If you’ve read me for any time at all, you know I’m a believer in keeping at least a little bit of your net worth in gold and ideally in physical form.

If owning coins or bars of gold is impractical (or if you invest primarily via an IRA), then a low-cost gold ETF like the SPDR Gold MiniShares (GLDM) is a solid option.

This is not ideological or political.

It’s basic math.

Gold and regular U.S. common stocks (i.e. the S&P 500) both tend to rise over time.

But they don’t always rise at the same time. The number will change depending on the precise time period you cover, but the correlation between gold and stock price movements ranges from slightly negative to slightly positive, hovering close to zero.

In pain English, this means that they move independently of each other. They each march to the beat of their own respective drummers. So, owning both gives you real diversification. And actively rebalancing between the two after major price moves allows you to constantly buy low and sell high. (Sizemore Capital does this in our Adaptive Asset Allocation, by the way. Please reach out if you’d like for me to walk you though it one on one.)

For what it is worth, gold has absolutely beaten the pants off of stocks over the past two decades. Since November 2024, when the launch of the SPDR Gold Shares (GLD) really made gold accessible to rank and file investors for the first time, the price of GLD is up 876%.

The State Street SPDR S&P 500 ETF?

“Only” 494%.

Great!

All of this explains why it’s a good idea to always have a little gold in your portfolio. But now let’s talk about why you should specifically own some today.

The price of gold cratered after the onset of the war in Iran, making some investors question its value as a true crisis hedge. But as Daniel Doge explains, it’s very normal for gold to fall at the beginning of a crisis when investors are in panic mode and hoarding cash.

You know the disclaimer… past performance is no guarantee of future results. But past performance does show a pronounced pattern here. After an initial setback, gold tends to perform well coming out of crises.

Or at least it has over the past 50 years!

You can view Doge’s full piece here. I’ve included an excerpt below, edited for brevity.

Enjoy!

Charles

The Last Time Gold Did This, It Tripled

By Daniel Doge

In the fall of 1978, gold was getting destroyed.

The Shah of Iran had just imposed martial law, strikes were spreading, and the streets of Tehran were on fire. Gold, the one asset that was supposed to protect you when the world fell apart, dropped 22% in a matter of weeks.

Investors panicked, sold, and swore it was over.

Twelve months later, gold ripped more than 300% to its all-time high.

I think about that moment a lot right now. Because what just happened in the gold market is almost identical, and I don’t think anyone is reading it correctly.

The Setup Nobody Wants to Talk About

Gold hit roughly $5,600 in late February. The Iran war started on February 28th. And instead of rallying, like most people expected, gold cratered.

It fell to an intraday low around $4,100 on March 23rd. A 25% drawdown from the highs.

The Daily Sentiment Index, one of the most reliable contrarian indicators in commodity markets, hit 15 for gold and 19 for silver. Weeks earlier, both sat in the high 80s.

Sentiment went from euphoria to despair in less than a month…

If you’ve been reading me for any length of time, you know what I think about moments like this. This is where fortunes are made. Not when everything feels safe. Not when the charts are clean and the talking heads are bullish. Right here. In the wreckage.

The question isn’t whether gold is going higher. The question is whether you have the structure to hold it when it does.

The Pattern That Keeps Repeating

Here’s what the financial media won’t show you. Gold has sold off violently during every major oil shock and financial crisis of the last 50 years, and every single time, it came back stronger.

Not a little stronger. Dramatically stronger.

• 1973—OPEC Oil Embargo
  Gold dropped 29% during the Yom Kippur War. By December 1974, it had risen 117%.

• 1978—Iranian Revolution
  Gold fell 22% as the Shah’s regime collapsed. It surged over 300% by January 1980.

• 2000—Internet Crash
  Gold fell 18%, bottoming in the low $260s. It eventually ran past $1,000.

• 2008—Global Financial Crisis
  Gold dropped 34% after Bear Stearns. It bottomed in the autumn, right before QE1. Then it ran 180% to over $1,900.

The average drawdown across those four episodes is just over 25%.

Gold’s drawdown from its February high to the March 23rd intraday low: almost exactly 25%.

And if history rhymes even loosely, what comes next could be one of the most explosive moves in gold’s history.

Franco-Nevada co-founder Pierre Lassonde, a man who has spent his entire career in precious metals, has said gold could break $17,000 an ounce if it follows a path similar to the late 1970s.

Before you dismiss that number, look at the chart comparing U.S. inflation today to the 1970s cycle. The trajectories are eerily similar. And Iran connects both.

The Fed’s Impossible Choice

The Federal Reserve is trapped.

Fourth-quarter GDP growth was just revised down to 2.0% year-over-year—a three-year low. Real per capita disposable income is falling. Consumption is weakening. The economy is slowing.

At the same time, core PCE and core PPI are both above 3% and rising, and that was before oil spiked 40%.

With Brent well above $90, the inflationary impulse from energy hasn’t even fully hit the data yet. It takes weeks for those costs to filter through supply chains, agriculture, transportation, and consumer prices.

So the Fed faces a choice with no good answer.

If they hike rates to fight inflation, they risk breaking an already fragile economy. Private credit markets are already under stress. A rate hike could trigger a deflationary crisis similar to what followed Lehman.

