Why I have doubts about the supposed “next Global Financial Crisis”

Why I have doubts about the supposed “next Global Financial Crisis”

Notes From the Field By James Hickman (Simon Black)   March 11, 2026

It was the early 2000s, and poor Monty was down on his luck.

 An aging, out-of-work game hunter and security guard, Monty had been unemployed for quite some time. Fortunately, he was getting by, but living off the generosity of a family in southern California who had taken him in. Without them Monty would have almost certainly been living on the street.

 But things started to change for Monty on a fateful day when his host family received a letter in the mail from a local bank-- addressed to Monty. They eagerly ripped open the letter to find that the bank had pre-approved old Monty for a substantial line of credit!

They all found this extraordinary… and not just because Monty had no job, no income, no assets (i.e. a classic “NINJA loan” from the early 2000s). What was particularly unique about this case is that Monty was a dog.

 We’ve talked about this a lot over the years-- but in case you’re too young to remember, the early 2000s was a decade in which anyone and everyone was able to borrow money.

 The Federal Reserve had slashed interest rates to zero-- which made borrowing look cheap… even free. And government policy was prompting banks to ignore all common sense and underwrite loans to anyone with a pulse… and occasionally some people without a pulse.

 The stories covered in books like Michael Lewis’s The Big Short are hilarious-- dead people, homeless people, unemployed people, prison inmates, canines and cats… they were wall approved for mortgages despite having no ability to make monthly payments.

 There were so many loans being issued that the US mortgage market quickly ballooned to $11 trillion.  Investment banks packaged up these dubious loans and dressed them up as special investment-grade bonds… and then the big Wall Street ratings agencies (like S&P, Fitch, etc.) slapped the highest quality “AAA” rating on them as if they were risk-free.

 The whole system blew up in 2008, causing multiple financial institutions to collapse-- triggering the Global Financial Crisis.

 The warning signs were there all along. But very few people paid attention.

 My friend and partner Peter Schiff was one of the few voices of reason who accurately predicted this crisis years before it actually happened; Peter used to go on live television and get laughed at by CNBC’s panel of ‘experts’. But in the end, Peter was right… and the whole system blew up.

 It turns out that lending money to broke, unemployed people who cannot pay is a pretty stupid lending policy.

 Now, you may have heard about new trouble emerging in the financial sector. And gee what else is new. Finance guys almost invariably find ways to generate short-term profits while creating long-term risk.

 And the latest brewing financial crisis of the day is the so-called ‘private credit market’.

 Private credit is what it sounds like-- funds and investors (i.e. NOT banks) underwrite private loans to companies. This isn’t particularly controversial; private lending is one of the cornerstones of capitalism.

 And usually these loans are asset-backed-- just like a real estate mortgage-- so the lender has collateral.

 Private lending was initially brought on by the ultra-low interest rates of the pandemic era (when companies could borrow for 3%); and it also ballooned-- estimated at roughly $3 trillion. That’s a pretty chunky number, even in the $30+ trillion US economy.

 But, just like the subprime market in the years before the GFC kicked off, there are starting to be warning signs that private credit is cracking.

 One of those-- most notably-- is that a major private lending fund (run by Blackstone, one of the world’s largest asset managers) has capped redemptions, i.e. they have limited the amount of money that investors can withdraw.

 This is a pretty clear sign of strain. Perhaps not the proverbial canary in the coalmine… but it’s a big deal that an investment firm with the size and reputation of Blackstone isn’t letting its investors out of their fund.

 (In fairness, the fund documents do stipulate redemption limits. But it’s pretty unusual for an asset manager to have to exercise this clause.)

 Another sign of strain is that default rates are up dramatically. Fitch (the same guys who slapped AAA ratings on NINJA loans 20 years ago) estimated that roughly 10% of US private loans are in default. That’s a big number, and it could go a lot higher.

 A key reason is that interest rates are MUCH higher today than when many of these loans were originally underwritten. So, any borrower that needs to refinance (which is likely the vast majority) will see a massive spike in monthly payments.

 That will be unaffordable for a lot of borrowers, resulting in even higher defaults. Plus, general economic malaise could contribute to higher default rates too.

 A chief concern about private credit is that many loans were like subprime “NINJA loans”, i.e. private loans that were way too big, issued to borrowers who were not creditworthy.

 I doubt anyone will shed any tears that Blackstone might lose money in a bad deal. But there could be knock-on effects-- specifically to banks.

 I know the whole point of ‘private’ credit is that the loans are NOT issued by banks. But in a rather peculiar twist, banks often loan money to private credit funds, who in turn loan that same bank money to the final borrower. Strange, right?

 Bottom line, banks are exposed.

 A few prominent voices lately have been warning that this private credit fiasco has all the hallmarks of the early 2000s subprime bubble… and that the next GFC is upon us.

 And there are definitely similarities. But a LOT of major differences too-- most notably size. The private credit market is MUCH smaller than subprime was, and it’s difficult to see how those losses would take down the US financial system again, let alone the entire global economy.

 But there are also significant existing risks in the banking sector-- like rising defaults in traditional office and commercial loans, and mark-to-market losses in banks’ bond portfolios.

 We’ve talked about this before-- US financial institutions are collectively sitting on hundreds of billions of dollars in unrealized losses, and most of those losses ironically come from Treasury bonds. So, another ~$100+ billion hit from private credit could definitely hurt banks.

I’ve been looking at this pretty hard, but at the moment I don’t see some epic crisis emerging from private credit.

 That said, one EASY Plan B option to safeguard your capital is to hold funds at Treasury Direct.

 Through Treasury Direct, any US citizen is able to set up an account and hold virtually any amount of money through ultra-short-term T-bills; it’s like keeping your money in a 4-week certificate of deposit, but without any bank counterparty risk.

 As we’ve discussed many times before, the US government is in pretty dire financial straits. But even I don’t think they’re going to default in the next four weeks.

 So, this is a safer alternative to hold cash--and you can quickly link your Treasury Direct account to your bank for easy back & forth transfers

To your freedom,   James Hickman    Co-Founder, Schiff Sovereign LLC

https://www.schiffsovereign.com/trends/why-i-have-doubts-about-the-supposed-next-global-financial-crisis-154498/?inf_contact_key=f96c323f9cc8163cafd9dc76d0a66125df50326a1e561daba0ba774a8ec98964

The Precipice

The Precipice

Notes From the Field By James Hickman (Simon Black)   March 2, 2026

“OK, so now I just want a bunker,” a close friend of mine texted over the weekend. And I get it. Fear, apprehension, unease… these are completely normal feelings right now.

 Google Trends shows that searches for “WW3” and “nuclear war” spiked over the weekend.  Similar hashtags on social media (#WW3, etc.) also surged.

 It doesn’t help that much of the legacy media has been stoking these fears, as they almost always do.

 Now, I suspect most people already have very strong opinions on the conflict. I certainly do. So there’s no sense in spending time today trying to litigate whether the military action was a good idea; we’ll all find out soon enough.

 Instead, I want to focus on two key points:

The first is that—regardless of how someone feels about this conflict— World War III is LESS LIKELY today than it was on Friday. And it’s not hard to understand why.

 US military capabilities have been on full display this year— first in Venezuela, where special operations forces managed to extract one of the world’s most tightly protected dictators… and it was over in a matter of hours.

