Transcription
The technicals of silver versus gold say buy silver, not gold. Now, silver broke out of that $50 range. We're not that far above it now. You know, we're $69, $68 right now on a pullback. It's over. Far more erratic than gold, but nevertheless, silver moves like a commodity. No, it doesn't. It moves with gold. Now, often it moves with gold to a lesser extent. Silver's going to go in a, in a tantrum-type way to the new reality to get more relative valuation to gold than it currently is, which is like 1.6% of an ounce of gold.
So anybody looking at a price chart said, "Oh, that's it. It's over with. That's the top," etc., etc. You closed the week back above it. You blew through the low, ran all the sell stops, reversed the week, closed back above that low that you broke. It supposedly was the end of the world break. Gold slightly below it, $150 below it. What we've seen over the last five months plus is a healing process by the, what was broken, intermediate trend factors, intermediate and short-term. Nothing has upset the investment grade decision to be long silver or gold.
We're going to print, print, print to save bonds. To increase the money supply.
There was recent news with the CME launching weekend, like 24/7 futures trading on gold, silver, oil. And I know that there was a lot of, you know, speculation and concern about the manipulation, the paper price manipulation of the metals and such. Do you think that could be problematic for the movements in gold and silver, or do you think it's just a minor noise element on the side?
You're going to hear a lot of stories about supply, demand increase, or whatever. China's doing this, or or the issue you just brought up about futures versus real bullion or whatever. The Chinese pricing versus our pricing of silver, big difference there. All these things are just going to be rumbling around on the side. Some positive, most of them probably positive, but some negative. People can say, "Oh, that's, that's all that matters." No, it doesn't. What matters is the ongoing decay in the money unit. And silver is money.
Mhm.
People think [clears throat] of it only as an industrial metal now, but it moves with gold. It does not move. If you go back and look at the Bloomberg Commodity Index, for example, they think, "Well, silver moves like a commodity." No, it doesn't. It moves with gold. Now, often it moves with gold to a lesser extent. Meaning, gold might have a good move and silver has a good move, but less than gold. Right now, that has totally shifted. That changed back last November. Silver broke out relative to gold when you plot a spread chart of the two. Broke out of our 10-year range. Still very dirt cheap. So, is this money supply is the real issue? As that increases because the Fed has to print, print, print to save the bonds. And I take that quote from the uh Prime Minister of Japan, who was elected a year or so ago, and she said, uh, she's supposed to be a conservative type.
Markets gained access to more trading hours, yet the underlying currency measuring those gains keeps losing purchasing power. As Michael Oliver points out here, silver's behavior is tracking monetary stress more than industrial demand narratives. The overlooked signal is not futures volume, but the widening gap between expanding liquidity and public claims of monetary discipline. If that divergence persists, investors hiding in traditional diversification may discover they own more currency exposure than hard assets. Next, Michael Oliver exposes the one metric central banks are watching that proves they expect a devaluation cycle, not deflation.
Uh, we're going to print, print, print to save bonds. Well, that means you increase the money supply. Well, we take the book from Japan all the time. Bernanke did back in 2008 after we crashed the stock market in October, a full year off the high. 2007 October, 2008. In October 2008, you had like a crash month, and Lehman Brothers went out the month before. Finally, Bernanke said, "Screw it. I'm going to do QEs." Took a book out of the Japanese page, out of the Japanese book. We're doing the same thing now. So, really, the main issue is not this, that, or the other short-term metric like, uh, Commitment of Traders report or open interest in the COMEX, so forth and so on. Reality lives underneath all that. And ultimately, these seeming deviations or whatever you might see, they're going to be flushed out of the way. And also, manipulation will, too. I mean, if silver was manipulated, and I can buy that argument. I'll tell you why in a minute, but, um, it's no longer. It's saying, "I'm out of here, guys. I'm not going to stay in that 50-year confinement that I was in." Heck, copper didn't stay in its. Copper was in the range for decades between $0.50 and $1.50 a pound. In 2005, it broke out, and you know what happened? In several quarters, it quadrupled in price. Several quarters. $4.10. Now, we're $6.30, okay. Uh, same thing with lead. Lead did the same thing. A multi-decade sleepy little range like silver had. Five bucks to 55 to 55, etc. Lead broke out in 2010, quadrupled in several quarters. Went to a new reality. Boom. Didn't even have headlines.
