't think it's just yields or the Treasury. There's continued geopolitical tension. A lot of the reason gold sold off earlier this year was that central banks had to raise cash to protect their countries from rising oil prices. Oil is still elevated but not that problematic, and the ongoing tension gives central banks a new reason to say: we don't want dollars, we want reserves, we want to buy gold again. I think gold can find its way back towards 5,000 in this cycle." Simpson: "I hope Liz is right. 5,000 — I would have taken Wells Fargo's 4,900 call… I like gold moving higher."
GLD is the fund that simply holds gold bullion. Two separate signals turned positive today. First, the options market: traders bought roughly three call options (bets on a rise) for every put, on two and a half times the normal volume, with the single most popular contract a bet that the fund rises about 5% by mid-October. Second, Wells Fargo reiterated a $4,900 gold target for 2026.
Liz Thomas's explanation of the round trip is the useful part. She stopped liking gold in the spring not because it fell but because she could no longer explain why it was moving — a good discipline. Her account of the selloff: central banks, which had been the biggest buyers, had to raise cash to cushion their economies against high oil prices, so they sold. Oil is still elevated but no longer as damaging, and continuing geopolitical tension gives those same central banks a reason to swap dollars for gold reserves again.
That is why she thinks demand is genuinely new rather than a reflex to today's Treasury announcement, and why she can see gold reaching 5,000 in this cycle.
In short: The low is in: gold retested $4,000 "four or five times" while every commentator called for one more leg to $3,500–3,600, "all hot money… got rung out between really February and about six or eight weeks ago," and the final poke to ~$3,950 was where Oxbow "were really trying to put a lot on." "You're in the early innings on gold and silver." In accounts he owns "one or two of the exchange traded funds on gold."
Gold spent three months bouncing off $4,000 while nearly everyone writing about it said the same thing: one more drop to $3,500–3,600 before the bottom. Oakley reads that unanimity as the tell. The speculative "hot money" that piles into a rising commodity had already been forced out between February and roughly six weeks before this interview, so when gold poked down to about $3,950 there was nobody left to sell — and that is where Oxbow bought heavily.
He is careful about what he is claiming. Not a forecast — "I don't know if it's going to go $200, $300 more down or not, I just know it's cheap now." His actual view is bigger than the level: "you're in the early innings on gold and silver, but particularly the gold miners." And the reason he owns gold at all isn't a price target; it's insurance against a currency he expects to keep losing value "the rest of your life." In client accounts that means one or two gold exchange-traded funds — shares that simply hold bullion in a vault — rather than physical bars.
27:24been in that stuff got rung out between really February and about six or eight weeks ago. And so now gold hit that 4,000 one more time, went down to about 3950, but that's all in that period there was when we were really trying to put a lot on because our idea was, look, I don't know if it's going to go $200 $300 more down or not, I just know it's cheap now. And so I think they missed it. But I don't think they missed it if they'll think about it because I really feel like you've got a long way to go. You're
In short: "I think gold can probably rally to about 4,600" on August–October seasonality, "thereafter… expect that we're going to have sort of a final shoe to drop" as long rates creep up. "I really don't trust this first little bounce off the lows, and I'm much more of a buyer on weakness… if we get weakness into September, then I'd be a much bigger buyer on gold and silver heading into next year." Long-term constructive after the 5,000 → 3,500 bust; "eventually it'll be time to own gold again. I can't say it just yet that we're there."
Newton is long-term friendly to gold and short-term unwilling to chase it. Two forces are pulling in opposite directions. In gold's favour: seasonality — "normally, August through October, we get very good gains" — and the fact that some longer cycles bottomed in June. Against it: rising long-term interest rates. Gold pays no interest, so when safe bonds pay more in real (after-inflation) terms, holding gold costs more, and real rates are near their former highs.
His path: a rally to about 4,600, then "sort of a final shoe to drop." Rather than buy the current bounce — "I really don't trust this first little bounce off the lows" — he wants weakness: "if we get weakness into September, then I'd be a much bigger buyer on gold and silver heading into next year."
The context is a bust he saw coming. In January, gold's RSI (that momentum gauge again) reached about 90 — an extreme reached only a handful of times ever — right as retail enthusiasm finally arrived after a three-year bull market. Price then fell from roughly 5,000 to 3,500 over seven months. His read on cycles is that gold's typical rhythm is about six years, a "very decent almost a 4-year rally" has been followed by only a seven-month pullback, so the repair is not finished: "eventually it'll be time to own gold again. I can't say it just yet that we're there."
24:37And historically, it's been a tricky time to own precious metals when that happens. We are in a very good time of the year for owning precious metals. Normally, August through October, we get very good gains. We've certainly seen that thus far, gold pushing up from what, 3,900 to almost about 4,350 or so. I think gold can probably rally to about 4,600.
