Meet the Guy Keeping Gold Above $4,000
Meet the Guy Keeping Gold Above $4,000
Notes From the Field By James Hickman (Simon Black) November 19, 2025
When you think of hyperinflation, you might picture Zimbabwe’s trillion-dollar bills, or wheelbarrows full of cash in the streets of 1920s Weimar Germany.
More recently, Venezuela’s currency collapsed under the weight of runaway printing, and Argentina has spent decades lurching from one inflation crisis to another. Throughout history, inflation isn’t an exception—it’s the norm.
Meet the Guy Keeping Gold Above $4,000
Notes From the Field By James Hickman (Simon Black) November 19, 2025
When you think of hyperinflation, you might picture Zimbabwe’s trillion-dollar bills, or wheelbarrows full of cash in the streets of 1920s Weimar Germany.
More recently, Venezuela’s currency collapsed under the weight of runaway printing, and Argentina has spent decades lurching from one inflation crisis to another. Throughout history, inflation isn’t an exception—it’s the norm.
Poland is among the many countries which suffered its own bout of inflation in 1989 and 1990, triggered by the same familiar mix of government mistakes: massive deficits, political dysfunction, and a central bank used as a printing press.
In 1990 alone, prices in Poland jumped 586%. The złoty, Poland’s currency at the time, collapsed. One American professor living in Poland at the time said a monthly bus ticket cost what an entire summer cottage had ten years earlier.
This was the inevitable result of decades of command-and-control economics.
After World War II, Poland remained independent in name only. Soviet troops never left. The Communist party ruled with Moscow’s blessing. Private property was abolished. Prices were fixed by decree. Farms were collectivized. Dissent was criminal.
To keep the illusion of prosperity going, the government promised everything to everyone—jobs, housing, healthcare, cheap food—and paid for it with money it didn’t have.
When tax revenues fell short, the central bank simply printed more. But paper currency can’t conjure real goods. The result was shortages, black markets, and, eventually, total currency collapse.
That’s the world Adam Glapiński—current President of the National Bank of Poland—grew up in.
Born in 1950, he watched his savings inflate away throughout his early career.
Having fought as part of the anti‑communist underground and witnessed the country’s currency unravel in the early 1990s, Glapiński isn’t simply a technocrat—he’s someone determined to protect Poland from repeating its past.
That’s why he’s gone all in on gold.
And he’s part of the reason that Poland is one of the healthier economies in Europe. (Another is that Poland is one of the only places that hasn’t sacrificed itself on the altar of multiculturalism.)
But they still have a problem: a significant portion of their strategic reserve assets are denominated in US dollars.
And Glapiński has been rightfully concerned. Because when you’ve lived through a currency collapse once, you start paying close attention to the early warning signs.
He’s looking at the United States today and doesn’t like what he sees. The deficits keep climbing. The national debt keeps exploding. Interest expense has now surpassed military spending. Social Security is projected to run dry in just seven or eight years.
And the only thing both parties can unite for is to chase anyone trying to solve these problems out of town— like Elon Musk and his work with DOGE.
Glapiński’s not stupid. He can see the Federal Reserve cutting interest rates, even as inflation ticks up. He sees it ending quantitative tightening early, and gearing up for more quantitative easing— AKA money printing.
He can also see a point—relatively soon—when the US dollar is no longer the world’s dominant reserve asset.
The endgame is clear: the value of US dollar reserves will decline.
So he’s been trying to get ahead of it.
But what other strategic reserve asset is there for a central banker to buy?
Not the Chinese renminbi—you can’t trust their lack of transparency, manipulated numbers, and massive debts.
Not the British pound—Britain’s a fiscal and political mess.
Poland will hold some euros, sure, but the euro-zone has plenty of structural problems of its own.
Gold is the best option left.
Not because Glapiński is a gold bug— this is a completely rational move.
Gold is one of the only assets with a large enough market that you can invest tens of billions of dollars. Then, you can hold it within your own borders, free of counter‑party risk. You don’t get that benefit if you’re holding another government’s bonds, which can be defaulted on, frozen, or weaponized as the US has shown.
Glapiński’s target was for the National Bank of Poland to hold 20% of its reserves in gold.
But when they hit that target, he raised it to 25%... which they also recently hit.
And now he’s pushing for 30%.
There are two main things to understand about this.
One, he’s far from alone.
Countries like Russia, China, and other usual suspects are buying literal tons of gold, largely because they don’t want to be frozen out of their US Treasury holdings.
But its not just them. It’s also Kazakhstan, Bulgaria, El Salvador— central banks around the world are buying way more gold than usual.
As recently as 2010, central banks added a grand total of just 79 tons of gold to their reserves.
In 2024, they added a cumulative 1,089 tons. And that’s been the trend—1,000 tons per year—since 2021. That’s about double the previous decade’s average.
The second thing to understand about demand from central banks is that they are relatively price insensitive.
They’re not buying gold to speculate and sell later for more dollars. They’re buying it to diversify away from the dollar.
While they may try to time certain purchases to go further, they’re not going to let $4,000 per ounce gold change their overall reserve strategy.
They know they need to continue buying gold for one simple reason: they’re losing confidence in the US government.
And that demand alone is probably enough to continue to push prices even higher.
To your freedom, James Hickman
Co-Founder, Schiff Sovereign LLC
“Oops! We’re a Major Silver Producer Now”
“Oops! We’re a Major Silver Producer Now”
Notes From the Field By James Hickman (Simon Black) November 20, 2025
When mining superintendent Marcus Daly arrived in Butte, Montana in the late 1870s to evaluate a cluster of silver prospects, it was a mundane business trip— the mad western gold rush was over by then.
The area was known for its patchy silver veins, and Daly’s job was to decide whether there were still any mines worth buying. All the ‘experts’ thought the boom was over. Gold and silver had fallen out of favor... and mines were selling for less than the value of the dirt.
“Oops! We’re a Major Silver Producer Now”
Notes From the Field By James Hickman (Simon Black) November 20, 2025
When mining superintendent Marcus Daly arrived in Butte, Montana in the late 1870s to evaluate a cluster of silver prospects, it was a mundane business trip— the mad western gold rush was over by then.
The area was known for its patchy silver veins, and Daly’s job was to decide whether there were still any mines worth buying. All the ‘experts’ thought the boom was over. Gold and silver had fallen out of favor... and mines were selling for less than the value of the dirt.
So when Marcus Daly went underground at a modest site called the Anaconda, he noticed the ore didn’t look like a typical silver deposit... and that something much bigger was hiding below.