 Only weeks later we see total dominance of Iran’s air defense systems— most of which are Russian or Chinese technology.

 In other words, China and Russia saw their military technology completely embarrassed by the United States. And this unmitigated defeat makes them both less interested in taking on America’s military.

 More importantly, Russia is completely depleted after four years of war in Ukraine. China’s military has almost no combat experience and has never had to project power beyond the South China Sea.

 So while they’ll certainly phone in their condemnations and strongly worded tweets, these countries have neither the capacity nor the inclination for war.

 It’s also noteworthy that the US rolled out a new weapon against Iran— a ‘kamikaze drone’ which was first pioneered by the Iranians themselves.

 Over the past several years the Iranian military developed its low-cost Shahed-136 drone— and sold vast quantities of them to Russia for use in Ukraine.

Well, an Arizona-based defense startup reverse engineered the Shahed-136… and made major improvements with respect to range, firepower, networking, cybersecurity, and more.

 It’s also dramatically more cost effective and can be manufactured in America at less than half the price as the Iranian variant.

 This shows how valuable the US private economy can be in war— managing to best the Iranians at their own game in less than a year. Foreign adversaries cannot ignore this.

 Look, nothing is impossible. But in terms of probabilities— at this moment, the specter of world war, nuclear war, etc. is actually lower… and adversary nations’ appetite for direct military conflict is diminishing by the day.

The second point is what’s really at stake.

 Military action of this scale brings almost infinite permutations. And, yes, there are many possibilities which result in the US subduing Iran’s military and a new, America-friendly regime takes control of the country.

 China has already lost access to Venezuelan oil. Now they stand to lose access to Iranian oil. This is bad news for China’s domestic economy.

 More importantly, by exerting de-facto control (or at least significant influence) over most of the largest oil supplies on the planet—Iran, Venezuela, the US, most of the Gulf states— America would be able to re-establish the US dollar’s dominance.

Every country that wants to buy oil— which is pretty much everyone— would need to own and hold US dollars to pay for it. This means that foreign countries must continue buying vast quantities of Treasury bonds—helping to finance America’s deficit and keep interest rates down.

 But there are other outcomes as well.

 If the remaining military campaign does not go well— if the Iranian regime manages to suppress the protestors, survive the bombings, and maintain their grip on power— then the US could be in trouble.

 US casualties at that point will be mounting. Munitions will be depleting rapidly. And most media attention and political opposition will pounce on the President.

 Frankly I’d expect to see more well-funded protests and professional agitators making a stink across American cities, i.e. the Left will fall back on its Minneapolis/ICE playbook to force a military withdrawal.

 China and Russia would likely take advantage, capitalizing on US weakness and the fact that America’s relations with Europe are heavily strained.

 Between the tariff chaos, domestic social divisions, Congressional intransigence, constant government shutdown threats, etc., adding in a humiliating military defeat in Iran might just be the final straw.

 Led by China, other nations could come together and say, ‘enough is enough’, then force a new Bretton Woods style convention to formally establish a new order that strips the US of its power.

 Again, there are nearly infinite ways in which this could play out. But regardless of where someone stands on this weekend’s airstrikes, it’s important to acknowledge the stakes.

 A successful outcome could provide major benefit to the dollar for decades to come. Defeat could trigger the end of US geopolitical dominance.

 America might just be on a precipice. And we’ll find out which way it goes over the coming weeks.

To your freedom,   James Hickman   Co-Founder, Schiff Sovereign LLC

https://www.schiffsovereign.com/trends/the-precipice-154465/?inf_contact_key=071abd843b06b43578c03e94b61a801bdcd31c885f4ab1b34be5363d83ed1062

Any Takers For The Taliban’s New Investment Visa?

Any Takers For The Taliban’s New Investment Visa?

Notes From the Field By James Hickman (Simon Black)   February 23, 2026

Just imagine how tranquil your retirement could be in... sunny Afghanistan!  You could wake up in the morning to the pleasant sound of celebratory gunfire... then artfully dodge landmines left behind by not one, but two different superpower invasions on your way to witness the day’s beheading.

You could cap off the afternoon spelunking through mountain caves where you might bump into actual jihadists, then end the day with a stroll through a war-torn city’s desperate poverty.

If this sounds ideal to you, then you're in luck! The Taliban now offers an investment visa for foreigners to obtain residency in Afghanistan.

This is a real thing; earlier this month, Afghanistan's Economic Commission approved a proposal to offer foreign investors residency permits of up to ten years. Put your money into Afghan mining, construction, or energy, and you too can call Kabul home.

Sure, the banking system is cut off from the international financial network, US sanctions make it effectively illegal for Western companies to operate there, and girls aren't allowed to attend school past sixth grade. The roads, power grid, and water systems are barely functional. And the country has been at war, in some form, for over forty years.

Any takers?

Fortunately the world is a big place, and there are plenty of other options besides Afghanistan.

And while we poke fun at the Taliban, the core concept of obtaining residency in another country is one of the smartest things you can do to give yourself a Plan B.

The logic is simple. If your home country feels like an increasingly unfamiliar place— as a lot of people in the West feel right now— then it makes sense to have a backup... a place you can go, legally, on your own terms, even if borders close or things get weird.

We saw this play out during COVID. When governments around the world slammed their borders shut in 2020. Tourists were locked out— flights canceled, entry denied.

But people who had established legal residency in a foreign country still had the right to enter and stay, just like citizens.

Families who had taken that step years earlier found that they had options— another place to leave the chaos, work remotely from their second home, and wait out the insanity on their own terms.

Those who hadn't were stuck wherever they happened to be, subject to whatever restrictions their local governments decided to impose.

That distinction— tourist versus legal resident— became the difference between freedom and lockdown. Overnight. And this might matter again.

But a second residency isn’t about crises and pandemics..

A lot of people start by simply finding a place they enjoy. They visit somewhere on vacation — Costa Rica, Portugal, Malaysia, wherever— and they love it. They go back a few times. Eventually they start looking at property. Maybe they buy a place and rent it out when they're not using it.

Over time, they realize they've built something more than a vacation spot. They've got a home in a country where life is slower, the food is better, and their money goes a lot further.

And that last part matters more than most people think.

The cost of living in much of the world is a fraction of what it is in the West. A couple living on Social Security and a modest level of savings— money that barely covers the basics in most American cities — can live extremely well in dozens of countries.

We're talking beachfront property, hired help, great healthcare, and money left over at the end of the month.

There are plenty of ways to obtain residency abroad. In some countries, you can become a legal resident by purchasing property— something that you might want to do anyhow.

In Panama, you can become a legal resident by purchasing property for roughly $300,000 — and that buys you genuinely nice real estate in a country where property prices can be $100 to $200 per square foot.

In Europe, countries like Portugal and Greece have set up formal programs specifically designed to attract foreign capital in exchange for residency rights.

There are also plenty of countries that don't even require an investment— where simply demonstrating you have a pension (like Social Security) is enough to qualify.

Other places (like Australia or New Zealand) are looking strictly at skill needs, so younger people with valuable work experience can obtain residency.

Everyone's situation is different. For some people it's a beachfront villa in Central America. For others it's a flat in Lisbon. For others it's a farm in New Zealand. The world is full of options.

The point is that none of this is radical. It's not about fleeing. It's about having the option to go somewhere you actually enjoy — somewhere you might already vacation — and having the legal right to stay there indefinitely if you ever need to.