In short: The core holding and the clearest call of the interview. Asked whether the bottom is in for gold this year: "Yeah, I do" — and back to 5,000 this year, "I do think it'll get back to 5,000… They're stuck." He owns it as bullion in private vaults (almost all US, a little Switzerland), 75–80% of the precious-metals book. The driver is the fiscal math: money-financing at the front end plus bank-intermediated QE at the long end "comes out in the currency. It's really good for gold."
GLD is the biggest gold ETF — a share that tracks the gold price so you own gold without storing bars. Gromen's call here is unusually direct for him: the low is in for this year, and gold gets back to $5,000. His own money is in physical bullion held in private vaults, mostly in the United States with a little in Switzerland, and it is roughly 75–80% of his precious-metals holdings.
The reasoning is arithmetic rather than sentiment. Essentially all federal tax revenue is already consumed by three things nobody can cut — interest on the debt, entitlements, and veterans' benefits. Every proposed way out ends up being money-printing wearing a different hat: cut short-term rates and fund the deficit with Treasury bills sold through stablecoins, while pushing banks to buy long-dated bonds and promising to lend them dollars if that goes wrong. "That's just QE," he says — if you guarantee the buyer, you are the buyer. And printing to fund deficits shows up in the currency, which is exactly what the gold price measures.
The trigger he thinks people misread was Japan. High oil pushed Japan into a trade deficit, so it sold US Treasuries to raise the dollars it needed to defend the yen. Faced with that choice, the Treasury Secretary supplied dollar liquidity — "exactly what Powell did, exactly what Yellen did." That, plus the incoming Fed chair saying out loud that in a crisis he would set "a fair price for assets," is why gold jumped 14% in five days, and why Gromen thinks the story that Warsh will be a hawk is being thrown in the trash.
52:07And do I think the bottom is in for gold this year? Yeah, I do. — 5,000 this year again? — Yeah, I do think it'll get back to 5,000. Yeah, I do. They're stuck. Like we were talking about before, they're going to have to intervene again.
52:33Yen, treasuries, like the math is the math. — Yeah, the math is the math. This has been a very strong leg up from the summer low, the test, the retests of 4,000, multiple retests, all successful, and now we're back almost at 4,500. So it does look quite promising. Luke, thank you so much for your time again and I look forward to speaking again later this year. Cheers.
In short: Buying, not selling, at $4,400: "I'm about to get a pretty good paycheck from the conference… I suspect about half that paycheck will go into physical gold. And I'm pretty price insensitive." Horizon: "I don't suspect that any of this gold will find its way out of the market for 10 years" absent a 2008-style liquidity event — "it wouldn't surprise me if the sell decision for my personal gold was made by my heirs." Gold is "an insurance asset, a savings asset, or in a sense wealth itself" and he is "a systematic saver in gold." The near-term caveat is explicit: if the nominal interest rate keeps rising the dollar strengthens and the foregone interest makes gold more expensive to hold, so "the next three or four months could be problematic" — while "the gold prices we've talked about for a long time will do very well over the next 10 years."
Rick doesn't treat gold as an investment at all — he treats it as savings. The distinction matters, because a saver doesn't want the price to go up; he wants to accumulate more of it. At $4,400 an ounce, with gold near a record, he is still buying: about half his upcoming conference paycheck goes straight into physical metal, and he says plainly that he is "pretty price insensitive."
His holding period is deliberately absurd. He doesn't expect to sell any of it for ten years, and the only scenario that would change that is a 2008-style crash in which everything else gets so cheap that greed pulls him out of gold and into bargains. Otherwise, "the sell decision for my personal gold was made by my heirs."
The near-term warning is real, though. If the interest rate on ordinary bonds keeps rising, two things work against gold: the dollar gets stronger (and gold is priced in dollars), and holding a metal that pays no interest costs you more of the interest you gave up. So "the next three or four months could be problematic" — even while the ten-year view is unchanged. The event that would ignite it is political: if rates are forced down for short-term electoral reasons, repeating the 1975 signal that "short-term American politics are more important than the sanctity of the US dollar, then you'll see gold rip."
11:14I'm about to get a pretty good paycheck. And I suspect about half that paycheck will go into physical gold. And I'm pretty price insensitive, Daryl. I don't know what the future holds, but I don't suspect that any of this gold will find its way out of the market for 10 years, unless we have a liquidity-driven event where other asset classes really fall dramatically in price and where the consequence of that is that my greed inspires me to sell some gold and buy some other kind of asset class. Absent
In short: Sold part of the gold position into the Nov–Jan peak and has been buying it back: "We bought gold at 4,000, 4,050… I think you can still buy it 4300. I think gold is going to do well in the last half of the year."
This is straight exposure to the gold price rather than to a mining company. Oxbow trimmed part of its gold in the November-to-January blow-off, then bought back in around $4,000–4,050 as the metal retested that level two or three times.