Daly pushed for the property’s purchase—about $30,000 which would be about $1 million today. His reasoning? Beneath the silver veins, Daly had spotted a massive copper system.
The timing couldn’t have been better for a nation racing into an industrial age.
Telegraph lines, electrical wiring, motors, early power systems — America was devouring copper as fast as anyone could pull it out of the ground. And Daly’s discovery pushed the Anaconda operation from a forgettable silver claim into one of the engines of American industrial growth.
For years, that copper carried what became the Anaconda Copper Mining Company.
Output scaled, profits climbed, and Butte became synonymous with industrial metal.
But the silver never went away. As miners pulled the copper out of the ground, they were also extracting silver... which was sort of ‘in the way’ of the copper.
At first the silver was just an afterthought; Anaconda was a copper company, plain and simple. They just happened to mine some silver, almost begrudgingly, as an afterthought. And throughout the early 20th century and the Roaring 20s, nobody paid attention.
Then the Great Depression hit.
Copper demand—and prices—collapsed almost overnight as factories slowed, construction stalled, and electrical projects were shelved indefinitely.
Anaconda took a beating like everyone else—but it didn’t fold.
The “accidental” silver kept generating revenue even as the industrial economy stalled... and that silver revenue kept Anaconda alive when competitors were going out of business left and right.
It gave the company the diversification it needed to survive the worst phases of the worst commodity cycle — and stay standing when others didn’t.
This is far from an isolated incident—the mining industry is no stranger to these necessary pivots.
And it’s also not just a quirky footnote— it’s the kind of setup that gives investors a chance to buy into something most investors write-off.
For example, the latest edition of our premium investment research newsletter featured a company that ordinarily mines a critical industrial metal—one that’s necessary for all modern technology.
Funny thing is, this company also just happens to produce gold and silver.
They never set out to be precious metals miners. In fact, the company has been extremely successful in its core industrial metal business.
But with gold and silver prices hovering near all-time highs, the company is now minting profits from precious metals. Revenue is through the roof, but shareholders of the business are basically getting all of it for free.
That’s because, right now, the company’s stock is trading at a fairly low multiple JUST based on its industrial mining revenue... which means the market is valuing all the gold and silver production at zero. That’s completely absurd.
Overall this company trades at just FOUR times earnings. At that valuation, even if it were just an industrial producer, it would still be undervalued.
But it also produces enough silver to be close to a top 10 producer in the world.
There’s no rational reason for this business to be selling for such a cheap price. Yet the recent selloff in gold and silver prices only made it cheaper. Some mining companies fell 30%, even though they're still raking in record profits.
To your freedom, James Hickman Co-Founder, Schiff Sovereign LLC LINK
Record High Debt = Record High Gold Price
Record High Debt = Record High Gold Price
Notes From the Field By James Hickman (Simon Black) November 11, 2025
Barrick Mining Corporation—one of the world’s largest and most established gold producers—just reported its third quarter earnings yesterday— and it was an absolute blowout.
The company reported third quarter profit of $1.3 billion, nearly triple last year’s Q3 earnings.
And for the first nine months of 2025, Earnings per Share is up a whopping 132% over the same period last year. Free Cash Flow is up an astonishing 176%.
Record High Debt = Record High Gold Price
Notes From the Field By James Hickman (Simon Black) November 11, 2025
Barrick Mining Corporation—one of the world’s largest and most established gold producers—just reported its third quarter earnings yesterday— and it was an absolute blowout.
The company reported third quarter profit of $1.3 billion, nearly triple last year’s Q3 earnings.
And for the first nine months of 2025, Earnings per Share is up a whopping 132% over the same period last year. Free Cash Flow is up an astonishing 176%.
The company further announced that they’re raising the dividend by 25% and expanding the company’s share buyback authorization by an additional $500 million, after already repurchasing $1 billion worth of shares under the prior program.
And what’s perhaps even more striking is that these record profits were based on an average gold price of $3,200. This means that the company’s Q4 earnings (which we’re nearly halfway through) should be MUCH higher given that gold has averaged $4,041 so far this quarter.
Our readers won’t be surprised to hear any of this; we’ve been saying for the past few years that gold was going to go much higher— specifically because foreign governments and central banks have been buying gold by the metric ton to diversify their strategic reserves away from the US dollar.
This trend isn’t going away.
Between the government shutdown fiasco, the rising $38+ trillion US national debt (up $500 BILLION just in the last six weeks), extreme political dysfunction in Congress and the courts, etc., foreign governments and central banks are continuing to literally buy tons of gold, even at record high prices.
We also wrote that gold companies (including miners like Barrick) would benefit substantially from rising gold prices.
So, just as we predicted, Barrick (among other gold miners) is raking in record profits, and its stock price has doubled this year alone— outpacing gains from Oracle, Nvidia, Palantir, and pretty much every major large cap company in the market.
But here’s what’s really amazing— despite such stellar performance, many of these gold companies are still cheap.
Barrick stock, for example, is near its all-time high. Yet the company is still valued at less than NINE times forward earnings— and that’s assuming gold doesn’t go up further from here.
(And even if the gold price tanks, Barrick will still be a profitable, dividend-paying, modestly valued business. Remember, Barrick’s record profits are based on $3,400 gold!)
Smaller gold companies— the ones that we focus on in our premium investment research— are even cheaper.
One of the gold miners we’ve featured is already up 4x this year. Yet it still trades at just 3.5 times forward earnings. The company is extremely shareholder-friendly and has a pristine balance sheet with zero net debt. Oh, and did I mention they pay a substantial dividend?
The gold price could collapse to less than $3,000 and this company would still be wildly profitable.
Could that happen? It’s possible. Even during the 1970s when gold rose from $35 to $850, gold suffered a major pullback in 1975. The pullback was temporary, and gold rose over 8x from there.
That’s because the fundamentals driving gold’s rise during the 1970s hadn’t really changed.
After Richard Nixon formally ended the Bretton Woods system in August 1971, foreign governments and central banks rapidly began selling their US dollars for gold.
As the decade progressed, foreigners became increasingly concerned about US deficits, government dysfunction (Watergate in 1973), global instability, waning US power, and more.
And despite a brief pullback in gold prices, this trend continued until the early 1980s, when the election of Ronald Reagan restored confidence in America’s might and fiscal discipline. It was only at that point that gold prices started to fall.
This same trend is unfolding today, and it’s not hard to understand: the record high US national debt = record high gold price.