It's the same logic as any insurance policy. You don't buy fire insurance because you want your house to burn down. You buy it because you'd rather not find out the hard way that you needed it.  That’s what a Plan B is about.

To your freedom,   James Hickman   Co-Founder, Schiff Sovereign LLC

 https://www.schiffsovereign.com/trends/any-takers-for-the-talibans-new-investment-visa-154431/?inf_contact_key=940659806dfc6d55317dce1f755e25307c981c2f99e1cf7586cea13df5aa4037

The 92% Tax Rate That Nobody Ever Paid

The 92% Tax Rate That Nobody Ever Paid

Notes From the Field By James Hickman (Simon Black) February 26, 2026

In 1954, Frank Sinatra was on top of the world. He'd just won the Academy Award for Best Supporting Actor in From Here to Eternity — a comeback role that rescued his career after years of decline and a voice hemorrhage that nearly ended it all.

Hollywood was paying him handsomely again. But there was a problem. The top marginal income tax rate was 92%, and Sinatra was about to watch most of his comeback earnings disappear before a single penny ever hit his bank account.

So Ol' Blue Eyes did what every major Hollywood star at the time was doing: he set up what was known as a "collapsible corporation."

The tactic was simple. Instead of collecting his fee personally — where it would be taxed at 92% — Sinatra had the studio pay his corporation, which was taxed at roughly 50%. He'd take a modest salary out of the company. Then, when the picture wrapped, he'd sell the corporation's stock and pay the 25% capital gains rate on the proceeds.

The 92% rate was the law. But in practice, it was a fiction.

Back in the 1950s, fewer than 10,000 households in the entire country — out of 57 million tax returns — earned enough to even reach the top bracket. And those who did had so many deductions and shelters available that the top 1% paid an effective federal income tax rate of just 16.9%.

I think this is important to point out because, just last week, TIME Magazine published an article titled "Tax the Rich. They're Not Going Anywhere". They argued that wealthy Americans are too "sticky" to flee, so cities and states should feel free to squeeze them.

New York's mayor Zohran Mamdani wants an additional 2% tax on incomes over $1 million. California voters are expected to vote on a "one-time" 5% wealth tax on billionaires. TIME cheers them all on.

In Britain, the Labour government already abolished the "non-dom" regime — a 110-year-old policy that let wealthy foreigners shield overseas income from UK taxes. As a result of changing this program, Britain drove over 10,000 millionaires out of the country.

But rather than eat their humble pie and admit a policy failure, the left wing of their party is pushing for a new wealth tax. On top of that, they continue gaslight people and insisting, just like TIME magazine, that wealthy people don’t leave when tax rates rise.

Across the pond in America, Bernie Sanders, AOC, and Elizabeth Warren have been beating this drum for years— demanding that the wealthy pay their "fair share."

What IS the fair share? They never say. They never commit to a number.

So let's look at the numbers they keep ignoring.

In 2022, the top 1% of American taxpayers paid 40.4% of all federal income taxes, according to the Tax Foundation. The top 10% paid 72%. The bottom 50% paid 3%.

And the top 1% doesn't just pay a large share — they pay a share wildly disproportionate to their income. They earned 22.4% of all adjusted gross income but shouldered 40.4% of the tax bill. That's nearly double their proportional share.

This isn't new. It's been the trend for decades — and it runs in exactly the opposite direction from what the "fair share" crowd implies.

In 1980 (when the top marginal tax rate was 70%), the wealthiest taxpayers (the top 1%) paid 19% of all federal income taxes. Today, again, the top 1% pay 40.4% of the taxes, even though the highest marginal tax rate is much lower.

How? Because the Tax Reform Act of 1986 — a bipartisan deal signed by Ronald Reagan — made a simple trade: dramatically lower rates in exchange for closing the loopholes. No more passive loss write-offs zeroing out taxable income. No more converting salary into capital gains through shell corporations. No more Frank Sinatra deals.

The rates were lower, but there were fewer places to hide. And these changes to the tax code resulted in the wealthy paying MORE tax, not less.

Even if you go back to the days of 92% rates (which the Left loves to bring up), the effective rate for the top 0.1% was only 21%.

But even setting all of that aside — even if you could squeeze a few more percentage points out of the top 1% — it wouldn't fix anything. The federal government is running $2 trillion annual deficits. Higher taxes are not the solution.

Cutting the deficit requires spending restraint. And economic growth. 

Given Congress’s intransigence in cutting spending, growth is the easier option. But it requires a stable, predictable business environment with minimal bureaucracy.

Instead, we get an environment that changes every four years — sometimes every four weeks. One administration's regulations get undone by the next. Businesses get sued over rules that didn't exist two years ago.

Take the infamous Corporate Transparency Act.

Congress passed this law in 2021 requiring roughly 32 million small businesses to file "beneficial ownership" reports with FinCEN. The penalties for failure to do so were $500 per day in fines and up to two years in prison.

Never mind that the government already collects this information through K-1s, 1099-DIVs, and existing bank regulations. Never mind that large banks and publicly traded corporations were conveniently exempted.

The onus fell on small, family-owned businesses: the restaurant owner figuring out how to keep waitstaff from quitting, the small shop already buried in paperwork. Well, Congress gave them yet another form to fill out under threats of penalties and imprisonment.

But then the regulations changed— SEVEN TIMES in four months. A federal judge blocked the law. Three days later, an appeals court reversed him. Three days after that, a different panel reversed the reversal. Then the Supreme Court weighed in.

The Treasury Department kept issuing new deadlines to comply, and no business owner had any idea from one week to the next whether they were in compliance.

In the end, the White House simply canceled it— which was the right thing to do. But the next President might very well put it back in place.

The whole ethos was that every small business owner is a potential money launderer. Never mind the money laundering rules already on the books — rather than fix what wasn't working, Congress just piled on more. That's how you end up with a Code of Federal Regulations over 188,000 pages long.

That's the real problem. Not that the wealthy aren't paying enough. That the business environment in America is so needlessly complex, so maddeningly unstable, that it chokes the growth that would actually generate the revenue politicians claim to want.

If they spent as much energy making it easier to build a business as they do dreaming up new ways to "soak the rich," the tax base would take care of itself.

To your freedom,  James Hickman   Co-Founder, Schiff Sovereign LLC

https://www.schiffsovereign.com/trends/the-92-tax-rate-that-nobody-ever-paid-154446/?inf_contact_key=8fd6e7928bf568672271db7b7d9bd01d801195387ba98c7f473ffe7a3ca49389

The Luddites Were Wrong In 1811 The AI Doomsayers Will Be Wrong Today

The Luddites Were Wrong In 1811. The AI Doomsayers Will Be Wrong Today

Notes From the Field By James Hickman (Simon Black)  Sovereign Man February 24, 2026

In 1779, in a textile workshop in the English village of Anstey, a young apprentice named Ned Ludd was put to work on a knitting machine — one of the large mechanical frames that wove thread into stockings. He was too slow. His master had him whipped for it.

So Ned grabbed a hammer and smashed the machine to pieces.

The story spread across England’s textile country. Over the next thirty years, Ned Ludd became a folk hero for every worker who felt threatened by the new machines that were pouring into their factories.

Now, the story is probably a myth — there’s no hard evidence Ned Ludd ever actually existed. But it didn’t matter. The movement that took his name was very real.