He still thinks it's buyable at $4,300 and expects gold to "do well in the last half of the year." Underneath is his ten-year frame: a commodity and hard-asset cycle, a Treasury market that no longer trusts US fiscal policy, and a dollar he thinks likely drifts lower as US influence in the Middle East fades.
37:03It went 3950 or whatever and it came back to 4,000 two or three times. I think you can still buy it 4300. I think gold is going to do well in the last half of the year, but on the minor side we went back in the royalty companies, Franco-Nevada. We added Hecla like I say on the silver minor side.
In short: Buy this dip. The pull-back from 5,400 to the low-4,000s had "traits of a blow-off top" and has been "a healthy pullback"; central banks stepped right back up and China is buying each lower price bigger (173 tons ≈ $23B last month vs a $105B trade surplus). "Gold's going to go way higher than the 5,400 record… what we're watching in real time are China's surpluses being settled in gold." Closing advice: "own some gold."
GLD is the largest gold ETF — a share that tracks the gold price, so you own gold without storing bars. Gromen's message here is simply buy this dip. Gold ran to $5,400 and fell back to the low $4,000s; he reads that as a blow-off top digesting, not a broken trend, and points out that central banks resumed buying almost immediately after the March–April war scare.
His evidence isn't sentiment, it's China's buying pattern — the behaviour he learned to recognise in fifteen years on a trading desk. Each time the price fell, China bought more: 80 tons, then twice that, then three times, and last month 173 tons — about $23 billion of gold against a $105 billion monthly trade surplus. That means roughly a quarter of everything China earned from trade that month was converted into gold. A buyer who buys more as the price falls is accumulating, not trading.
The bigger claim is structural: China would rather have gold than the US Treasury bond as the world's backstop savings asset, and is quietly building the plumbing for it (yuan-priced commodity purchases, plus offshore yuan clearing banks sitting in every major gold hub so surplus yuan can be swapped for gold and taken home). If surpluses get settled in gold instead of Treasuries, the demand is mechanical and price-insensitive — which is why he expects gold "way higher than the 5,400 record." His own arithmetic: at $16,000 gold, China's gold imports would offset its entire trade surplus. And his closing advice to ordinary investors was simply, "own some gold."
38:36So, they're putting almost a quarter of their trade surplus into gold on a de facto basis. And so, when I say what do I think gold's going to do? I think gold's going to continue going higher over time. I think it's going to go way higher than the 5,400 record. Because what we're watching in real time are China's surpluses being settled in gold.
In short: Asked whether to establish a gold position today: "Yeah, I think you have to." Precious-metals assets are under one half of 1% of US savings & investment assets vs a 2% four-decade mean — reversion "would quadruple demand" in an economy that's 24% of the world's. Near-term he expects sideways-to-lower through 2026 on higher US and Japanese rates — and he saves systematically in gold, so "I would rather pay less than more."
GLD tracks the gold price. Asked whether someone with no gold should start now, Rick says: "Yeah, I think you have to." His structural number is a market-share one: gold and gold-related assets are less than half of one percent of all American savings and investment assets, against a forty-year average of 2%. Just going back to normal would quadruple demand — in an economy that is a quarter of the world's.
Near term he expects the opposite of excitement: metals grinding sideways or lower through 2026, because higher US (and now Japanese) interest rates make holding a non-yielding asset like gold more costly and make bonds look better by comparison. He is completely relaxed about that — he "saves systematically in gold," so "I would rather pay less than more."
11:15If you had reversion to mean, you would quadruple demand for precious metals related assets
11:20in an economy that's 24% of the world economy. This is truly wild. Now I'm of the belief
In short: Gold "has become the central banker's reserve asset of choice more than any bond," and on a tonnage basis official buying stayed high (last year's dip likely China stepping back at high prices, "just like they do with oil") — he expects "another surge of central bank gold purchases at the lower prices." With governments running "project Zimbabwe"-style games to avoid a debt meltdown, "there's going to be this persistent bid under precious metals… I think gold's going to rally too."
GLD is the large gold fund. Hay's bull case isn't about jewellery or inflation hedging in the abstract — it's about who is buying. Central banks, he argues, have made gold "the central banker's reserve asset of choice more than any bond," meaning they'd now rather park national savings in metal than in government IOUs.
He answers the standard rebuttal (that central-bank gold buying only looks big because the price went up) by measuring it in tonnes rather than dollars: the tonnage is still high, and last year's dip was probably China stepping back at expensive prices — "just like they do with oil." At today's lower prices he expects "another surge of central bank gold purchases."
Behind it sits his bigger view: governments buried in debt will keep improvising — twisting the yield curve, changing bank rules, eventually having the Treasury buy stocks — rather than allow a debt reckoning. All of that debases money, which is why he expects "a persistent bid under precious metals" and thinks "gold's going to rally too."
