Transcription
Gold and silver were down based on the renewed tension in the Gulf. They're going to borrow it and they're going to print it. It's the stock market that should be going down. The food and energy in particular, cuz fertilizer and oil and gas. Those prices are going to be permanently higher. This is bad news. I mean, maybe it's good news for the oil stocks.
Bonds also went down, which is bearish for the stock market and the economy. The yield on the a 10-year Treasury closed above 4 and 1/2% on a weekly basis. Rising bond yields are obviously a negative for the real estate market. And a negative for the real estate market is bullish for gold and silver. Because what happens if we have a big drop in the real estate market? Well, the Fed has to come in and bail everybody out. We get more money printing. We get more inflation.
They expected housing sales to rise, existing home sales, instead they fell by 2.4% on the month. Year-over-year now. So, there is an affordability crisis. Homes have never been less affordable. But you're diminishing the rights of the owner of that property to sell it to whoever he wants.
Gold and silver were down based on the renewed tension in the Gulf. Gold was down about 1%. I mean, not that big a drop. Uh, closed the week at 4,119.40. Silver though, down 3 and 1/2% below $60, $59.76. But it was the gold and silver mining stocks that really took it on the chin. The GDX was down 5% and the smaller ones, GDXJ, uh, were down 6%.
But the news was actually bullish for gold, bullish for silver. The fact that the war is going to continue is bearish for stocks, but not for gold and silver. Gold and silver benefit not only from the uncertainty that surrounds war, but from the inflation that always finances it. And because this war is not ending, and it may never end. I mean, this is again, is a huge quagmire that Trump has gotten us into. Just as bad as Afghanistan or Iraq, another huge mistake. Only this time you could chalk it up to Trump. Uh, but it's going to cost us a lot of money. The war is going to cost us a lot of money. The peace, if we ever get it, is probably going to cost us even more money. Uh, where's that money going to come from? They're They're going to borrow it, and they're going to print it. It's going to drive people out of the dollar and into gold and and silver. So, the metals should be rising on this news. It's the stock market that should be going down based on the prospects of bigger budget deficits and higher inflation.
>> Markets fell where fear usually drives money, and that contradiction deserves more attention than the price decline itself. Peter Schiff notes that war rarely ends without larger deficits and expanding liquidity. Yet, precious metals weakened instead of strengthening. That disconnect suggests traders are reacting to short-term positioning while ignoring the inflationary consequences governments typically create. Long-term investors should watch policy responses, not daily volatility. Next, Peter Schiff reveals why today's price action contradicts the fiscal reality developing beneath the headlines.
>> In fact, it should be obvious by now that Iran now controls the Strait of Hormuz. They had no control over it before the war, nor did they have any pretense to take control. And in fact, had we done nothing, had we not started a war against Iran, and Iran had just taken over the strait, the whole world would have united around us to repel that, to put a stop to that, because they would have been the bad guys. But we gave Iran an excuse to do what they probably always wanted to do, but could never find an excuse to do it until we dropped it in their lap. So we basically fell into their trap by attacking them and created a pretext for them to take over the strait. And now they're going to be charging a toll, probably forever, for the ships that are going through there. That is going to substantially increase the cost of everything that transports through that strait. Which is going to be food and energy in particular, cuz fertilizer and and oil and gas, right? So those prices are going to be permanently higher. This is bad news. I mean, maybe it's good news for the oil stocks, but, you know, it's not good news for the overall stock market. It's not good news for the economy. And that's good news for gold and silver, cuz bad news for the economy means more government stimulus, more inflation, more money printing. The irony of this is that everything that's happening is bearish for stocks, yet stocks are going up. It's bullish for gold and silver, yet gold and silver are going down.
>> Markets are celebrating while one of the world's most critical shipping routes faces rising geopolitical uncertainty. According to Peter Schiff, prolonged disruptions to energy and trade eventually feed inflation long after headlines disappear. Investors often underestimate how supply shocks reshape fiscal policy, forcing governments toward larger deficits and renewed monetary support. That's the environment where wealth preservation usually matters most. Next, Peter Schiff exposes why resilient stock prices may be masking a far more inflationary reality beneath the surface.
>> Now, bonds also went down, which is bearish for the stock market and the economy. The yield on the uh 10-year Treasury closed above 4 and 1/2% on a weekly basis now. 4.56 is the 10-year. And on the 30-year, we're now back above five, 5.06. And more significant than where the yields are now is where the yields are headed. Because if you look at a chart of the bond market, it looks to me like there's going to be a major breakdown uh in in that market. Uh, we're going to see a sharp fall in the price of of bonds. And that means a big rise in the the yields. And that is a big negative for the stock market. It's a negative for the economy. It's a negative for the housing market. In fact, the 30-year uh mortgage, I think went out at about 6 and 1/2%. And I'm going to talk about housing uh after this uh this break that's coming up. Uh, I got a lot to say about housing in this podcast. So, I'm going to table that for a minute. But, rising bond yields are obviously a negative for uh the real estate market. So, and a negative for the real estate market is bullish for gold and silver. Because what happens if we have a big drop in the real estate market? Well, the Fed has to come in and bail everybody out. We get more money printing. We get more inflation. So, I do believe that the precious metals market is setting up for a major move up. And the stock market is setting up for a major move down.