In March 1811, textile workers across England’s industrial heartland began breaking into factories at night, smashing power looms with sledgehammers. They called themselves Luddites. Over 200 machines were destroyed in the first month alone.

It was all motivated by fear; workers were terrified that machines would take their jobs and steal their livelihoods.

But think about the world back then: in the early 1800s when the Luddites were smashing looms, roughly 90% of the world’s population lived in what today would be considered extreme poverty.

Life expectancy in England was only about 35. One in three children didn’t make it to their fifth birthday. Houses were tiny. Food was scarce. Clean drinking water was a luxury. Heating your home meant an open fire, and most of the warmth went up the chimney. Indoor plumbing didn’t exist. Neither did antibiotics, electricity, or refrigeration.

That was normal life in 1811. But fast forward just over two hundred years.

Extreme global poverty has fallen from 90% to under 10%. Life expectancy has more than doubled. The poorest American today — not the wealthy, the average person — has access to more information, nutrition, comfort, and opportunity than the richest king on earth could have imagined in 1811.

Our homes are bigger. Our food is more plentiful. Our energy supplies are more abundant… and far more efficient.

And the reason is technology.

Every major leap in human prosperity has followed the same basic mechanism: new technology makes people more productive. More productivity increases supply of goods and services. More supply means lower prices. Lower prices mean more prosperity for everyone.

At the same time, there is always some short-term pain. Entire vocations and industries disappear… and that sudden change can be both difficult and scary.

But think about it— in literally EVERY major technological advancement throughout history, overall employment went UP. Economies prospered. Workers prospered.

That’s the great fear sweeping the world right now regarding artificial intelligence, and a lot of people are worried.

Earlier this month, for example, a viral essay by an AI startup CEO tore across the Internet and was viewed more than 80 million times.

His thesis: AI will have a COVID-level impact on the world, and the industry right now is the equivalent of being back in January 2020. Everything feels normal at the moment. But he believes that life will be unrecognizable (just like during Covid) in just a few months.

But while Covid was temporary, he believes the AI impact will be permanent.

Amazingly enough, due to this one viral essay, investors began dumping their stocks, triggering a major selloff.

Cybersecurity stock CrowdStrike, for example, dropped roughly 16% in days. Travel companies like TripAdvisor are down nearly 30%.

Financial firms like Charles Schwab and Raymond James fell 7% to 9% in a single session. Software giants like Salesforce and ServiceNow have shed a quarter to a third of their value.

All told, roughly $2 trillion in market value has been wiped off software stocks alone.

The logic behind the selloff is: if AI can scan code for security vulnerabilities, why do you need CrowdStrike? If an AI agent can plan your entire trip, book flights, and find the best hotel, why do you need TripAdvisor? If a chatbot can manage a portfolio or draft a financial plan, why are you paying Raymond James?

Investors looked at these industries and decided that AI wasn’t just going to help these companies — it was going to replace them. And they sold.

It’s amazing how overblown this is.

People said the same things about the Industrial Revolution — that machines would make human labor obsolete and destroy the working class.

They said it about personal computers in the 1980s — that automation would wipe out office jobs.

They said it about the Internet in the late 1990s — that e-commerce would obliterate entire sectors of the economy.

Every single time, the prophets of technological doom were wrong.

The reality is that, of course, some industries and vocations go away. But advances in technology have never led to sustained, long-term, widespread unemployment.

New industries emerge. New skills become valuable. The economy adapts. And the overall standard of living goes up.

But all along the way, there are always the self-interested evangelists insisting that THIS time is different. THIS technology is uniquely disruptive.

Yes, AI is obviously a massive advancement. It’s going to reshape industries. And plenty of businesses that exist today won’t survive the transition. That’s the nature of progress.

But the idea that we’re all going to be starving in the streets because a chatbot can draft a legal brief or scan code for security bugs is ludicrous.

Technology always makes people more prosperous and better off. It might not be crystal clear right now exactly how that plays out with AI. Early stages of a technology boom are never clear.

But the notion that one person’s viral essay could wipe trillions from global financial markets is peak paranoia.

The Luddites were wrong in 1811. The AI doomsayers will be wrong today.

To your freedom,   James Hickman   Co-Founder, Schiff Sovereign LLC

P.S. Technology has never destroyed prosperity. But reckless governments have — over and over again, for thousands of years.

The US national debt is over $38 trillion. Annual deficits are running at nearly $2 trillion. And neither party has any intention of doing anything about it.

Every month in Schiff Sovereign Premium, we dig into exactly where this is heading — the debt, the dollar, the historical parallels — and how to position yourself to benefit from what comes next.

https://www.schiffsovereign.com/trends/the-luddites-were-wrong-in-1811-the-ai-doomsayers-will-be-wrong-today-154440/?inf_contact_key=37b5311152356790202511ad42a3d1773ab49f51ea730ee15151c7d3d2737089

Another “Temporary” Spending Bill That Still Costs Americans 93 Years Later

Another “Temporary” Spending Bill That Still Costs Americans 93 Years Later

Notes From the Field By James Hickman (Simon Black)  February 16, 2026

In January 1933, a farmer named Wallace Kramp was about to lose everything. A lender in Wood County, Ohio was foreclosing on his farm over an $800 mortgage he couldn't pay.

Kramp wasn't a bad farmer. It was actually the government’s fault: during World War I, the US government had urged farmers to plant as much as they could to feed the troops and war-torn Europe.

Families like the Kramps borrowed money and used the loan proceeds to expand production. But then the war ended; European agriculture recovered, and demand for US agriculture vanished. But the American farmers’ debts didn't.

By the early 1930s, wheat that had sold for $2 a bushel during the war was going for 25 cents. Nearly 750,000 farms went bankrupt between 1930 and 1935.

These weren't giant agribusinesses. They were small, family farms.

Kramp, at least, got lucky. On January 26th 1933, his assets were up for bankruptcy auction... and Kramp's neighbors showed up to bid a combined total of $14. Then they handed everything back to him so that he could keep his property.

But most farmers weren't so lucky, and they lost everything.

That's why, a few months later, Congress passed the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1933. The idea was to pay farmers to reduce production, prop up crop prices, and keep family farmers on their lands.

The original budget was $100 million— about $2.5 billion in today's dollars— and it was supposed to be a temporary measure.

That was 93 years ago.

But, big surprise, the "temporary" program never went away. And the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1933 evolved into the modern farm bill— a sprawling piece of legislation that Congress renews every five years, now costing roughly $1.5 trillion per decade.

More importantly, the struggling family farmers it was meant to protect have been replaced by massive agricultural conglomerates.

For example, they receive billions to grow corn. And that subsidized corn flows into the processed food supply— much of it as high-fructose corn syrup which ends up in practically everything Americans eat and drink.

The modern farm bill then funds SNAP benefits (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, aka food stamps) for more than 40 million people.

Ironically, soft drinks— full of that high fructose corn syrup— are the single largest category of SNAP purchases.

Processed foods have fueled epidemic levels of obesity, diabetes, and heart disease. The United States spends nearly $5 trillion per year on healthcare, with the government picking up roughly two-thirds of the tab through Medicare, Medicaid, and other programs.

So taxpayers subsidize Big Ag’s corn production. Then further subsidize the purchase of junk food made from that corn. Then further subsidize the medical care for Americans who become unhealthy from all of that processed food.