1:20:14That's when the primary went over 20%. So that's not happening this time. And we're in a period of monetary debasement, which we weren't in [clears throat] at that point. So I think the circumstances are very different. So I think there is a gold gold gold is the central banker's I think become the central banker's reserve asset of choice more than any bond.
In short: Oil is "too hard" — $50 and $200 both arguable — so he substitutes the simpler asset: "just buy gold." A longer war is inflationary and drives yuan+gold settlement (CIPS hit a record ~$2T in May); the regime has flipped to war-on = gold-up. Gold "going way higher relative to oil" over time.
GLD is the largest gold ETF — a stock that simply tracks the gold price, so you own gold without storing bars. Gromen's move here is a discipline more than a forecast: oil has become a coin-flip (he can build an honest case for $50 or $200), and when an asset is "too hard" he substitutes the simpler one it's linked to. That asset is gold — less volatile, it "at least keeps up with oil," and he thinks it goes much higher relative to oil over time.
The deeper driver is plumbing. A long, inflationary war pushes countries to trade in China's yuan and settle the leftover balances in gold — and China's cross-border payment network just hit a record ~$2 trillion in a single month. More gold-settlement means steady central-bank gold buying, which is why he thinks the old pattern (war-scare = gold sells off) has flipped to war = gold bid. Gold is already the single biggest US export in 8 of the last 10 months — the trend is already visible in the trade data.
31:39Just buy gold. I look and go, you know what, too hard. I'll just own gold. And I think gold's going to do well over time on less volatility and at least keep up with oil over time in all of this. We had a compression of the gold to oil ratio, but ultimately I think gold's going way higher relative to oil.
In short: Has "no idea" whether precious metals have bottomed near-term — it depends on US rates, and "all the politicians are lying when their lips are moving." But if a slowdown forces the Fed to add artificial liquidity and cut rates, "you'll see gold go on a tear, in the order of magnitude of late 1975."
GLD tracks the gold price. Rick won't call a short-term bottom — gold's near-term direction depends on US interest rates, and he trusts no political signals. But his structural case: if the economy slows, the government's reflex will be to flood the system with "artificial liquidity" and cut rates, signaling that domestic politics matters more than protecting the dollar's value. When that lesson lands, he expects gold to "go on a tear" comparable to late 1975 — a reason to own it for the long run.
59:16I believe all the politicians are lying when their lips are moving. Mhm. — I believe ultimately that if we have any kind of economic slowdown, which I suspect we might, that the political response will be to increase artificial liquidity in the US economy and lower the interest rates. If that happens, I think the lesson will be clear to investors that domestic politics matters more than the sanctity of the US currency.
In short: Contrarian buy — GLD saw a $14B outflow since March (gold the worst asset of the last couple months on higher real/TIPS yields), yet central banks and retail are restarting purchases now that it's under $4,000: "everyone rushed to buy at 5,600, no one wants to buy under 4,000, which is what you're supposed to do." Still +19% YoY.
Gold has been the worst-performing asset lately because "real" interest rates (rates after inflation) rose, which makes non-yielding gold less attractive. The big gold ETF, GLD, has seen $14 billion pulled out since March. Singh reads that the opposite way — as a contrarian buy signal: central banks and regular investors are quietly buying again now that gold is back under $4,000. His line: everyone rushed to buy at $5,600 but nobody wants it under $4,000, "which is what you're supposed to do."
Full passage: premium transcript (PDF).
In short: Added 5 bps to the SPDR Gold Shares spot-gold ETF — incrementally building the gold hedge (buy gold on dips thesis).
In short: Uses GLD flows as the capitulation gauge: 110 tons out in six months, no retail participation vs the 2011-12 top; with futures open interest at a 13-yr low and central banks (China accelerating) still buying, he sees bottoming/capitulation signs and has started nibbling miners — but warns of a possible "whoosh down" in an AI bust.
GLD is the big gold ETF — a share is a claim on physical gold in a vault. Fred doesn't cite it as a trade so much as a thermometer for how washed-out gold sentiment is: 110 tons of gold have left GLD in six months, and unlike the 2011-12 top there was never a retail buying frenzy to unwind. On top of that, bets in the gold futures market have collapsed to a 13-year low, and a sentiment gauge called the BPGDM (the share of gold-mining stocks in an uptrend) crashed from 100% in January to 2%. To a contrarian, everyone already having sold is the setup for a bottom.
What's still quietly buying is central banks — China especially — who now hold more gold than US Treasuries and keep adding as a way to move off the dollar. That's why gold keeps defending $4,000. He's started "nibbling" on miners (Scotiabank says they're the cheapest in over four decades, ~10× earnings) but is holding back real buying because an AI crash could briefly drag gold down with everything else in a scramble for cash.
59:36We never saw the retail participation that we saw leading up to that top in 2011 and 12. We've not seen that. And that's reflected in these outflows that occurred and have continued to occur. Now we've seen them again now, but now it's starting to see some stabilization in the last week or so, they've started to stop going down, and that's a sign that maybe we have reached the capitulation stage already.