This pattern appeared before prior policy pivots. Assets look stable until liquidity rules quietly changed underneath them. According to Michael Oliver, long trading ranges often end not with headlines, but with violent repricing once confidence shifts. The uncomfortable question is why markets celebrated intervention in 2008, yet treat perpetual support as normal today. For savers, the danger is assuming stability means value preservation when policy can redefine both overnight. Next, Michael Oliver reveals what institutional positioning says about silver's breakout narrative and why retail may notice last.
Now, silver broke out of that $50 range. And we're not that far above it now. You know, we're $69, $68 right now on a pullback. Um, it is yet to reach its new reality. And our assessment is on the variety of reasons. Technical, archival history of other markets that have done the same thing like copper, lead. Silver go to 3 to $500 and do so very rapidly. In fact, my bet is you come out of this congestion zone that we're in, let's say you show the evidence of that in the next several weeks or month, our our momentum evidence, you don't have to wait for price to go to $100 to prove the issue. Uh And I think you could be in that zone within a handful of months. So all these issues you raised, they're, they're, they're noise. You know, and whoever tried to restrain silver for 50 years, copper wasn't, gold wasn't, lead wasn't. How come silver was stuck in a $50 range? What's wrong with it, you know? Uh, it says, "Hey, no more. I made a mistake. I'm coming out of here." And I think it's a tantrum. And we've not even seen the tantrum yet.
Yeah. What, what are you seeing on the, on the momentum basis for, for silver? Uh, I know that's a, the metric you track and you've followed that closely. What are you seeing in there?
Well, we measure all markets on different time scales. Main emphasis for an investor is long-term trend momentum, not what happens this week or next or the next three or four or five months. That doesn't matter unless you're a trader. Okay? If you look at silver and gold since 2015, they've risen nicely. Okay? Silver far more erratic than gold, but nevertheless an upward bias. And if you've tried to, if you flipped out of your position every time there was a shakeout of
Silver breaking a decades-long range sounds exciting, but the bigger risk is assuming breakouts move in straight lines. What Michael Oliver is highlighting is that momentum shifts often arrive before consensus narratives catch up. Markets rarely announce regime change politely. They punish investors trained to wait for confirmation. For long-term wealth protection, the real mistake may not be volatility, but abandoning positions every time sentiment turns defensive. Next, Michael Oliver exposes why momentum signals are diverging from the story institutions are selling.
double-digit percentages, thinking, "Oh, that's it." You were wrong. Cuz the real problem then is once you got out, assuming you didn't sell the top tick of the, of the congestion zone before the congestion occurred, uh, where did you get back in? Or did you get back in? And I bet if you got back in, you got in higher than where you got out. Okay? So, that was the, the guy who did better looked at long-term factors. And we look at long-term momentum like silver and gold's annual momentum. What's that? It's where we measure each month's action in its oscillator relationship to, let's say, a 36-month average or a 3-year average. Where we plot the bar, where is it in relation to that? Not on a price chart, but on an oscillator. And you are you above it or are you below the zero line? And when you plot the oscillator, there's no, there's been no breakage in this break. It's a sharp break, but still in the context of an ongoing long-term momentum uptrend. The only thing that broke in silver and gold in that January-February break, day and a half collapse, you broke intermediate trend factors. So, you you cracked a knee bone. And you slumped. But if you really look at the, what's happened since then in the healing process, is sideways on price. Up, down, up, down, above that low. In fact, silver right now is above the Feb low. Feb low was $64. We're six months later, five and a half, six months later, and where are you? You're still above it.
Mhm.
Okay. Gold slightly below it, up $150 below it. But the point is that what we've seen over the last five months plus is a healing process by the, what was broken, intermediate trend factors, intermediate and short-term. Nothing has upset the investment grade decision to be long silver or gold.
Most investors don't lose money during corrections. They lose it trying to avoid them. Michael Oliver's argument suggests the damage this year hit short-term sentiment more than long-term structure. The overlooked cost is behavioral. Exiting during volatility and reentering at worse prices feels safe, but compounds erosion over time. Savers protecting purchasing power should separate temporary weakness from structural trend shifts. Next, Michael Oliver reveals the contradiction between price weakness and underlying momentum repair.