This is what I'd call the government spending spiral— a self-reinforcing doom loop where each dollar spent justifies even more spending.

And this isn’t even the most corrosive layer of the spending spiral... because at every step, the industries involved— agricultural conglomerates, food manufacturers, healthcare providers, insurance companies— lobby Congress to keep the money flowing.

PepsiCo alone spent $2.8 million last year lobbying to keep their highly processed junk food eligible for food stamps.

You can see the pattern— these companies benefit from ample taxpayer funded subsidies, then recycle a portion of those proceeds back into the political machine to prop up the candidates who vote in favor of those subsidies.

This is why Congress— with an approval rating under 15%— somehow maintains a 90%+ reelection rate for incumbents: their campaigns are funded by the very graft that they vote for!

The federal government now spends roughly $7 trillion per year— roughly double from ten years ago.

What exactly did Americans get for the extra trillions in government spending? Are roads smoother? Schools better? Healthcare more affordable?

None of the above. In fact, despite a 100% increase in spending, schools, healthcare, and infrastructure have all become worse.

It’s truly staggering how much all of this spending is creating a drag on the US economy.

But it works both ways: cutting spending and eliminating subsidies reverses the spiral and moves things in the right direction.

Last week we told you that RFK Jr. helped to eliminate junk food subsidies in several states. And Pepsi— suddenly devoid of a government teet to suckle— responded by slashing prices to make up that lost revenue.

In other words, they cut subsidies and prices fell. Immediately.

It’s amazing to think how a "temporary" farm program from 1933 is still costing American taxpayers 93 years later.

Just imagine what would happen if the spiral ran the other way.

To your freedom,   James Hickman   Co-Founder, Schiff Sovereign LLC

https://www.schiffsovereign.com/trends/another-temporary-spending-bill-that-still-costs-americans-93-years-later-154388/?inf_contact_key=23d6949389a7f07ad4ceb061ecb7ba1f6b52fb27a108dfee299ccbafe321d99b

Why Firing 9% of the Federal Workforce Didn't Move the Needle

Why Firing 9% of the Federal Workforce Didn't Move the Needle

Notes From the Field By James Hickman (Simon Black)   February 13, 2026

In January 2025, the federal government employed about 3 million people. By November, that number had fallen by roughly 270,000 workers — a reduction of about 9%.    According to the Cato Institute, that was the largest peacetime federal workforce reduction EVER.

More than 150,000 employees took the "Fork in the Road" buyout offer to resign or retire. Tens of thousands more were laid off outright. Entire offices were emptied. Agencies that had been growing for decades shrank to staffing levels not seen since 2014.  And yet, despite historic federal layoffs, government spending went UP last year.

The federal government spent $7 trillion in Fiscal Year 2025— roughly $300 billion more than the year before. Bear in mind, 2025 was the year that DOGE was supposed to take a chainsaw to the budget and cut spending.

 This is not a failure of DOGE. It's a revelation about the actual problem.

The total federal payroll— every salary, every benefit, for every civilian federal employee (excluding the military)— comes to about $336 billion a year— less than 5% of total federal spending.

In other words, you could fire every federal employee tomorrow— every bureaucrat, every regulator, every paper-pusher in Washington— and 95% of the spending would continue as if nothing happened.

 That’s because around 60% of the budget is mandatory spending— Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid— programs that pay out automatically based on laws that were passed decades ago. Congress doesn't vote on these expenditures each year. The checks just go out.

 Then there's interest on the national debt, which in total runs about $1.2 trillion per year. It’s the second-largest line item in the entire federal budget, bigger than Medicare, bigger than national defense.

 (The government uses a lower number called “net” interest; they exclude hundreds of billions in interest owed to Social Security and military retirees. But unless they plan on screwing those people over, that interest still has to be paid. So, we use the “gross” interest number and not “net” interest).

 All of these obligations grow automatically, every year, regardless of who's in charge or how many people show up to work.

 Social Security alone grew by over $100 billion last year. Interest payments grew by another nearly $100 billion. Those two-line items, by themselves, swallowed more than the entire savings DOGE could theoretically achieve by cutting the workforce.

 In fact, according to the Congressional Budget Office, more than 80% of projected spending growth over the next decade comes from Social Security, federal healthcare programs, and interest on the debt.

This is the structural problem nobody in Washington wants to talk about honestly: America's deficit problem isn't exclusively because of bad decisions today. It's a failure to address bad decisions made years ago… decades ago-- commitments that are baked into law, growing on autopilot, funded by borrowing roughly $2 trillion every year.

 In an ideal world, Congress would address these entitlement programs directly. They are, after all, the biggest driver of the problem. But reforming Social Security or Medicare is the political third rail— nobody wants to touch it.

 But there are other ways to move the needle as well.

 The $38+ trillion national debt is manageable as long as the economy grows faster than the debt— which right now is not happening. But America still has absurdly strong economic potential to make that happen.

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent has publicly stated that roughly 10% of the entire federal budget— about $600 billion per year— is outright fraud. Not waste. Not inefficiency. Fraud. And much of that fraud is within entitlement programs— the welfare fraud that came to light in Minnesota, the hundreds of billions in Medicare and Medicaid fraud that have been documented for years.

 So, reducing fraud would be extremely helpful. Stop paying criminals!! It shouldn’t be that hard.

 Then they can take a hatchet to the regulatory maze that strangles productivity; this would substantially reduce the deficit and boost real economic growth— putting America in striking distance of growing the economy faster than the debt.

 To its credit, DOGE proved that the federal government could function with far fewer employees.

After the historic reduction in federal employees, services didn't collapse. The IRS still processed returns. Air traffic controllers still showed up. The essential machinery of government kept running with 9% fewer people.

That confirms what many have long suspected: a significant portion of federal workers exist to justify their own existence.

 But DOGE also proved something far more uncomfortable. Whenever the executive branch tries to go beyond workforce cuts and tackle the spending itself— even fraudulent spending— someone files a lawsuit, and a judge issues an injunction.

Federal judges blocked DOGE from accessing Treasury payment systems. A coalition of 20 state attorneys general sued to halt layoffs at over a dozen agencies. Even relatively modest cuts were tied up in litigation for months.

 The legal system functions as a ratchet: spending can go up easily, but it almost never comes down.

 Ultimately, the spending trajectory won’t change until Congress decides to root out fraud, cut spending across the board, and stop obstructing economic growth.

 But Congress won't act until voters force them to do so— which, based on the current state of American politics, isn't happening anytime soon.

 The window to fix this relatively painlessly is still open. But it's narrowing. Within seven years, Social Security's trust funds will be exhausted, and the national debt will exceed $50 trillion. At that point, the math won't just be uncomfortable. It will be unavoidable.

 We can hope they figure it out. But hope isn't a strategy. And that's what a good Plan B is all about— ensuring your family's financial future doesn't depend on Congress suddenly discovering fiscal discipline after decades of proving they have none.

To your freedom,   James Hickman   Co-Founder, Schiff Sovereign LLC

https://www.schiffsovereign.com/trends/why-firing-9-of-the-federal-workforce-didnt-move-the-needle-154374/?inf_contact_key=ba3dd9e020d0940b51885e2e1cb38c0b6844fcd1a35a326ef37e2a26408e3ff1

It’s Crazy That India is More Fiscally Responsible Than America

It’s Crazy That India is More Fiscally Responsible Than America

Notes From the Field By James Hickman (Simon Black)  February 12, 2026

Remember when Pete Buttigieg, as Secretary of Transportation, was handed over a TRILLION dollars by Congress to spend improving America’s infrastructure?