In short: Desai (CLOSING her January recommendation): a more hawkish Warsh Fed undermines the dollar-debasement trade, and investors are taking profits after years of outsize gains. GLD keeps some hedge/diversification value, but "the environment isn't as favorable for gold anymore."
Desai closed her gold recommendation, and the reasoning matters more than the call: gold's great run was powered by the "dollar debasement" trade — the belief that the Fed would let inflation run and erode the currency. A genuinely hawkish Fed chair (Warsh, whom she compares to Volcker) undercuts exactly that thesis, and profit-taking has begun after years of outsize gains. She still grants gold some value as a diversifier — just no longer a favorable setup.
In short: His single biggest position (35% of liquid assets). Fiscal dominance (interest expense now above defense spending; interest+entitlements 90–100% of receipts) plus eroding hegemony (missiles/drones, Chinese components) mean the US must spend more while enforcing less — "positive for gold over time." Multicurrency oil pricing gets net-settled in central-bank gold, lifting the gold/oil ratio further.
GLD is the largest gold ETF — a stock you buy that simply tracks the gold price, so you own gold without storing bars. It's Gromen's single biggest position — 35% of his liquid money. His case is about the US government's finances: the debt is so big that interest payments now exceed the entire defense budget, and interest plus entitlement programs eat up essentially all the taxes the government collects. When a government is that boxed in, it eventually prints money to keep paying — and gold is the classic thing to own when money is being debased.
He layers a second, more unusual argument on top. As the US loses the muscle to force the world to use dollars (its own weapons increasingly depend on Chinese-made parts), more oil will get priced in other currencies like China's yuan — and those cross-border oil balances tend to get squared up between central banks in gold. That steady central-bank gold buying is why he thinks the amount of gold one barrel of oil can buy keeps climbing, and why gold re-rates higher for years, not days.
2:38So all of that in my opinion is positive for gold over time. And I'm not talking about one day or the next day. I'm talking about positive over time. The US needs to spend more and it is becoming less able to enforce dollar hegemony at the same time. That's positive for gold over time in my opinion.
In short: The largest gold ETF, used as the paper-market tell: it traded ~12.6M shares on the June 24 selloff, then fell back to near 5M by end of June — well under its ~8M daily average — as the forced quarter-end selling (short sellers pressing into June 30) ran out. That is "the July reset" Prins flagged; positions unwind as the new quarter opens, a weak 57k payrolls print cut Fed-hike odds, and the demand behind gold's record remains in place — she reaffirms the $6,000 forecast.
GLD is the biggest gold ETF — a fund that lets you own "gold" in a brokerage account without holding the metal; each share tracks the gold price. Prins uses its trading volume to show that June's slump in gold was a paper-market event, not a change in the real world. On the June 24 selloff about 12.6 million GLD shares changed hands; by the end of the month that fell back toward 5 million a day, below its usual ~8 million — meaning the forced selling had burned itself out. A lot of that selling came from traders shorting into the June 30 quarter-end, and those positions tend to unwind once a new quarter starts. She calls it "the July reset."
Her bigger argument is that the demand that drove gold to its January record of $5,595/oz is still firmly in place. The World Gold Council expects central banks to buy 750–850 tonnes this year (one of the strongest years since 1971), a record 95% of central banks expect global reserves to keep rising, and Asian investors — led by China — keep buying gold as a safe haven. New mine supply can't grow fast enough to meet any of that. Gold is near $4,190 now, firming off its June low, and a weak 57,000 June jobs report has cut the odds of another Fed rate hike (the main thing that was weighing on gold).
So Prins reaffirms her forecast that gold reaches $6,000. She's at the high end of the range, but not alone — a survey of 90 central banks and public funds found 61% expect gold between $5,000 and $6,000 within a year. GLD is the simplest way to hold that bullish-gold view. (Her specific gated recommendations for paid Prinsights tiers are separate; this post is the macro gold case.)
In short: Falling off — he reads it as a blow-off from last year's "metal mania" (huge volume/money chased it), not a rate story. The tell: it didn't rally on war/inflation as you'd expect, and money is leaving gold ETFs — which perks his interest: "maybe this thing starts to bottom out."
GLD is the big gold ETF (a share is a claim on physical gold). Sohn finds gold's recent fade interesting. He reads it not as a simple rates story but as a "blow-off" — the deflation of last year's "metal mania," when a huge amount of money and trading volume chased the metal.
His most telling observation is behavioral: when war broke out and people feared inflation, gold was "supposed to" rally and didn't — and "you pay attention when something that's supposed to behave one way doesn't." Now he sees money flowing out of gold ETFs, which actually piques his contrarian interest: heavy outflows can mark the point where a beaten-down asset "starts to bottom out." A watch-for-a-bottom stance, not a call that it's there yet.