Foreign governments and central banks remain deeply concerned about America’s fiscal condition, and gold is one of the few assets available for them to diversify their US dollar holdings.
Just like in the 1970s, we expect this trend to continue until Congress proves that it can act like grownups and be fiscally responsible.
In the meantime, we anticipate gold— and gold companies— to continue to perform very well. Again, many are posting record profits yet are still insanely undervalued. We do not expect this anomaly to last.
To your freedom, James Hickman Co-Founder, Schiff Sovereign LLC
Podcast: These three Central Banks are SELLING Gold
Podcast: These three Central Banks are SELLING Gold
Notes From the Field By James Hickman (Simon Black) November 12, 2025
We sincerely hope the House of Representatives can pull itself together and get the government back open this week.
Not because we love federal bureaucracy—but because this shutdown is embarrassing, and it continues to chip away at the rapidly declining confidence that foreign governments and central banks have in the United States.
This matters. Foreign governments and central banks collectively own $10+ trillion of US government bonds and other agency securities.
Podcast: These three Central Banks are SELLING Gold
Notes From the Field By James Hickman (Simon Black) November 12, 2025
We sincerely hope the House of Representatives can pull itself together and get the government back open this week.
Not because we love federal bureaucracy—but because this shutdown is embarrassing, and it continues to chip away at the rapidly declining confidence that foreign governments and central banks have in the United States.
This matters. Foreign governments and central banks collectively own $10+ trillion of US government bonds and other agency securities.
And given how rapidly the national debt is rising, the Treasury Department needs every lender they can get.
Up until recently, foreigners have always happily stocked up on US government bonds— which were traditionally viewed as THE world’s “risk free” asset.
But over the past few years, they’ve seen endless financial chaos and political dysfunction.
They watched Joe Biden shake hands with thin air. They watched the humiliating US withdrawal of Afghanistan. They watched millions of migrants stream across the US border with impunity, then be showered with taxpayer benefits. They watched TWO assassination attempts on a Presidential candidate.
Then, even after last year’s election, they watched the richest guy in the world willingly roll up his sleeves to help eliminate federal waste and cut the deficit— only to get chased out of town by politicians who are addicted to fraudulent spending.
They’ve watched extreme political dysfunction, with two sides who can’t agree on anything... including the most basic task of keeping the government open.
They’ve watched deficits grow and the national debt spiral to $38 trillion. They watched the debt grow by HALF A TRILLION dollars just over the past SIX WEEKS when the government was supposedly closed.
In short, if you were a foreign government or central bank, there’s little chance you would look at Congress and think, “these are serious, responsible people.”
Quite the opposite. In fact you would probably think that it’s time to start cutting your Treasury holdings and back away from the US dollar. After all, the United States Congress doesn’t exactly look “risk free” any longer.
Foreigners understand that a time is coming—sooner rather than later—when the US dollar will no longer be the dominant global reserve currency. Many central banks still hold nearly 100% of their reserves in US dollars. They know they need to diversify.
And we’ve written about this many times before— the #1 asset that they’re purchasing right now is gold.
It’s not because these foreign central bankers and finance ministers are irrational gold bugs. Instead, they understand that gold is nearly the only asset that (1) is universally accepted, (2) carries zero counterparty risk, and (3) has a large enough market to absorb hundreds of billions of dollars in capital flows.
That’s why, from Poland to Ghana to Kazakhstan, central banks have been buying gold in record quantities. It’s not just China.
China is the most desperate. They hold hundreds of billions in US dollar assets as part of their strategic financial reserves, and the Communist Party is extremely concerned—because they see a real possibility that they could be at war with their own borrower in the future.
Only three central banks were selling gold last quarter—and their reasons are easy to understand.
Russia was one—not because they love the dollar. But because they need to fund a war. Frozen out of the global financial system, gold has become almost a medium of exchange for the Russian government.
Singapore was another. Most central banks only buy strategically; they don’t try to turn a profit. Not Singapore. Their financial institutions are filled with sharp traders who would sell high into record trading volume, with the intent to buy gold back at a lower price.
In fact, it wouldn’t surprise me if the Singaporean government picked up more gold during the recent price dip earlier this month.
The third was Uzbekistan, whose central bank already holds about 80% of its total reserves in gold. With gold prices up, the value of their holdings ballooned—so selling some is simply a way to re-balance.
The problem for most countries is that they have too many dollars and not enough gold. Uzbekistan is the lone example of a country with too much gold and not enough dollars. So their gold sales, while unusual, make sense.
We keep talking about this because it truly is one of the most important trends of our time.
The US government's fiscal condition is atrocious. Almost no one in Washington is willing to take it seriously. But foreign governments and central banks are—and that's exactly why they’re buying gold.
That trend won’t reverse unless, miraculously, everyone in Washington starts treating the national debt like the emergency it actually is.
I’m not holding my breath.
That’s why we believe $5,000 to $10,000 gold is a completely valid future scenario—and why mining companies, precious metals producers, and real asset businesses are so well positioned.
We discuss several of these miners in today’s podcast, including Barrick, Newmont, and Franco-Nevada.
And we also highlight some of the overlooked smaller gold companies that, right now, are just absurd bargains.
You can listen to the full podcast here.
For the audio-only version, check out our online post here.
Finally, you can find the podcast transcript for your convenience, here.
To your freedom, James Hickman Co-Founder, Schiff Sovereign LLC
PS – We write about this because we’re extremely proud of what we do.
We provide extremely high-quality research, and the results speak for themselves. Four of our precious metals companies are up 3-4x, even after recent pullbacks. Another seven are up 35–150%.
The Debt Has Increased By HALF A TRILLION Since The Shutdown Began
The Debt Has Increased By HALF A TRILLION Since The Shutdown Began
Notes From the Field By James Hickman (Simon Black) November 10, 2025
By the autumn of 1648, England had been embroiled in a chaotic and bloody civil war for more than six years. Extreme ideological tensions in England had been building for decades over freedom of religion, plus the balance of power within government.
King Charles was wildly unpopular. And a majority of politicians in parliament saw it as their sole mission to resist him. Many believed adamantly that parliament should rule over the king and ultimately dictate all laws in England.
The Debt Has Increased By HALF A TRILLION Since The Shutdown Began
Notes From the Field By James Hickman (Simon Black) November 10, 2025
By the autumn of 1648, England had been embroiled in a chaotic and bloody civil war for more than six years. Extreme ideological tensions in England had been building for decades over freedom of religion, plus the balance of power within government.