>> The bond market is flashing warnings that equity investors seem determined to ignore. What Peter Schiff is highlighting is that 10-year yields above 4.5% historically tighten financial conditions before economic weakness becomes obvious. Rising borrowing costs, pressure housing, corporate profits, and government finances simultaneously, even while headlines stay optimistic. Investors focused only on stocks could miss the larger macro shift. Next, Peter Schiff unravels why housing may become the trigger markets still refuse to price in.
>> Okay, before I get into housing, just a couple more markets I wanted to mention. The dollar was flat on the week, which I thought was significant in that the dollar didn't get a bump out of the renewed war. And so, I think that's a bearish sign for the dollar, which again is a bullish sign for gold and silver. And oil prices up about 5%. I think oil prices are going a lot higher. In fact, I'm surprised oil didn't move up even more this week. So, I expect oil prices to continue to build on these gains, which are ultimately going to be bearish for the bond market, which should be bearish for the stock market, and bullish for gold and silver. I think it's irrelevant to Bitcoin. I mean, Bitcoin has already proven that it's not correlated to gold. It's not correlated to tech stocks anymore. Although I believe that when tech stocks go down, Bitcoin will be correlated. It just doesn't go up when tech stocks go up. But when tech stocks go down, it's going to go down a lot more. But I want to pivot and and talk about housing. And that's because this new bill, the 21st Century Road to Housing Bill, will become law on Saturday without the president's John Hancock. Donald Trump refused to sign this bill. And he shouldn't sign it. It's a bad bill. Now, I thought he should have vetoed it, but it passed with such overwhelming support that even if Trump vetoed the bill, Congress could have overrode it. And maybe Trump didn't want to have that fight. He didn't want to risk the embarrassment of having his veto overridden.
>> A flat dollar during renewed geopolitical tension is a signal most investors never stopped to question. Peter Schiff's argument suggests capital is becoming less responsive to traditional safe haven narratives, despite rising global uncertainty. If oil keeps climbing while the dollar stalls, inflation expectations could strengthen faster than policy makers admit. That combination threatens conventional portfolios more than precious metals. Next, Peter Schiff reveals why Washington's housing agenda may deepen economic distortions instead of solving them.
>> I mean, if I was Trump, I would have vetoed it. I would have been proud to veto it, and I would have tried to convince some other Republicans to stand with me and and and and reverse their votes. But, I think he realized he didn't have the numbers, and so he just didn't sign the bill. Now, he his excuse for not signing it was not like, "Oh, it's a bad bill. I don't want to sign it." He basically said, "Look, unless uh I get the Save America Act signed, I ain't signing this bill." So, he was kind of holding his signature hostage to this other bill. And I'm going to talk about the Save America Act a bit in the next segment. Uh, right now I want to talk about about housing. So, he's not signing the bill, but it's going to become law. Now, anything that has overwhelming bipartisan support is probably a bad bill. I mean, pretty much you you you can tell when you have a consensus where the Democrats and the Republicans they both like it you got to know it's bad because it's full of goodies and the whole idea behind this bill is that it's going to make housing more affordable that they're addressing this housing affordability crisis which we have in fact that was confirmed yesterday we got some housing numbers we got existing home sales which unexpectedly fell now I don't I don't know why people didn't expect this but they didn't they expected housing sales to rise existing home sales instead they fell by 2.4% on the month year over year now housing affordability keeps worsening even as lawmakers promise another solution to fix it this is where Peter Schiff's thesis shifts from politics toward incentives arguing that bipartisan support often expands intervention rather than restoring market balance falling home sales despite policy optimism suggests affordability remains fundamentally broken families protecting long-term wealth should focus on structural risks not political messaging next Peter Schiff exposes why the proposed cure may actually reinforce the housing crisis home sales are up but only 2.8% as of the prior month they were up 3.2% but what's also significant and not unrelated is that home prices rose to the highest ever so people aren't buying houses but housing prices are going up but which maybe doesn't even make sense because you would think that people would have to be buying houses to push the price up they're not buying them and the price is going up anyway but one of the reasons they're not buying is because the prices are going up if prices were coming down then maybe more people could afford to buy but because prices keep going up they can't buy and so sales are falling And so there is an affordability crisis. Homes have never been less affordable than they are right now. In all of American history, housing has never been less affordable. And that flies in the face of over 50 years. In fact, more than 50 years. I mean, it started in 1930s. So, 90 years, right? But ever since the 1930s, the government has decided to make home ownership a priority, to make it easier for people to buy homes, to make housing more affordable. Yet, it's more unaffordable than ever. And you know what? That is not a coincidence. That's not irony. That is actually the predictable consequence of America's policy. So, here you have Congress passing this 21st century road to housing bill, pretending that this is going to solve the affordability problem. It is going to do nothing to solve that problem. But the problem itself was created by Congress. The US government is the reason that housing is so unaffordable.