Okay. So, right now silver, uh, just as you mentioned, like it's, you know, it's hovering around at $64 and above. Uh, so, how long could you see this consolidation happening? [clears throat]
I think it's probably ending, probably ending now with this week's low. Last week in our weekend report, we suggested especially regarding the minors, cuz they made a prominent low back in, I think it was March. So when silver made its low at $61, by the way, when it swept the February low at $64, nothing happened. Silver immediately shot back up. The minors broke through that price low. So anybody looking at a price chart said, "Oh, that's it. It's over with. That's the top," etc., etc. You closed the week back above it. Would you? You blew through the low, ran all the sell stops and reversed. The week closed back above that low that you broke that supposedly was the end of the world break, okay? And we're going to go down forever. Uh, I think that was probably the flush low in the monetary metals, this week's action. And it's not going to take much follow-through next week to trigger enough intermediate trend momentum factors, the ones that were broken back in that Jan-Feb break to say, "Okay, we've righted that issue. We're now, the intermediate stuff that was broken is now healed itself. It's now positive and it's rejoining the long-term trend." Cuz they were in opposite trends, you know? One was still positive, one said, "I'm negative now." I think the intermediate's about to shift back to positive, at which point then we'll pound the table to define it with some numbers and suggest to people that this the rally you're seeing is not just another rally. It's this time you're coming up out of here. I think that's where we are. Um, period.
Yeah. So, so with the minors, uh, like I feel like I've been, I've been actually accumulating more, more of the, the mining stocks.
Markets often break support right before reversing because weak hands must exit before strong hands accumulate. This is where Michael Oliver's thesis shifts from prediction to positioning. If intermediate momentum turns while sentiment stays negative, institutions gain time to build exposure before headlines change. For investors focused on preserving capital, the question becomes whether panic signals opportunity or confirmation bias. Next, Michael Oliver exposes the positioning behavior that appears before major commodity repricing cycles.
I did buy a little bit of physical silver and physical gold on the recent, the recent price action. But the miners seem to be like just getting oversold. And so just curious to hear your thoughts on the miners. It seems like they're, they're, they're struggling a lot more.
Recently struggled a lot, but when you stand back and measure month to month and go back several years, they're beating gold.
Mhm.
Beating gold, okay? And what's overhead when you plot the pricing of the miners relative to an ounce of gold? When we go back to the 1980s and do this with the XAU index, which is the Philadelphia gold and silver miners index. It's been around since the 1980s. And you plot where that was in its relation to an ounce of gold. They divide XAU price into gold expressed as a percent plotted month to month. For multiple decades, it was in a relative valuation of about 25% of the price of an ounce of gold. Up and down like to 35% at times. It got down to 17 and a half percent a couple times. So, but median for decades was 25%. In 2015, when the bear market ended in gold and silver and the miners, the net price, it got down to 4%. Okay. Something that used to be 25% on average went to 4%. What do you think? What's to do? Go to zero? Okay. You want to buy low. You know, just forget whether it's a buy then or not. It's off-the-page priced low relative to that which it gets out of the ground. Right now, it's trading either side of 8%. So, meaning since the bear low in 2015 to the present, over 10 years, [clears throat] the miners have basically doubled in relative value to gold. Despite the upward curve you see in gold.
Mining stocks look weak only if you ignore what they're outperforming underneath the surface. As Michael Oliver points out here, relative valuation, not price alone, changes the entire story. When an asset class recovers from extreme discount levels, most investors dismiss it because the headlines still feel bearish. The hidden portfolio risk is waiting for comfort, while institutions price in normalization first. Next, Michael Oliver unravels why minor underperformance may be the wrong benchmark entirely.