King Charles was wildly unpopular. And a majority of politicians in parliament saw it as their sole mission to resist him. Many believed adamantly that parliament should rule over the king and ultimately dictate all laws in England.
On the other side, a number of traditionalists thought parliament to be a corrupt body of liars and thieves, and they wanted to preserve the power of both church and king.
Tensions erupted into war in 1642, eventually resulting in Charles’ capture and imprisonment.
At that point the majority of parliament didn’t have any desire to extend the crisis any further. They felt like they had won sufficient concessions. Enough was enough. So they negotiated a peace treaty to end the civil war, much to the relief of people across England.
Unfortunately there were a number of radicals who pledged to continue the fight no matter the cost. They viewed any compromise as failure.
One of those was a little known Member of Parliament named Oliver Cromwell, who, on December 6, 1648, sent more than a thousand troops to surround the palace of Westminster and block the entrance of Parliament.
Only the most radical members were allowed entry; the rest were either blocked or arrested.
Cromwell’s aim was to prevent the peace treaty from being ratified; he felt that it was too soft with too many compromises. And as a result, the English Civil War continued, followed by Cromwell’s personal dictatorship, for more than a decade.
I hope I’m wrong but I think the US is in store for a similar head fake. After more than a month of the shutdown, there were signs over the weekend that a compromise had been reached in the United States Senate.
But the theater began almost immediately after, with the radical Left vomiting all over the deal and insisting that they would “continue to fight.”
My sense is that while a lot of people may believe that the government shutdown is nearly over, this may in fact just be another miss, just like England’s ‘almost’ peace treaty in 1648. There’s a good chance this compromise will be blocked by aggressive radicals in Congress.
To say this is a national embarrassment is a massive understatement. And at this point it’s nearly all branches of government and institutions chipping away at the remaining dignity of America.
One of the things that I find most bizarre is how many prominent radicals seem to think their shutdown is “winning the hearts and minds of the American people.”
They believe this because of last week’s gubernatorial elections in New Jersey and Virginia in which the candidates from their party won.
Now, the combined margin of victory of both candidates was about one million people. There are roughly 350 million people in the United States.
Yet, in the mind of a Leftist radical, one million voters in two states speak for 350 million Americans in 50 states, and therefore they have a moral mandate to keep “fighting” while the government remains closed.
This raises a key question: fighting for what?
Well, they claim to be fighting for healthcare affordability. Coincidentally this is the same party that passed Obamacare more than a decade ago— during which time the cost of health insurance in the US has soared above and beyond the already uncomfortably high rate of inflation.
Strange, considering that the actual name of the legislation was the Affordable Care Act. Yet it seems to have only made healthcare less affordable.
Stagflation Is Back—And the Fed Is Asleep at the Wheel
Stagflation Is Back—And the Fed Is Asleep at the Wheel
Notes From the Field By James Hickman (Simon Black) October 29, 2025
Protestant firebrand and political activist Hugh Latimer must have known he was risking his life when he stepped into the pulpit at St. Paul’s Cross on January 12, 1549. His sermon that Sunday morning was hardly religious in nature. Rather, Latimer publicly expressed the view-- the deep, deep frustration-- that nearly all Englishmen were feeling at the time, but everyone was too afraid to say out loud.
Inflation was killing them. And it was the government’s fault.
Stagflation Is Back—And the Fed Is Asleep at the Wheel
Notes From the Field By James Hickman (Simon Black) October 29, 2025
Protestant firebrand and political activist Hugh Latimer must have known he was risking his life when he stepped into the pulpit at St. Paul’s Cross on January 12, 1549. His sermon that Sunday morning was hardly religious in nature. Rather, Latimer publicly expressed the view-- the deep, deep frustration-- that nearly all Englishmen were feeling at the time, but everyone was too afraid to say out loud.
Inflation was killing them. And it was the government’s fault.
It started about seven years before, in 1542. England went to war against both Scotland and France-- AT THE SAME TIME. War is always expensive, and it’s especially debilitating when you’re fighting simultaneous conflicts to your north and south.
War costs quickly mounted, and the English government began paying for it by debasing the currency. Two years into the wars, by 1544, silver content in their coins had plummeted by about a third. Two years later by another 50%.
At peak, when Latimer gave his famous sermon, silver content had fallen 90% in just seven years. And as a result, prices across England were skyrocketing.
Latimer was witty and eloquent in the finest English tradition; he quipped at one point that “the King’s coin is become like the King’s faith-- clipped and counterfeit.” And later on, “the debasing of the coin is the debasing of the realm…”
Latimer believed the debasement of the currency to be a moral issue-- even a sinful act-- because it was essentially theft of commoner’s purchasing power.
He spoke to thousands of people that cold day in January. But his words went far beyond the congregation; his sermon was published and widely circulated, prompting angry Englishmen across the country to form rebel groups and demand change.
Latimer was arrested and charged for “stirring the people”, imprisoned in the Tower of London and ultimately put to death. His final words were “we shall this day light such a candle, by God’s grace, in England, as I trust shall never be put out.”
Writing in his own journal in 1551, King Edward VI himself admitted that his government was wrong.
“The debasement of the coin was the cause of the dearth,” wrote the King-- with dearth in that context referring to soaring food prices. He knew his government caused inflation, and inflation caused the social unrest. Latimer was an innocent man who had the courage to say what everyone else was feeling.
Both of these are sadly common trends in history; governments often persecute those whose only crime is telling the truth. And second, governments will invariably screw up, create inflation, and cause severe devastation in people’s lives.
I’ll focus on the second topic today given that the most recent inflation numbers in the US were announced a few days ago.
And, no surprise, inflation is ticking up and moving in the wrong direction. Based on the September month-over-month numbers, inflation is an annualized 3.6%.
Bizarrely, the Fed has already begun lowering interest rates and is widely expected to cut further in the coming months… which will most likely make inflation worse.
Far more important is that Fed officials are signaling that they’re about to end their quantitative tightening earlier than originally planned.
This is crucial. During the pandemic, the Fed created $5+ trillion in new money. Poof. It’s the equivalent of England debasing its currency in the 1540s… and all that new money triggered all the inflation we’ve experienced.
Quantitative tightening is the reverse of that process; in addition to raising rates (starting in 2022), the Fed also began reducing the money supply and draining some of that money out of the financial system.
At this point they’ve removed about $2 trillion out of the $5 trillion that they printed. And the original plan was to keep going and reduce their balance sheet.
But that seems to be no longer happening. So stopping the quantitative tightening, combined with interest rate cuts, will really invite a LOT more inflation.