41:39GOLD — it's falling off, which interests me. Higher rates and a modestly higher dollar have been a headwind, but I see it more as a blow-off from "metal mania" earlier/last year (a massive amount of volume and money went to that asset). What's interesting: when the war started and rates were up and people were petrified of inflation, you'd have thought gold would be up — and it wasn't. It's changed, and I don't know why. (Chris likes to say pay attention when something that's supposed to behave one way doesn't.) I've seen a lot of money coming OUT of gold ETFs, which perks my interest — maybe this thing starts to bottom out.
In short: Weiss exited his ~6-month gold position ("the GLDI"): gold "didn't do what it was supposed to" (fell while inflation ran, rose only as rates fell), is tough to value, and below $4,000 the momentum money "is coming out of it" — so he's out again, raising cash. (Counterpoint: Hartnett flags gold as a good entry point on the pullback.)
Weiss exited his gold position (held about six months) and explains why gold disappointed him: it's supposed to act as a "hedge" — protection that rises when inflation or fear rises — but it did the opposite, falling while inflation ran hot and only rising later as interest rates came down. Because gold pays no earnings or dividends, it's "tough to value" and trades mostly on sentiment. His technical read: below $4,000 the fast "momentum money" that piled in is now piling out, so he's out again and raising cash. The counterpoint on the desk: BofA's Michael Hartnett thinks the pullback has actually made gold a good entry point.
In short: Added spot-gold ETF exposure (with PHYS) on the selloff — more positive on gold into the bearish-positioning extreme and a relentless central-bank bid.
Full passage: premium transcript (PDF).
In short: "I'm a saver in gold" — fairly price-insensitive; he saves systematically whenever he has a liquidity event (will put conference proceeds into gold). Near-term he won't call the low: higher nominal rates lift the dollar and gold is dollar-denominated, so gold can falter first — but eventually, like end-1975, the political class loses its nerve, sacrifices the dollar to domestic politics, and gold benefits. "Will it occur? Absolutely."
Gold is where Rule saves rather than where he tries to make money, so the day-to-day price barely matters to him — he simply buys more whenever he has cash (he'll put conference profits into it). Near term he won't guess the bottom: when interest rates rise, the dollar strengthens, and because gold is priced in dollars a stronger dollar can push gold down. But his bigger point is that the US government can't actually afford high real interest rates — they'd wreck the bond market when the government refinances its debt, and then stocks and housing — so eventually, just like in the mid-1970s, politicians will force rates down and let the dollar weaken to protect the economy and the voters. When that happens, gold wins. His timing answer: "Will it occur in 2026? No idea. Will it occur? Absolutely."
55:23So if you don't mind sharing, what is Rick Rule doing right now in terms of investments in the precious metals industry, are you just holding what you got? Are you nibbling on stuff? Are you just staying away until you start to see signs of what you just talked about? — I'm a saver in gold. And I save whenever I have a liquidity event.
In short: He "saves" in gold (doesn't invest or speculate) and is fairly price-insensitive — "no price close to current that would cause me to be a seller; the only price action I'm interested in is lower, I'd like to own more." This pullback is "heaven-sent," tied to the dollar losing ~75% of its purchasing power.
Rule draws a hard line between saving and speculating: gold is where he saves, not where he tries to make money, so the day-to-day price barely matters to him. Because he's not borrowing to own it, a falling gold price isn't pain — it's a chance to buy more cheaply, which is why he calls this pullback "heaven-sent." The whole case rests on the dollar slowly losing about three-quarters of its buying power over time while an ounce of gold keeps buying roughly what it always did; if that's right, anyone who can afford to should want lower prices so they can accumulate. He also notes that the quoted "spot" price isn't what ordinary buyers get — they pay a markup buying and take a haircut selling — so products that narrow that dealer spread matter for real-world savers.
0:00the lack of retail response to the gold trade given the similarities you pointed out between the decade of the '70s and now is interesting to me. There is no price close to the current price that would cause me to be a seller. So the only price action I'm interested in is lower. I'd like to own more.
In short: Long-run safe-haven demand "is still there and should emerge" once the correction and dollar shortage run their course; the 25% drawdown is reserve-asset liquidation + a momentum correction, not rate hikes — but the deeper the dollar shock, the more short-run downside first.
GLD is the big gold ETF — owning it is essentially owning gold. Snider's explanation for gold's 25% crash is unusual: it's not the ECB's rate hike (he shows gold rising through three bigger rate surges in recent years) and it's not optimism returning. It's a dollar shortage. When oil gets expensive, countries that buy oil in dollars suddenly need more dollars than they can find. Gold is their rainy-day asset — but gold isn't money, so to use it they have to sell it, or "swap" it (pawn it as collateral for dollar loans, the way Turkey verifiably did). Either way that gold hits the market and knocks the price down, even though the sellers still want gold. India is squeezing the other side too — discouraging gold imports to save its dollars for oil — so both the selling and the buying pressure come from the same dollar squeeze.