“The main thing I’m thinking about,” he said, “is how do we make sure we take all this money— you know it’s $1.2 trillion— and actually deliver $1.2 trillion dollars worth of value. . .”

Ah yes, the classic investment strategy— shoot for a 0% return on investment.

But Pete proceeded to fail at even that— for example, the $7.5 billion electric vehicle charging program, which promised 500,000 stations by 2030, has built fewer than 100 after nearly four years.

What makes this worse is that obviously American didn’t have an extra $1.2 trillion lying around. It borrowed the money, adding even more to the debt.

Debt alone isn’t a bad thing if it used to fund investments that create more value than they consume— generate a positive return on investment (via GDP growth) that exceeds the cost of capital.

Yet governments routinely fail to do this. That’s why their debt-to-GDP ratios (easily the MOST important metric of responsible spending) are getting WORSE each year.

Japan's debt-to-GDP ratio exceeds 260%. Greece, even after years of bailouts and austerity, is still at 150%. Italy sits around 140%.

The United States has crossed 120% and keeps climbing.

And no one seems to care. Congress is completely ignoring the national debt’s ticking time bomb... Instead, America should be leading the way— providing an example to the rest of the world what fiscal restraint and responsible governance looks like.

That’s why it’s so pathetic to see other countries get this right. And the latest example comes from India.

At 56%, India’s debt-to-GDP (the size of its national debt relative to the size of its economy) is less than HALF of the US level.

Yet India’s government is serious about bringing it down.

Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman presented their newest budget last week, with the specific goal to bring India’s debt-to-GDP down to 50% over the next five years.

And in order to do that, they’re investing in various sectors where they feel they can generate a strong, positive return— boosting both economic growth and tax revenue.

This includes spending on roads, ports, railways, and other “hard” infrastructure.

By comparison, “infrastructure” in the Biden-era bill was defined as anything which pushed their woke, green dream, from anti-racism to wasteful subsidies.

India is also trying to make smart investments in higher tech infrastructure.

Semiconductors and rare earth minerals are two sectors currently dominated by China— and critical to everything from smartphones to military equipment. So India is proposing to build domestic capacity in both, to ensure they're not dependent on a geopolitical rival for essential resources.

Their data center play is even more targeted; India is offering tax holidays through 2047 for foreign cloud companies that build facilities there.

Google alone has already committed $15 billion for a data center in southern India.

Compare this to how America spends its borrowed money.

$200 million for "gender equity programs" in Pakistan. $100 billion on Leftist legal graft in California alone—$25 billion on homeless programs without reducing the number of homeless, $33 billion on DEI initiatives and green subsidies. $40 million to help queer and transgender people stop smoking.

And this isn’t even part of the 10% of the federal budget— roughly $600 billion per year— Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent estimated is lost to outright fraud.

But the worst part is the trajectory.

India's debt-to-GDP is projected to drop significantly over the next several years— mostly due to spending restraint and their investments in growth.

The US, by comparison, can’t seem to stop spending money. Congress keeps spending more, refuses to rein in obvious fraud, and fails to eliminate pointless regulations.

India is also being prudent about uncertainty; they don’t know what the tariff situation is going to look like later this year or next year. So they rationally acknowledged the uncertainty... and refrained from making additional tax cuts.

There are two ways to bring down a debt-to-GDP ratio. You can slash spending. Or you can hold spending steady and focus on growth.

India chose the second path. One can argue whether that's optimal. But at least they sat down, examined their situation, set a goal, and mapped out what they believe is the best path to get there.

To be clear, India still has plenty of challenges. Their economy is projected to slow as tariffs take effect. They need more private investment. Poverty remains widespread.

And, let’s not be naive: political corruption and graft exist everywhere, including and especially in India.

But they're at least approaching their fiscal situation rationally. They've identified strategic sectors and created incentives so that the private sector can flourish. They've prioritized infrastructure that compounds growth. They've set measurable targets and are making progress toward them.

This is not radical. It should be the bare minimum for any government to simply put their country on a responsible long term trajectory.

Yet in the United States, with all its advantages—reserve currency status, abundant natural resources, the most innovative companies on Earth—the government can't manage the basics.

The national debt stands at $38.6 trillion and climbs by roughly $2 trillion every year. Interest payments alone now exceed military spending. Tax revenue covers mandatory entitlements—Social Security, Medicare—plus interest on the debt. That's it.

Everything else, from the military to national parks, runs on borrowed money.

This is obviously unsustainable.

But it’s not cause for panic. It's arithmetic.

When debt-to-GDP ratios climb past the point of no return, the playbook is predictable because it's happened over and over again throughout history. Governments inflate their way out. The currency loses purchasing power.

And real assets— precious metals, energy, agriculture, industrial metals— hold value regardless of what politicians do to the dollar.

Companies that produce these real assets are primed to do extremely well.

For example, as gold doubled and silver quadrupled, we saw some of the mining companies we research for subscribers increase by 6-11x.

To your freedom,   James Hickman   Co-Founder, Schiff Sovereign LLC

https://www.schiffsovereign.com/trends/its-crazy-that-india-is-more-fiscally-responsible-than-america-154368/?inf_contact_key=6c3ea12e3dcc3295c56b903904d39e2f266def61f88c0e3dcc6731a9f494e737

When Government Subsidies Stopped, Doritos Got 15% Cheaper

When Government Subsidies Stopped, Doritos Got 15% Cheaper

Notes From the Field By James Hickman (Simon Black)  February 10, 2026

PepsiCo spent $2.8 million last year lobbying to keep junk food eligible for food stamps.

But last week— after Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. got 18 states to ban SNAP purchases of products like soda, candy, and processed snacks— PepsiCo announced price cuts of up to 15% on Doritos, Lay's, Tostitos, and other Frito-Lay products.   The company's official explanation was "affordability." CEO Ramon Laguarta cited low-income consumers are switching to store brands.

But the timing tells the real story. 

The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program— food stamps— is a $100 billion per year program serving roughly 42 million Americans. And according to the USDA's own data, about 20 cents of every SNAP dollar goes to sweetened beverages, candy, salty snacks, and sugar.

In fact soft drinks alone are the single largest category of SNAP purchases.

And, until last week, products from Pepsi’s Frito-Lay division were in 7.2% of all shopping trips paid for with SNAP (i.e. taxpayer-funded) benefits.

So when the government stopped subsidizing demand for their products, PepsiCo had to do something they hadn't needed to do in years: compete.

This is what the free market does— it forces companies to be more efficient, cut prices, and pass savings on to their customers.  

But here's the thing— this is one company, one product line, one government program.

Zoom out and you can see just how much of price inflation in our daily lives is due directly to government spending— before we even get into monetary policy like printing money.

When a guaranteed buyer shows up with a bottomless wallet, prices go up.

Just look at college tuition. In 1965, Congress passed the Higher Education Act and began backing student loans with federal dollars.

Since then, tuition has risen roughly three times faster than inflation. A year at a private university that cost $2,800 in 1963 now costs over $85,000.

The New York Federal Reserve studied this directly and found that for every dollar increase in subsidized student loans, tuition rose by up to 60 cents.