And all of this is happening just as the labor market is beginning to falter. White collar jobs in particular are being slashed at an astonishing pace.
There’s a term for this-- one that economists don’t like to use very much. But it’s called stagflation-- a shrinking economy combined with higher inflation.
America has been here before-- most recently in the 1970s.
The US economy was in a tailspin; unemployment and inflation BOTH surged, resulting in an almost entire decade of economic misery. But there were safe havens.
Gold was an obvious safe haven. As the US economy stagnated and retail prices rose, gold prices exploded, rising more than 20x over the next ten years. The dollar, meanwhile, lost roughly 75% of its purchasing power.
We’re seeing similar conditions today, from the inflation data to the gargantuan US national debt. And if history is any guide, this isn’t a trend that reverses easily. The underlying driver—loss of confidence in US fiscal policy and the long-term value of the dollar—shows no sign of abating.
This is why we’ve written so much about gold over the past few years. And, despite its recent pullback, gold remains an incredibly sensible long-term investment.
But there are other real assets to consider as well.
Real assets in general tend to hold their value during inflationary periods—because they’re not just paper promises. They’re tangible. They’re productive. They’re the raw inputs the economy is actually built on.
One of the most obvious opportunities right now—possibly the most mispriced sector in the entire market—is energy.
The world does not exist without energy. Full stop. People have been fed a ridiculous lie that oil is going to disappear and we’re all going to drive solar-powered EVs and Exxon is going to go out of business.
What total BS. But because of this myth, many oil companies are absurdly cheap. Meanwhile oilfield services businesses have been practically left for dead.
Then there’s natural gas-- which (especially in the US) remains THE cheapest form of energy on the planet—cheaper than coal, oil, and in some real-world scenarios, even cheaper than nuclear. And it’s even pretty clean.
But natural gas producers too have traded at fire-sale valuations.
We’ve been clear that the gold story is not over by a long shot.
But in our investment research, we are starting to turn to other sectors that are still at the bottom of their cycles— but won’t stay that way for long the way inflation is heating up again.
The story of inflation is as old as the story of civilization itself. It’s inevitable.
And we’re seeing some pretty obvious warning signs on the horizon.
But there are some compelling safe havens out there which have almost NEVER been cheaper. They’re worth considering.
We’d also encourage you to consider joining our premium investment research service, which features these deeply undervalued, highly profitable, well-managed real asset businesses-- we’re offering a limited time promotional discount and an iron-clad money back guarantee.
To your freedom, James Hickman Co-Founder, Schiff Sovereign LLC
Podcast: Is it War? On Rumors That China Just Took Out Two US Military Aircraft
Podcast: Is it War? On Rumors That China Just Took Out Two US Military Aircraft
Notes From the Field By James Hickman (Simon Black) October 28, 2025
There was a popular legend from medieval Venice about an impoverished orphan from the island of Torcello. The boy came to Venice at a young age, found a job, and worked tirelessly and energetically-- enough to impress some of the city’s wealthy patricians.
Eventually the boy-- now a young man-- had built up enough credibility that some local noblemen entered into a commenda contract with him, i.e. a sort of proto-limited partnership. The idea was that the investors would finance a trade voyage (and stay comfortably at home in Venice), while the young man would risk life and limb on the high seas.
Podcast: Is it War? On Rumors That China Just Took Out Two US Military Aircraft
Notes From the Field By James Hickman (Simon Black) October 28, 2025
There was a popular legend from medieval Venice about an impoverished orphan from the island of Torcello. The boy came to Venice at a young age, found a job, and worked tirelessly and energetically-- enough to impress some of the city’s wealthy patricians.
Eventually the boy-- now a young man-- had built up enough credibility that some local noblemen entered into a commenda contract with him, i.e. a sort of proto-limited partnership. The idea was that the investors would finance a trade voyage (and stay comfortably at home in Venice), while the young man would risk life and limb on the high seas.
The investors would take 100% of the financial risk in exchange for 75% of the profit, while the orphaned entrepreneur would earn a 25% cut in exchange for risking his life.
The young man went off to sail the known world and came back with 10x his investors’ money. Ecstatic at the tremendous return on capital, the investors backed several other voyages… until eventually the young orphan boy with no prospects became one of the richest men in Venice.
No one knows if this particular story is true. But it’s emblematic of the incredible rise and peak of the Republic of Venice. 1,000+ years ago, it was truly the America of its day.
While the rest of Europe was toiling away in poverty due to the constraints of the ridiculous feudal system, Venice was like a rocket ship far ahead of its time.
Its entire society was built on economic freedom. ANYONE, from anywhere in Europe, could come to Venice, work hard, take risks, and make a fortune. It was the American dream seven centuries before there was an America.
Venice also prided itself on a strong rule of law, not to mention unparalleled political and financial stability. It became the richest place on the continent, by far, and its ducato (ducat) gold coin eventually displaced the Byzantine gold solidus as Europe’s major reserve currency.
But eventually, like most great civilizations, it peaked. Venice’s swashbuckling, risk-taking, hard-working entrepreneurial culture became complacent.
Rather than finance new trade routes and keep innovating, the great moneyed families of Venice were happy to sit at home and spend their fortunes on art and architecture. The government became clogged up with an entrenched political class that remained in elected office year after year. They became lazy, then incompetent, and then ultimately ran the place into the ground.
Meanwhile, other rising powers emerged on the geopolitical horizon-- among them, the Ottoman Empire.
In the 1300s, the Ottoman Empire came out of nowhere as a ferocious competitor, ruthlessly conquering everyone who stood in their way. They were also shrewd at trade and commerce, and they posed a direct threat to Venice.
It was a classic historical case of a rising power against a declining power. And it seemed like war was inevitable.
And to be fair, the two countries did cross swords a number of times; history records these as the “Ottoman-Venetian Wars [note the plural]”, though realistically they were extremely limited conflicts, i.e. not full-blown total war in which both sides tried to obliterate one another.
The reason for the limited nature of the conflicts is simple: trade. Both Venice and the Ottoman Empire did a LOT of business with one another, and they both knew that destroying their adversary would be self-destructive.
So instead, they fought small, limited conflicts while continuing to engage in trade and commerce.
This is very similar to the US-China conflict that has already been going on for a number of years. We can’t even count the number of cyberattacks that China has waged on the US and US infrastructure. There will be more.