>> Record home prices alongside weakening sales expose a policy failure few officials acknowledge publicly. Peter Schiff notes that decades of intervention have coincided with housing becoming less affordable, not more accessible. The contradiction isn't accidental if incentives consistently inflate demand without expanding real affordability. Investors should question policies that repeatedly produce the opposite of their stated goal. Next, Peter Schiff reveals who actually benefits from housing becoming permanently less affordable.
>> And this bill will do nothing about that. What the bill does do is destroy private property rights because it restricts ownership of single-family homes. It says that companies that own, I think it's like a 350 homes or whatever it is, there's a certain cutoff and once you own that many homes, you can't buy any more. And they're thinking that this is the reason that housing is so expensive is because you have these big corporations buying houses. They're a small part of the market. Maybe in a couple of cities it could be significant, but overall, this is not going to make much of a difference. But what everybody is overlooking is not the fact that you're diminishing the right of a corporation to buy property, but you're diminishing the rights of the owner of that property to sell it to whoever he wants. I mean, if I own a piece of property, I should be able to sell my property to anybody I want. But the government is saying, "No, you can't sell it to a company that already owns a bunch of houses, even if that company is willing to pay you a higher price than everybody else." So, you're diminishing my property values, you're diminishing my rights as an owner of property to sell it to the highest bidder. So, I think it's a slippery slope of taking away property rights. I think it's unconstitutional that they're doing this, but so many things the government does is unconstitutional anyway. So, I don't expect that many congressmen to to to you know, vote against it based on constitutionality, but it is bad policy to do this.
>> Policies marketed as predicting bias can quietly reduce the rights of every property owner. According to Peter Schiff, restricting who may purchase assets changes ownership incentives without addressing the true drivers of affordability. Institutional narratives often focus on corporate bias while overlooking broader credit distortions created by government policy. Savers should watch the rules governing ownership, not just asset prices. Next, Peter Schiff unravels why limiting investors could ultimately push housing costs even higher.
>> And it is also going to result in fewer homes being built because the investor pool to buy them is diminished. I think it will result in fewer single-family homes for rent, which means higher rents for single-family homes, which will impact people who want to rent them. Uh, but I want to get into the bigger issue. And that is what the government has done to the housing market. All the government policies that are designed to make home ownership more affordable actually made homes more expensive. The main policies the government has is you got the FHA, Federal Housing Authority, uh Federal Hou- Federal Housing [clears throat] Agency, which you know, guarantees mortgages directly, low down payment mortgages. And then you got Fannie and Freddie, uh, which were created, which have implicit, now explicit, government guarantees where they can buy up mortgages, repackage them, and and issue them with government guarantees. All of this is designed to make it easier for people to borrow more money to go out and buy houses. Also, the tax code incentivizes a home purchase by giving you a deduction for your mortgage interest. And so, when people are looking at the cost of a home versus the cost of renting, they take into account the tax deductibility of the interest to the extent that they itemize, and most homeowners would itemize. Uh, they would take advantage of that deduction. And so, the tax deductibility of mortgage interest, as well as property taxes and things like that, reduces the the the money that you spend. But all of this increases demand.
>> Policies that promise affordability can quietly plant the seeds for tomorrow's shortages instead. What Peter Schiff is highlighting is that subsidized credit expands purchasing power faster than housing supply, keeping prices elevated over time. That imbalance rewards leverage while steadily eroding affordability for future buyers and renters alike. Long-term investors should recognize when incentives distort market signals. Next, Peter Schiff reveals why decades of housing policy produced exactly the opposite outcome promised.
>> If you make it so people can borrow more money to buy houses, they have more money to spend on houses. If you allow people to deduct their mortgage, they can borrow more money to pay higher prices. Now, if the government gave one person those benefits, if one guy could deduct a mortgage interest, uh, or um got a guaranteed loan, yeah, sure. That would help that one guy because now he can go and buy a house and and and and save money. But if everybody has the same benefit, if everybody can go out and deduct their mortgage, if everybody can get a government guaranteed mortgage, then everybody is just bidding against one another. Everybody has more money to buy houses. So, what happens? The price of houses goes up. It's not rocket science. If you If you increase demand, then price goes up. That's what happens. And so, the government's policy has a backfired. Instead of making homeownership more affordable, they've made it more expensive. Housing is overpriced, but also because of all these government subsidies that stimulated demand, right? And none of this is the free market. The free market would have produced an opposite result. If we had a free market in housing, there would be no affordability crisis. Housing would be very affordable and very plentiful, just like everything that the free market provides. It's not an accident that the where the government is most involved, education, health care, housing, that's where prices keep going up. It's because the government doesn't allow the market to work.
>> The biggest housing subsidy may be the very force keeping homes permanently expensive. Peter Schiff's argument suggests government-backed demand inflates prices because every buyer receives the same borrowing advantage simultaneously. That creates higher bids rather than greater affordability, leaving savers chasing ever-rising asset values. Investors should question policies that consistently reward debt over productive capital.