The mechanism is simple: when the government guarantees the tuition money, universities raise prices... simply because they can.

Healthcare is even worse.

Before Medicare and Medicaid were created in 1965, the government's share of healthcare spending was about 31%. Today it's roughly 64%. Medicaid spending alone has grown from $13 billion in 1975 to over $900 billion today.

And— shocker— healthcare prices have risen dramatically over the same period. The US now spends nearly $5 trillion per year on healthcare, far more per capita than any other developed country, with outcomes that are often worse.

The pattern is the same everywhere you look: the government shows up with money. Prices rise to absorb it. The subsidy becomes permanent. The industry restructures itself around the guaranteed revenue. And then anyone who suggests pulling back the money is accused of "cutting" a vital service.

Now consider the scale of this in America today.

Federal spending has risen from about 18% of GDP in the 1990s to nearly 24% today. That means almost a quarter of the entire American economy is government money.

Of this, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent has publicly estimated that 10% of the federal budget— roughly $600 billion per year— is lost to outright fraud of the Somali daycare type in Minnesota.

Then there's the legal graft. California alone received roughly $100 billion in federal grants over the past few years for DEI initiatives that produced nothing except more government jobs and campaign contributions.

So how much of America's economic output is actually real?

How much is just government money making a round trip— borrow more debt, hand it out through some boondoggle program where it is spent at a PepsiCo subsidiary, counted as "economic activity," making people obese... then more money spent on healthcare to keep them alive and paying enough taxes for the government to be able to pay interest on the debt...

It’s absurd when you think about it. We don't have a precise answer. But the Pepsi story gives us a clue. The moment the government stopped subsidizing one small corner of the economy, prices dropped by 15% within a week.

RFK didn't regulate PepsiCo. He didn't cap prices. He didn't launch an antitrust investigation. He simply stopped the government from funneling taxpayer dollars into unhealthy food... and the market corrected overnight.

Now imagine what would happen if the government stopped subsidizing entire industries— the defense contractors billing $10,000 for a toilet seat, the universities charging $85,000 for a degree in gender studies, the healthcare system where nobody can tell you what anything costs.

We might finally find out how much of this economy is real.

And that, frankly, is what makes it so hard to fix. Because so many peoples' livelihoods now depend on the government gravy train.

But this trajectory has an expiration date. The federal government borrows $2 trillion a year to keep it all going. Interest on that debt already exceeds $1 trillion annually— more than the entire military budget— and it's growing faster than any other line item.

If rates stay elevated because inflation won't come down, the cost of servicing the debt crowds out everything else.

If the government responds by printing money to cover the gap, inflation gets worse.

And it makes sense to have a Plan B that doesn't depend on Washington finding fiscal discipline before the math catches up with them.

To your freedom,  James Hickman   Co-Founder, Schiff Sovereign LLC

https://www.schiffsovereign.com/trends/when-government-subsidies-stopped-doritos-got-15-cheaper-154356/?inf_contact_key=9543e5c0345fd4bcc599cef4171ae91ba86d4ea02565bdbf3e4c8b49b33caf0f

So... Is The Gold Boom Over?

So... Is The Gold Boom Over?

Notes From the Field By James Hickman (Simon Black)  February 2, 2026

It wasn’t until somewhat recent history that the price of gold was less than $1,000 per troy ounce. Now (as you probably know), the price of gold has just dropped by $1,000 in only a matter of days. Silver's decline was even more violent.

Much ink has already been spilled over this, suggesting that “the gold bubble has burst”. Naturally we have a different view.  It started on Thursday when the White House announced that Kevin Warsh would be nominated as the next Federal Reserve Chairman.

Warsh is known to be ‘hawkish’, prompting speculation that he would keep rates higher to combat inflation. A lot of people obviously viewed this as bad for gold, prompting an unprecedented wave of selling.

So is that it? Is the precious metals boom over?

Not by a long shot.

Again, I don't say that because of any fanaticism over precious metals. I don’t fall in love with any asset.

But I do understand the big picture story driving gold prices, and that story hasn't changed.

(Note: we're going to focus on gold in this article and leave silver for another time, since silver has different factors at play.)

The first thing that’s important to remember is the reason WHY gold reached such heights over the past few years: foreign central banks.

Central banks have always purchased gold as a strategic reserve asset; this is nothing new. In fact, in 2018 and 2019, before Covid upended the world, central bank gold purchases totaled roughly 650 metric tons.

By 2022, however, central banks started purchasing a LOT more gold— roughly 1,000 metric tons per year, a 50% increase over the long-term average.

The same thing happened in 2023. And again in 2024.

Those extra central bank gold purchases caused a surge in demand... and gold prices roughly doubled in price over that three-year period.

So what was so special about 2022 that prompted central banks to start buying more gold?

Simple. It was the start of a long-term trend of foreign countries losing faith in the US government.

They watched Joe Biden shake hands with thin air. They witnessed the humiliating debacle in Afghanistan. They observed rising US budget deficits and a national debt spiraling out of control. They saw inflation rising.

All of these events made foreign governments and central banks question how much they wanted to keep buying Treasury bonds.

But the real watershed moment came after the invasion of Ukraine.

The US government's response was to freeze Russian assets; Congress then soon passed the REPO Act, giving the President authority to seize Russian sovereign reserves.

This sent shockwaves through foreign governments around the world. Suddenly they felt like their money was no longer safe in America— that the US government could freeze their reserve assets without warning.

I'm not arguing whether this was right or wrong from a moral perspective. But from a practical standpoint, though, it had an obvious consequence: foreign countries wanted to start diversifying their reserve assets away from US dollars and from the United States.

And in their efforts to diversify away from the dollar, gold became the easiest strategic reserve asset for those foreign central banks to buy.

Again, the trend continued throughout 2023 and 2024.

2024 was particularly interesting because the gold price was clearly surging— almost exclusively due to foreign central bank demand.

Yet, despite gold’s obvious rise, individual investors weren’t having any of it. In fact, in 2024, gold ETF saw net OUTFLOWS totaling MINUS 2.9 metric tons. This means that individual investors were net sellers of gold, even as foreign central banks were buying by the ton.

2025 became the year gold went parabolic, rising to $4,500 by year end.

But the key growth driver in 2025 was not central banks. In fact, foreign central banks dialed back their purchases to around 800 metric tons last year—still more than normal, but less than the record 1,100 tons from 2024.

Individual investor demand made up the difference in a big way. Net ETF inflows swung from minus 2.9 tons to plus 801 tons. That's a massive turnaround. On top of that, there was significantly more demand for gold bars and coins.

Bottom line, much of gold’s very recent parabolic price move is because small (and large) investors piled in. Those investors are now dumping their gold because they’re spooked about Kevin Warsh.

Our readers should not be surprised by this pullback; we've been talking about the possibility of a short-term shakeout for some time.

And while I'm not smart enough to know what's going to happen next week or next month, it’s clear that the real story (i.e. foreign governments and central banks losing confidence in the United States Congress) has not gone away.

Think about it— America is deeply divided. The Federal Reserve is in crisis. The US government has shut down for the second time in four months. The national debt keeps rising (now $38.6 trillion). And hardly anyone in Congress seems to care.

Do you think all of this makes foreign governments and central banks want to hold more of their reserve assets in the US, or less?

We think the answer is clearly less, and hence the trend that began in 2022 will likely continue.