China has been buying up land across the United States left and right to stage military assets for further conflict. They’ve engaged in election interference. Stolen intellectual property. Flooded the US with Fentanyl. Brazen espionage, complete with honeypot sex scandals of high-ranking bureaucrats, business leaders, and politicians. And let’s not forget about the balloons flying over US military bases.
Over the weekend the US Navy announced that two military aircraft-- a MH-60R Sea Hawk helicopter and F/A-18F Super Hornet jet-- both crashed in the South China Sea while conducting “routine operations”.
Fortunately no one was killed, and all crew members were safely recovered. But aside from that, the Navy provided no further details.
Realistically there are two possibilities.
Either, one, it’s amateur night at the Navy again, where poor training, bad leadership, or DEI quotas resulted in yet another preventable accident. And if that’s the case, it’s even more embarrassing given that it took place in China’s backyard.
The more sinister possibility is that the Chinese navy disabled the aircraft.
China regularly deploys its extensive (and highly advanced) nuclear-powered submarine fleet throughout the South China Sea to deliberately frustrate global shipping and control the region.
They engage in electronic warfare, including signal jamming that takes out radar, navigation, and communication systems for commercial shipping vessels… which encourages them to avoid the South China Sea entirely.
The US military, on the other hand, routinely conducts counter-jamming operations, along with submarine tracking, in an effort to keep the South China Sea open.
The two militaries are essentially engaged with one another every single day… but without firing a single shot. It’s a very limited conflict.
This weekend it might have crossed a line. And it’s possible that China’s jamming operations might have taken out certain flight and navigation controls of the US military aircraft, causing them to crash.
That would be a blatant escalation, especially as President Trump and Xi are set to meet.
Having said that, I still think full-scale war is a remote possibility. Just like Venice and the Ottoman Empire, China and the US still need each other. China actually needs the US far more than the US needs China at this point, and in truth the Trump administration has worked hard to make sure that’s the case.
Frankly, war with China doesn’t even crack what I would consider the top five concerns facing the US right now—maybe not even the top ten.
We break this all down in today’s podcast—why these latest incidents matter, but also why the odds of all-out war are extremely low. And I also weigh in on what I actually think is a much bigger concern for the US.
You can listen to the podcast here. For the audio-only version, check out our online post here.
Finally, you can find the podcast transcript for your convenience, here.
To your freedom, James Hickman Co-Founder, Schiff Sovereign LLC
Let’s Take a Quick Pause and Look Back at History
Let’s Take a Quick Pause and Look Back at History
Notes From the Field By James Hickman (Simon Black) October 23, 2025
In light of this week’s roller-coaster gold ride, I thought it would be useful to turn once again back to the lessons of history and revisit what we discussed recently about the 1970s.
Foreign governments and central banks around the world had been becoming increasingly concerned about the US government’s outrageous fiscal deficits as early as the mid-1960s.
Let’s Take a Quick Pause and Look Back at History
Notes From the Field By James Hickman (Simon Black) October 23, 2025
In light of this week’s roller-coaster gold ride, I thought it would be useful to turn once again back to the lessons of history and revisit what we discussed recently about the 1970s.
Foreign governments and central banks around the world had been becoming increasingly concerned about the US government’s outrageous fiscal deficits as early as the mid-1960s.
French President Charles de Gaulle sounded the alarm about America’s costly war in Vietnam, combined with historic welfare spending, and he began demanding that the Treasury Department redeem a portion of France’s US dollar holdings for gold.
Decades ago, that was his right because under the post–World War II Bretton Woods system, the US dollar was convertible into gold at a rate of $35 per ounce.
By 1971, foreigners’ demands to exchange their dollars for gold had become so great that Richard Nixon formally ended the convertibility once and for all.
Nixon downplayed any impact, telling Americans on August 15, 1971, “your dollar will be worth just as much tomorrow as it is today.”
The reality is the dollar went on to lose 75% of its value throughout the course of the decade. And if anything, Nixon’s move only encouraged foreigners to dump their dollars at an even more rapid pace.
As a result, the price of gold skyrocketed fivefold as governments and central banks around the world diversified out of the dollar and into gold.
We’ve been seeing this same move over the past couple of years—insatiable foreign and central bank appetite has driven gold prices from $1,800 a couple of years ago to over $4,000 today.
Obviously, over the past few months, there has been a lot of individual investor capital flowing into ETFs, hedge fund speculation, and similar vehicles. But in the long run, gold’s rise has been—and will continue to be—driven by foreign government and central bank diversification out of the dollar.
In 1975, gold hit a temporary peak at around $185 per ounce. After a period of consolidation, in which there was a significant price correction, gold then resumed its ascent, rising all the way to $850.
The point is that regardless of any short-term price correction, the fundamental driver—foreign governments and central banks diversifying out of the US dollar—hadn’t changed.
It took the election of Ronald Reagan in 1980 to finally restore credibility in the US government’s finances. Reagan, of course, campaigned on cutting the deficit, sparking a long-term trend which culminated in multiple budget surpluses in the late 1990s.
This renewed confidence in US government finances is what ultimately reversed the trend on gold prices, causing the price to collapse below $300 by the end of the 90s.
I believe we’re in a similar situation today as in 1975.
Gold had a significant correction earlier this week, but the price remained above $4,000.
Perhaps this is the start of a lull period, or even a correction phase as in 1975, but it doesn’t fundamentally change the story right now: foreign governments and central banks are aggressively trying to diversify their US dollar strategic reserves, and gold is one of the only assets that makes sense.
I’m not here to say “buy gold” at $4,000. But based on the trajectory of the US government’s finances, the price of gold should go much higher over the next few years.
I don’t say this because I’m a “gold bug.” I don’t have any irrational fascination with a piece of metal. Rather, my outlook is based on a clear understanding of global central banking and strategic reserve assets, coupled with the obvious deterioration in the US government’s fiscal condition.
But I also understand that after an almost uninterrupted and astonishing rise to nearly $4,400, gold may be due for a correction—similar to what happened in 1975.
The reality is, no one knows for sure. Gold could just as easily rise to $5,000 as drop to $3,500.
I’d point out, however, that there are still a number of high-quality gold, platinum, and silver businesses that are wildly undervalued and extremely profitable—and they will continue to be extremely profitable even if there is a steep decline in gold prices.
For example, one of the companies we featured in our premium investment research service is producing gold at a price of just $1,000 per ounce. This means the price of gold could fall below $3,000, and this company would still be making money hand over fist—and trading at just 5x earnings based on today’s stock price.
Did I mention they pay a handsome dividend?