His conclusion: the thing that made gold triple in the 2020s — the world losing faith in growth and wanting a safe haven — hasn't changed at all. So once the forced selling exhausts itself, the long-run demand "is still there and should emerge." The warning: the more desperate Asian governments get for dollars, the more short-run downside first. Positive on the destination, cautious on the path.
36:01And as long as the safe haven demand of the 2020s hasn't changed — which there's no sign that it has — then the fundamental longrun sustainable demand for gold as a safe haven is still there and should emerge at some point once we get through the correction and maybe the short-term parts of the dollar shortage. However, the caution is the dollar shock gets — and like I said, we're seeing governments around particularly Asia get increasingly desperate.
In short: Secular bull — over the next couple of years "all the arrows still point" to monetizing the debt (the Fed "will monetize it all if it has to"), which is "ultimately really really good for gold"; China keeps buying more as the price falls. But near-term he's cautious: gold selling off alongside Bitcoin is "telling us something wicked this way comes" for risk.
GLD is the largest gold ETF — a stock you can buy that simply tracks the price of gold, so you own gold without storing bars. Gromen is a long-time gold bull, and his core argument is about government debt: the US owes so much that, when push comes to shove, the Federal Reserve will "monetize" it — print new money to buy the government's bonds so interest rates don't spiral. Printing money debases the dollar, and gold is the classic store of value when that happens. He notes China keeps buying more gold even as the price falls, which he reads as confirmation.
The catch is timing. Right now he's cautious on everything, gold included. When bond yields jump worldwide, investors sell whatever they can — even gold — to raise cash, so gold can fall in the short run before its long-term case plays out. That's why he says gold dropping alongside Bitcoin is "telling us something wicked this way comes": it's an early warning that a broad risk sell-off may be coming. So: own it for the multi-year story, but don't be surprised by near-term weakness.
47:03That's — Oh, it's everybody. It is. It's on the PB's website. It is everybody. — Okay. Okay. Um All right. So, last little bit here. Want to tie this whole framework, everything we've talked about into your perspective on markets for the next little bit here. Sounds like secularly, you know, over the next couple years, all the all the arrows are still pointing in the direction of monetizing debt and and print and etc, etc.
In short: Structurally bullish on central-bank buying (treasuries now a "tarnished reserve asset"), but "wouldn't say gold has hit bottom" yet.
GLD is the big gold ETF — owning it is essentially owning gold. Hay is structurally bullish over the long run because of who's buying: central banks. He argues US Treasuries have become a "tarnished reserve asset" — once the safe place central banks parked their reserves, now less trusted (Japan and China have been sellers) — so they're shifting toward gold instead. That's a big, durable source of demand.
But near-term he's cautious: he "wouldn't say gold has hit bottom" yet after its pullback. So the long-term story is good, but he isn't calling the low — hence neutral for now.
37:34consumed and so I think silver's got a pretty good demand story with gold of course it's the central banks and wanting to uh to hold that instead of treasuries I think treasuries are I think they're a tarnished reserve asset and I That's a big development. — Tarnished reserve asset. What does that mean? — So, the central banks don't really want to hold gold much anymore.
In short: A new gold bull era — central banks keep accumulating and gold was made tier-1 bank capital (US, July); the ~20% pullback from ~$5,500 is healthy consolidation, not a parabolic top. Targets $10,000 gold by 2030.
GLD is the big gold ETF — owning it is basically owning gold without storing bars yourself. Dowd is a long-term gold bull: he called $4,000 in early 2025, it ran to about $5,500, and the recent ~20% pullback is, in his words, healthy "consolidation" (a sideways rest), not the end of the run — if it were a true blow-off top, the drop would be far bigger.
His reasons are about demand that doesn't care about price: central banks keep buying, and a July rule change lets regular (commercial) banks count gold as their safest, top-tier capital — so they're buying too — on top of heavy household demand in India and China. Put together, he sees a path to $10,000 gold by 2030.
21:11— Yeah. So, LA last year, the beginning of 2025, uh I did a couple um podcasts where I said gold was going to go to 4,000. it it by the end of the year went it went to 5,500 I believe and peaked out after it peaked out um people were asking me is this a parabolic top is it over and I said at the time no I think it's going to consolidate which is very healthy and that's what it's done so you know if you look it's not down yes — if it was a parabolic top the losses would be a lot greater right now so it's consolidating sideways which technically
In short: Likes owning long-dated gold calls; the metal could regain traction if the AI bubble pops and the wealth effect reverses, sending investors back to safe havens.
This is the big gold ETF — owning it is basically owning gold. Woo's actual trade is "long-dated gold calls": cheap options that pay off if gold's price is much higher a year or more from now, with limited downside if it isn't. It's a bet placed well in advance, not a rush to buy gold today.