Foreign governments and central banks are sitting on $10+ trillion in foreign reserves— most of that parked in US dollars.

Their “extra” gold purchases since 2022 (i.e. they amount of gold they bought each year above the historic average) only totals around $100 billion, i.e. roughly ONE PERCENT of their reserves.

Would it be so crazy to assume that they might want to diversify TWO percent? Or maybe 5%? If so, there could be a LOT more money coming in to gold.

And if a mere 1% of foreign reserves cause the gold price to skyrocket, how high will the gold price go if they park 5% or more?

Again, this isn’t something that’s going to happen tomorrow. It’s a long-term trend. But the point is that the story hasn’t changed.

Remember that in the early 1970s, the gold price increased 5x for similar reasons— US deficits and fiscal woes. But gold peaked in 1975, then fell by a whopping 40%.

A lot of people thought the gold boom was over. But it wasn’t. Again, the story hadn’t changed.

And shortly after, gold resumed its rise, climbing another 8x. It took the election of Ronald Reagan in 1980— someone who was serious about restoring fiscal order— for the trend to finally stop.

I don’t know how far gold might fall. But I do know the fundamental story hasn’t changed.

It also seems pretty obvious that many gold companies (whose share prices have plummeted since Friday) are now quite cheap.

For example, one mining company we’ve written up in our premium investment research recently confirmed that their mining costs for this year will be $1,200 per ounce or less.

Their stock price is down substantially since Friday, which is crazy. The gold price could fall to $3,000, and the company would still be trading at a single-digit P/E ratio.

(Did I mention they’re debt-free and pay a healthy dividend?) There are plenty of other undervalued gold companies out there, so definitely consider giving our premium investment research a try.

To your freedom,   James Hickman   Co-Founder, Schiff Sovereign LLC

https://www.schiffsovereign.com/trends/so-is-the-gold-boom-over-154314/?inf_contact_key=69982acb4816f6b5978259c6fb3c33702294a318289bad97137125bd69e8bd38

What’s Next After $5,000 Gold?

What’s Next After $5,000 Gold?

Notes From the Field By James Hickman (Simon Black)  January 27, 2026

In the year 578 AD, a Korean immigrant named Shigemitsu Kongo arrived in Japan at the invitation of the royal family. Buddhism was flourishing, and the Japanese needed someone who knew how to build temples. Kongo was their man.

He founded a construction company—Kongō Gumi—that would go on to build some of Japan's most iconic Buddhist temples. And, somewhat miraculously, the company stayed within the same family for over fourteen centuries.

That's roughly 40 generations. The company lived through the rise and fall of the samurai, the Meiji Restoration, two World Wars, and the atomic bomb.

But in 2006, after 1,428 years of continuous operation, Kongō Gumi went bankrupt.

 Japan experienced a legendary financial bubble in the 1980s; asset prices exploded. And, like many Japanese companies during that decade, Kongo Gumi borrowed heavily to invest in real estate.

But eventually the bubble burst. Asset prices crashed. And all that remained was the debt... which Kongō Gumi could not repay.

The world's oldest company— which had survived 1400+ years of war, natural disaster, and literally even two nuclear strikes, was undone by too much debt.

It's a powerful reminder: it doesn't matter how long you've been around. What matters is your current financial reality. History doesn't protect you from math.

And this same principle applies to sovereign nations.

Japan has the worst debt-to-GDP ratio on the planet—256%— more than double the United States.

But, like the US, the Japanese government has gotten away with this insane debt level for a long time.

Part of the reason was that their central bank (the BOJ) held interest rates at near zero so that the government could borrow at almost no cost.

If interest rates are 0%, in theory you could borrow unlimited quantities of money without any consequences... but ONLY as long as interest rates remain at zero.

Unfortunately for Japan, the bond market looks like it has finally had enough.

On January 19th, Japan's new Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi announced a 21.3 trillion yen (about $140 billion) stimulus package. The bond market's response was immediate... and visceral.

Within days, Japan's 40-year government bond yield soared to 4.24%—a record high, and the first time a Japanese sovereign maturity has breached 4% in over three decades.

The 30-year yield surged to nearly 4%. Even Japan’s 10-year government bond hit 2.38%, the highest since 1999.

Higher rates are a five-alarm fire for any heavily-indebted country. And we've seen this movie before.

In October 2022, British Prime Minister Liz Truss announced a tax-cut plan that would have resulted in a higher budget deficit.  The bond market wasn’t having any of that. Government bond yields skyrocketed, and the British pound plummeted.

It was so bad that the Bank of England had to launch emergency interventions, and the Prime Minister resigned after just 49 days in office— the shortest tenure in British history.

You can probably see the pattern. Bond markets first revolted in Britain, the world’s sixth largest economy. Now it’s revolting in Japan, the world’s fourth largest economy.

How long until bond markets start to revolt against the world’s largest economy?

Billionaire investor Ken Griffin connected these dots explicitly when he said last week, "What happened in Japan is a very important message to the [US] House and to the Senate. . . You need to get our fiscal house in order."

We've been saying this for years: politicians in Congress think that, because America is the largest economy with the world’s reserve currency, the rules don’t apply to them... and that they can run endless, outrageously high deficits without any consequence.

This is completely delusional.

If the US doesn’t get its fiscal house in order, the dollar won’t be the world’s reserve currency for much longer. In many respects this shift is already happening.

Just look at China: right before the 2008 Global Financial Crisis, China held less than $500 billion of US government bonds— roughly 5% of the total US national debt at the time.

By 2011, just three years later, they had increased their holdings to $1.3 trillion—nearly 10% of total US government debt.

But China has been selling off its Treasury holdings rapidly over the past two years. They've cut their position by roughly 50%, down to about $682 billion, or less than 2% of the national debt.

To be clear, I'm not rooting for China to own a larger share of the US national debt. I'm rooting for a lower national debt.

But that ultimately requires Congress to be sensible and realistic.

And it’s not like cutting the deficit is some impossible task.

A 23-year old YouTuber was able to singlehandedly uncover billions of dollars of fraud in just one city. All Congress has to do is stop it.

But they are unwilling to do so.

With such unserious, low IQ politicians in Congress, foreign governments and central banks are thinking twice about investing in US Treasury bonds. Many (like China) are selling and starting to diversify in other asset classes... including gold.

In fact, rising demand from governments and central banks around the world has been one of the key drivers in gold’s rising price.

But it's not just central banks anymore. Pension funds and insurance companies have been increasing their gold allocations as a long-term asset.

And this makes sense. Pension funds and insurance companies traditionally invest in very long–term bonds (like the 30-year) because they have to match their assets to long-term policy liabilities (like life insurance).

Clearly these companies are worried that after adjusting for taxes and inflation, owning US government bonds for THREE DECADES is simply too risky. So they’re turning to gold instead.

I don’t know where gold prices are going today, tomorrow, or next month. But the long-term trend is pretty clear: as long as Congress continues to be unserious about fixing the deficit, gold will keep going higher.

And that means companies in the real asset (especially gold) business are primed to do extremely well.

To your freedom,   James Hickman  Co-Founder, Schiff Sovereign LLC

https://www.schiffsovereign.com/trends/whats-next-after-5000-gold-154208/?inf_contact_key=86fdde82004debf359cb0327261254797c981c2f99e1cf7586cea13df5aa4037