To me, the long-term case for gold is crystal clear—foreign governments and central banks will continue to by gold unless there is a fundamental change in Congress’s attitude toward the US budget deficit. And I don’t see that happening anytime soon.
The short-term case for gold over the next couple of months is anyone’s guess. It could go higher, it could go lower. And that’s why I think some of these ultra-cheap, highly profitable, well-managed, largely debt-free gold companies are really worth considering.
When the long-term case for gold is so obvious, it’s a sensible strategy to own a business that has so much gold exposure, pays a dividend, and can continue to be extremely profitable—even if there’s a short-term gold correction.
To your freedom, James Hickman Co-Founder, Schiff Sovereign LLC
What If Gold Crashes To $3,000 Per Ounce?
What If Gold Crashes To $3,000 Per Ounce?
Notes From the Field by James Hickman (Simon Black) October 16, 2025
A little over a month ago, in early September, after careful analysis and detailed study, my team and I reached an important conclusion. And we started telling our audience almost immediately.
Gold had just crossed $3,500 per ounce, silver had just crossed $40, and many gold and silver mining companies had experienced astonishing gains.
Of course none of this came as a surprise to our readers. We’ve been saying for the past few years that gold in particular was going to go much higher, specifically because foreign governments and central banks were buying up gold by the metric ton as a way to diversify their strategic reserves away from the US dollar.
What If Gold Crashes To $3,000 Per Ounce?
Notes From the Field by James Hickman (Simon Black) October 16, 2025
A little over a month ago, in early September, after careful analysis and detailed study, my team and I reached an important conclusion. And we started telling our audience almost immediately.
Gold had just crossed $3,500 per ounce, silver had just crossed $40, and many gold and silver mining companies had experienced astonishing gains.
Of course none of this came as a surprise to our readers. We’ve been saying for the past few years that gold in particular was going to go much higher, specifically because foreign governments and central banks were buying up gold by the metric ton as a way to diversify their strategic reserves away from the US dollar.
That extra demand from central banks totaling a few hundred billion dollars sent gold prices rocketing higher. And we also said this trend would continue.
Similarly over the past couple of years, as we were predicting higher gold and silver prices, we also predicted that mining companies would benefit, and generate record revenues and record profits as a result.
At the time those mining companies had been left for dead in financial markets, with share prices so cheap they were practically being given away.
We told our audience over and over again in print and in our podcasts that this wouldn’t last, and that mining companies would surge in value.
And that’s exactly what happened. In fact, many of the companies we featured in our premium investment research are up 3x, 4x, 5x, even 6x this year alone.
But early last month we realized there was another near term catalyst that would likely send these companies’ share prices even higher. These businesses are all publicly traded, and so they have to report their earnings, usually every quarter.
Q1 earnings were great. Q2 earnings were fantastic. But we realized that gold and silver had been rising so quickly, that Q3 earnings—which would be reported sometime in October—would just be out of this world.
We did the math and crunched the numbers ourselves, and based on our analysis, even companies that had risen 4 or 5x were still undervalued based on projected Q3 earnings.
And we anticipated that for many of these companies, their share prices would jump after their Q3 earnings were announced.
The first of those companies reported its earnings earlier this week, and we were absolutely right. Its record profit dazzled investors, and its share price jumped nearly 20% in a day.
It’s also up almost 52% since we made this prediction a month ago.
We’ve also done the math to see what would happen to these businesses if there were a sudden drop in precious metals prices.
Well, to give you an example one of the companies we featured in our investment research, which is up more than 5x, would still be incredibly undervalued.
Based on our analysis, even if gold were to drop below $3,000—roughly 30% from here—that company would still be making money hand over fist, and based on its current share price, still trading at around 5.5x earnings.
Oh, and did I mention they pay a substantial dividend?
It’s not that every mining company is in the same boat. There are thousands of companies out there, and many are just terrible businesses with pitiful management and terrible balance sheets.
But if you’re willing to do the hard work and find the highest quality management, and the most pristine balance sheets, there are still undervalued gems out there.
This is what we focus on in our premium investment research.
And we believe that many of them could see similar upside over the next few weeks as they report bonanza Q3 earnings.
To your freedom, James Hickman Co-Founder, Schiff Sovereign LLC
There Was Once A Time When Congress Cared About Literally Every Penny—
There Was Once A Time When Congress Cared About Literally Every Penny—
Notes From the Field By James Hickman (Simon Black) October 13, 2025
As the clock struck midnight on July 1, 1848, Ohio Congressman Samuel Vinton probably started having a minor panic attack. Viton was Chairman of the powerful House Ways and Means Committee, the Congressional body that, at least at the time, was responsible for all taxation and spending appropriations. Anything that got spent-- or didn’t get spent-- was Vinton’s domain.
The United States was just coming out of a war in the year 1848-- the Mexican War, in which the US invaded Mexico and wound up with 525,000 square miles of new territory as a result.
There Was Once A Time When Congress Cared About Literally Every Penny—
Notes From the Field By James Hickman (Simon Black) October 13, 2025
As the clock struck midnight on July 1, 1848, Ohio Congressman Samuel Vinton probably started having a minor panic attack. Viton was Chairman of the powerful House Ways and Means Committee, the Congressional body that, at least at the time, was responsible for all taxation and spending appropriations. Anything that got spent-- or didn’t get spent-- was Vinton’s domain.
The United States was just coming out of a war in the year 1848-- the Mexican War, in which the US invaded Mexico and wound up with 525,000 square miles of new territory as a result.
Several members of Congress thought the war unjust and unconstitutional. One critic, in fact, was a little-known politician from the state of Illinois named Abraham Lincoln, who often spoke passionately on the House floor against what he viewed as clear aggression.
Others in Lincoln’s party-- the Whigs, who were essentially proto-Republicans-- winced at the immense cost of the war.
By 1848 the costs of the Mexican War were at least four times what the Democrat-controlled War Department had originally promised. And the Whigs were tired of it.
In one heated exchange that took place on March 20, 1848, after a senior Treasury official had meekly described the enormous war costs as “mistakes” and “miscalculations”, one conservative senator blasted his colleagues saying,
“Our [federal government] expenditures have become so enormous that a few ‘mistakes’ in the calculations of the Treasury Department-- a few mere slips of the pen-- involve a larger amount than the whole annual expenditure during the administration of [President Andrew] Jackson [in 1836].”
In other words, simply the cost overruns for the year 1848 were MORE than the entire federal budget just twelve years earlier.
The Whigs put their foot down and refused to vote on any further appropriations until there was a full audit of the war costs.