The logic is a hedge against the AI mania popping. Right now soaring tech stocks make people feel rich, and that "feel rich" effect is part of what's pushed bond yields up and kept gold out of favor. If the AI trade unravels, that reverses fast and scared money runs back to safe havens like gold — so he wants the bet on cheaply, ahead of time.
10:59I also like owning long-dated gold calls. The yellow metal could regain traction if the air bubble were to pop. After all, if the AI trade begins to unwind, the wealth effect that has helped keep real yields elevated could quickly reverse. In that scenario, investors will likely rotate back towards traditional safe havens.
In short: Now central banks' #1 reserve asset (ECB-confirmed), consolidating in a range after its pre-war high — "a great buying opportunity"; central-bank accumulation continues; be selective on miners in neutral jurisdictions.
GLD is the largest gold ETF — owning it is essentially owning gold. After hitting a record high before the war, gold has been drifting sideways in a range, which she calls "a great buying opportunity" rather than a top.
Her key point is that gold is now central banks' number-one reserve asset — the safe thing governments hold to back their money — ahead of US Treasury bonds, and the European Central Bank just confirmed it. (A "reserve asset" is what a country stockpiles to defend its currency and settle international trade.) Central banks keep buying gold to reduce their dependence on the US dollar and US debt.
The recent dip, she says, is just nervous "safe-haven" investors at the margin wandering off toward oil and gas; the big strategic buyers never left. On gold miners she's choosier, preferring those in politically neutral countries.
2:59So, we're seeing a bit of a drawback on that, but I that is very temporary um because the main strategic players in gold remain involved in the metal and it's really just the margin that has changed and I think this is a great buying opportunity um for gold. It's a great opportunity to be patient if you're already in it and it's a very good opportunity to be selective on which miners have good plays in neutral jurisdictions which brings me to the other part of your question David with respect to other commodities and copper
In short: Increased his gold holdings — gold is his "savings asset" and liquidity; the gold price "will do well." Rotated 25% of his silver-sale proceeds into physical gold.
GLD is an ETF that simply owns physical gold and lets you hold it like a stock. Rule isn't treating gold as a get-rich speculation — for him it's a "savings asset," a place to park money safely that also stays easy to sell (what he calls liquidity). He actually increased his gold during this period and expects the price to "do well."
Tellingly, when he sold most of his silver he put a quarter of the cash straight into physical gold — money rotating out of a speculation and into his savings.
25:14Uh I increased my gold holdings because gold functions for me as liquidity. It's a savings asset. The silver occupied a speculative place in my portfolio. Uh I bought silver originally because silver was hated. When it ceased to be hated, the reason to own it in my account went away.
In short: "The bonds were replaced with gold" — in a secular gold bull market, gold is the new hedge asset to own beside risk assets since Liberation Day broke the bond/stock hedge. (He also calls the rally's speed an unhealthy sign of lost confidence in money.)
GLD is the big gold ETF — owning it is essentially owning gold. For decades the classic portfolio trick was holding bonds beside stocks: bonds paid you steadily and tended to rise when stocks fell. Muir says that broke on "Liberation Day" (the April 2025 tariff shock), when US stocks, bonds and the dollar all fell together for the first time in decades — bonds stopped being the safety net.
His argument is that gold has taken over that job: it's the asset big investors now pair with their stocks as protection, and unlike bonds it's also in its own long-running bull market, so the "insurance" can make money on its own. One honest caveat he adds: gold rising this fast is itself a worrying sign — it means people are losing confidence in the money system. He owns the trend but doesn't celebrate what it says.
23:01And that's part of the reason that I actually I'm kind of negative on US stocks because I think that they're overowned and things like that. But back to gold, I think that the bonds were replaced with gold. That ended up being a new hedge asset that you could own alongside your risk assets that could go up on its own in the secular gold bull market yet also be a balance to your portfolio.
In short: Buy gold on the dips — a medium-term hedge as US debt heads to ~$50T (~150% of GDP) and central banks diversify from the dollar. Has not trimmed gold; would add physical or GLD on any tariff-driven FX selloff, especially if 2025 brings tax cuts without cost cuts.
GLD is the simplest way to own gold in a brokerage account (each share tracks the gold price). The house wants to buy more gold on dips, not sell it.
The reasoning is long-term: US government debt is heading toward roughly $50 trillion, and even aggressive cost-cutting is unlikely to reverse the rising debt burden. As that plays out, foreign central banks keep buying gold as an alternative to the US dollar — so gold is a useful hedge. They'd add on any pullback caused by a temporarily strong dollar.
Nothing matches this filter.
Verbatim excerpts from the public transcripts (auto-pulled at each mention's timestamp, lightly cleaned). Timestamps link into the video; "source page" opens that commentator's full analysis at this row. Click a mention's header line to expand it (one open at a time). For personal study — not investment advice.