There's also one in the miners, but they're actually at a relative level that's double where they were in 2015. So, 10 years of investment in gold, you'd have done better in the miners, despite what you think about how they're behaving. They still are, even with this recent break, they're outperforming. If you get above the recent highs that we saw in the XAU index versus gold, or even we measure GDX versus gold, there's been a range for the last 10 years. The upper end of that range, they've punched at it and punched at it and punched at it. You go much above the recent spread highs that we've seen. Like you get XAU up to about 8.6% again. You get GDX up to certain levels that be comparable. They're going to break out of this 10-year base which they're now at the top end of of relative performance. Still very, very cheap. XAU is like 8%. It used to be 25, okay? You break out of that spread base, the relative performance, then you're really going to gush the miners on the upside relative to gold. They could double or triple in relative value to gold. That's what we think is a better place to be. So, watch gold, but I prefer the miners, especially silver miners.
Yeah. Yeah, for sure. Yeah, that's definitely where I've been parking majority of my capital uh here in the, the recent uh days. Uh, so, uh, where do you see gold heading on a momentum basis? Um
We [clears throat] don't have a firm target except to say this. I've said it many times, probably to you in an interview before, as well. Uh, if you go back and look at the bull markets of gold that gold has generated since it was legalized in 2000, uh, 1975.
Everybody watches gold's headline price while the relative trade quietly builds underneath. According to Michael Oliver, miners approaching decade-long relative highs may matter more than spot metal targets. Historically, breakouts become obvious only after the easy move already happened. Investors protecting long-term purchasing power should ask whether they're chasing visibility instead of positioning ahead of recognition. Next, Michael Oliver reveals why historical gold cycles may understate what comes next.
Both of the bull markets, different price zones, different time spans, were eightfold gains from bear low to bull high. Eightfold. 1976 low to 1980. 2001 to 2011, eight times the low of the bear market that preceded it. Our bear market low was $1050. Means you could go well over $8,000 just to simply match what gold has done twice before since it's been legalized. Okay, that's no big deal. Say, "Oh, I did it before. I'll do it again." Okay, big deal. Three times. The fundamentals out there and the technicals say, "Nah, you might go a lot further than that." But at minimum, if you went there, that's not really overdone. It's something you've done twice before. Silver on the other hand hasn't done that. It's only recently that it managed to get up out of that range. It's like, you know, gold went up to $850 in 1980. It's like silver is only just now, late last year, finally taken out that high of 1980. Okay, gold took it out twice now, you know. Uh, And I think silver's going to go in a, in a tantrum-type way to the new reality to get more relative valuation to gold than it currently is, which is like 1.6% of an ounce of gold. Uh, I think it could go back up to where it was in 1980, 6.5% price of. Meaning, you know, quintuple its relative value to gold. Uh, so, that again emphasizes, and the technicals verify this, the technicals of silver versus gold say, "Buy silver, not gold." Um, that the place to be in the monetary metals now is no longer the mama metal, it's silver and the miners with emphasis on the silver miners.
Yeah. Yeah, got you. Got you. So, uh, do you follow the platinum group metals?
The dangerous assumption is believing yesterday's leaders must lead the next cycle, too. What Michael Oliver is highlighting is that historical gold multiples may not automatically translate into future relative performance when one asset already absorbed institutional attention. Capital often hunts where repricing has barely started. Investors anchored to old narratives risk defending familiarity instead of adapting to changing monetary leadership. Next, Michael Oliver exposes the hidden relationship between silver valuation and capital rotation.
Platinum group metals are not monetary. People like to call all the metals precious metals. Gold and silver are monetary metals. They've been money for 3,000 years. Platinum is a, in precious industrial metal. If you study platinum going back through the decades, it doesn't always sync, probably 50% of the time, sync with gold. In synchronization with gold. Platinum only just woke up out of a multi-year basing range at very low levels last year. But gold woke up long before that. Okay, if Bloom, if you look at the Bloomberg Commodity Index and platinum, you'll see that is where the synchronization is. So, if you want to know why is platinum going up, it's not cuz of gold, it's cuz the overall Bloomberg Commodity Index has risen and it moves sometimes a lot more, sometimes less than does the overall commodity complex. Same with palladium. Uh, they're in positive sync. They're getting a pullback now just like gold.
Precious doesn't automatically mean monetary, and that distinction changes investor behavior. Michael Oliver's argument suggests platinum's move may reflect commodity participation rather than a direct vote against currencies. That creates a contradiction with the common narrative that all metals signal the same macro outcome. For wealth preservation, misclassifying assets can produce false diversification exactly when conditions change.