At the time, the federal government’s fiscal year ran from July 1 through June 30 (as opposed to now, the fiscal year runs from October 1 through September 30).
So as the June 30 deadline became closer, House Ways and Means Chairman Samuel Vinton became increasingly anxious.
Back then the federal government was much smaller, so there weren’t anywhere near as many programs that required Congressional funding as exist today. But there were still important government functions that needed money-- including the Army.
Vinton knew that he was responsible for passing the Army’s funding bill. So in session after session, he practically begged his colleagues to PLEASE vote on it.
Yet his cries fell on deaf ears. And at 12:01 am on July 1, 1848, the Army was ‘defunded’ by the 30th United States Congress for the first time.
Ultimately the Whigs wanted greater financial accountability of war costs, plus a drastic downsizing of the Army back to peacetime levels-- two perfectly reasonable asks. The Democrats finally caved several weeks later, and the stalemate ended on August 7, 1848, when Congress passed HR 618-- “an act making appropriations for the support of the Army [for Fiscal Year 1849].”
It’s notable that the Army’s entire budget from that appropriations bill was less than $8 million, with some ridiculously specific line items-- like $1,127,428.56 for food, subsistence, and provisions. They seriously added the fifty-six cents! It’s amazing that Congress actually cared about literally every penny back then.
Unfortunately, 1848 wasn’t the last time that Congress had a budget stalemate; in fact, it became typical for Congress to NOT pass appropriations bills before the Fiscal Year-end.
But whenever this happened, most federal agencies (including the military) had leftover money from the previous year to keep themselves funded for an extra month or so. Worst case the Treasury would advance them funds.
The bottom line is that no one ever had to ‘shut down’.
This changed in 1980. For most of his Presidential administration, Jimmy Carter had been at odds with Congress. And on April 25th that year, he asked his Attorney General, Benjamin Civiletti, to issue formal guidance about the possibility of a government shut down.
Civiletti complied and reinterpreted some obscure legislation from 1884 to conclude that no government agency would be allowed to operate unless it received formal appropriations from Congress.
Carter intended to use this legal interpretation as leverage to pressure Congress about proposed FTC legislation. Instead it backfired, and the first-ever government shutdown took place on May 1, 1980.
And ever since, thanks to Carter and his Attorney General, the US government is now under the threat of shutdown every single year.
In the past, most shutdowns (or at least funding gaps) have been because of specific disputes; in 1980 it was about the authority of the FTC. In 1848 it was over excess war spending.
But today’s shutdown is different. First-- it was totally preventable. And second, it’s not about a single issue (including the supposed Obamacare tax credit, which will almost certainly be extended).
Today’s shutdown is because two sides absolutely hate each other and refuse to work together.
Personally, I’m not losing any sleep over the Department of Commerce having to furlough employees. And frankly I don’t believe that any “non-essential” government job should even exist.
But the whole thing is a gigantic stain on the credibility of the US government.
This matters. Foreigners own $10+ trillion worth of US government bonds. It’s the very basis of America’s economic power abroad, and why the US dollar is the global reserve currency. Confidence in the US government is paramount in maintaining this system.
Foreign creditors tend to notice things like a full-blown government shutdown. And the fact that Congress is willing to burn everything down just to spite the other side.
Who would possibly want to continue buying US Treasury bonds when the federal government isn’t even willing to keep itself open for business?
Confidence is waning rapidly. And frankly we can see this in the price of gold, which just surpassed $4,100 as I write this. It’s not a speculative bubble; rather it’s a sad reflection of Congress’s collapsing credibility. And that credibility probably isn’t improving anytime soon.
To your freedom, James Hickman Co-Founder, Schiff Sovereign LLC
Podcast: Even at $4,000 Gold the Miners Are Ridiculously Cheap
Podcast: Even at $4,000 Gold the Miners Are Ridiculously Cheap
Notes From ther Field By James Hickman (Simon Black) October 8, 2025
Yesterday we wrote that with gold topping $4,000, it’s time to step back and look at the big picture—and the fundamentals haven’t changed.
Foreign governments and central banks hold about $10 trillion in US denominated reserves. But for years they’ve been trading this paper for gold— because it is their only realistic alternative.
Podcast: Even at $4,000 Gold the Miners Are Ridiculously Cheap
Notes From ther Field By James Hickman (Simon Black) October 8, 2025
Yesterday we wrote that with gold topping $4,000, it’s time to step back and look at the big picture—and the fundamentals haven’t changed.
Foreign governments and central banks hold about $10 trillion in US denominated reserves. But for years they’ve been trading this paper for gold— because it is their only realistic alternative.
Why are they searching for an alternative? Because they are losing confidence in the US government.
The debt, the political dysfunction, the weaponization of the dollar— these all make them less excited about loaning money to the US government.
And their steady buying of gold is what pushed it to these levels.
Those catalysts have not gone away, and if anything, are stronger than ever.
When a few hundred billion in demand can double the price of gold, imagine what happens if even a small portion of the remaining trillions rotate into gold.
Does 5% of dollar reserves shifting into gold translate to $10,000 gold? 20% re-allocation to $20,000 per ounce?
We don’t know exactly, but these numbers are not fantastical. There’s still enormous room for upside.
In the short term, of course, we can see plenty of noise.
Markets respond to headlines—like the new prime minister of Japan openly calling for more money-printing. Any environment like that naturally drives gold higher.
But at the same time, we’re seeing signals that a correction could be near—a stampede of new individual investors, record inflows into large gold ETFs, and a drop off in jewelry sales.
There are some classic signs of a short-term top.
But we don’t focus on short term trading. We always look at the long term big picture. And the long-term trend remains solidly intact.
So does the most important story of all right now: the much ignored mining sector.
Even after a massive run, many gold miners are still deeply undervalued relative to the long-term intrinsic value of their businesses.
One company featured in our premium investment research is up 5x in the past year. Yet even if gold fell back to $3,000, it would still be turning enough profit to trade at just four times earnings.
It’s debt-free. It pays a dividend. And it offers massive downside protection.
So while no one has a crystal ball—and we can’t tell you what happens tomorrow—the reality is that the mining, drilling, and service companies behind this bull market remain absurdly cheap.
That’s an opportunity to take seriously.
We dug into all of this in our latest podcast which you can listen to here.
For the audio-only version, check out our online post here.
Finally, you can find the podcast transcript for your convenience, here.
To your freedom, James Hickman Co-Founder, Schiff Sovereign LLC