If they cut rates to support growth, they pour gasoline on an inflation fire that’s already burning.

If they do nothing, they watch stagflation eat the economy alive while Treasury yields climb higher on their own.

The last time the Fed faced a setup like this was August 2008. Dallas Fed President Richard Fisher argued for a 25 basis point rate hike, even while acknowledging the economy was weak and the financial system was “brittle.”

One month later, Lehman Brothers collapsed. The Fed was forced to backstop global banks with over $8 trillion in liquidity and launch the first of several QE programs.

Gold bottomed during that crisis. And from October 2008 to March 2009, while the S&P 500 fell another 22%, gold rallied 32%, and the gold miners roughly doubled.

That’s the kind of asymmetry I’m looking for right now.

The One Thing You Should Do Right Now

I’m not going to tell you to go all-in on gold miners tomorrow morning. That’s not how I operate. What I am going to tell you is this:

Audit your portfolio for hard-asset exposure.

If you own zero gold, zero silver, and zero mining stocks, you are making a bet.

You are betting that the Fed will thread the needle perfectly. That inflation will cool on its own. That the Iran war will resolve quickly. That Treasury yields will behave. That the dollar will hold.

That’s a lot of bets to get right simultaneously.

Gold doesn’t need everything to go wrong. It just needs one of those assumptions to break. And right now, most of them are already breaking.

Start with a core position in physical gold or a gold-backed trust. Then look at the miners. The gold miner ETFs are testing critical trendlines right now.

A successful hold of those levels would be a powerful signal that the correction has run its course.

If you already own gold and miners, this drawdown is not a reason to sell. It’s a reason to hold and potentially add. Sentiment is at extremes, the pattern is clear, and the macro setup is as bullish for gold as anything I’ve seen in my career.

The Bottom Line

Gold’s 25% drawdown mirrors the four most important bottoms of the last half-century, each of which preceded explosive rallies of 100% to 300% or more.

The Fed is trapped between inflation and recession with no clean exit. And sentiment has reached the kind of bearish extreme that historically marks the end of corrections, not the beginning of something worse.

Once this bearishness runs its course, and the evidence suggests it already has, gold could eventually double or triple from here. North of $10,000 an ounce.

I like that risk-reward.

The world is telling you something right now. The question is whether you’re listening, or whether you’re doing what most people do in moments like this: selling the bottom because it feels safer than holding through the fear.

Prepare and act. That’s what separates the people who build wealth from the people who watch it happen to someone else.

Daniel Doge

For all the talk of decarbonizing the economy over the past 20 years, it’s shocking how rarely nuclear energy was brought up as a zero-emission alternative. Solar and wind, while useful additions, were never viable for base load power. It was absurd to ever pretend otherwise.

Thankfully, that has changed. The U.S. government has accepted reality and aggressively pushed into nuclear energy, pledging to increase nuclear output by 300%.

The impetus for this was the massive power needs of AI.

Frankly, I’m not convinced AI is going to be quite as big of an energy hog as advertised. In every case I can remember, technology has always gotten more energy efficient over time. I don’t know why AI would automatically be different. Somewhere there’s a brilliant engineer out there figuring out how to train and run AI on the cheap. When the incentive exists, competitive capitalism has a way of delivering the goods.

But here’s the thing.

Even if the AI capital spending bubble bursts — and I expect that it will — the nuclear buildout will continue. America was thirsty for energy long before AI because a buzzword. And the plans in place can’t be turned on a dime.

But let’s say I’m wrong about that. Let’s say the AI bubble bursts and all new nuclear energy development grinds to a halt. Well, we’re still looking at fantastic conditions for a durable bull market in uranium. Our existing nuclear energy is already using more uranium than is being mined… and these deficit conditions have been in place for 13 years and counting.

I would go into detail but, frankly, Daniel Doge has already done a better job than I ever could of explaining the factors likely to push uranium prices hundreds of percent higher from here.

You can read his full analysis here, and I strongly recommend you do, as Daniel does excellent work. But I have included a lengthy excerpt below, edited slightly for brevity.

Be sure to read through to the end because I offer a few recommendations on how to play this bull market.

The Last Time This Happened, Uranium Jumped 20X

By Daniel Doge

Uranium has been in a structural supply deficit for thirteen consecutive years.

For thirteen straight years, the world’s nuclear power plants have consumed more uranium than miners have pulled out of the ground.

And during that time, utilities, the people who actually need this fuel to keep the lights on, have only contracted for about 45% of their annual consumption.

They’ve been kicking the can down the road. Drawing down inventories. Assuming someone else will solve the problem.

Grant Isaac, President of Cameco, one of the world’s largest uranium producers, put it bluntly at a recent conference:

“If we had all our fuel buyers in one room, the reality is not a single one of them doubts this gap. They all understand that the uranium price needs to go up. Just 100% of them believe it’s somebody else’s problem.”

Every single buyer knows the price has to rise. Every single one thinks they won’t be the one caught holding the bill.

That’s a game of musical chairs. And the music is slowing down.

The Demand Tsunami

Six years ago, the World Nuclear Association estimated that global reactors would need about 260 million pounds of uranium annually by 2040.

In 2023, they revised that number to 328 million pounds. Their latest estimate? 390 million pounds.

A 50% increase in projected demand in six years. And what’s driving this demand is real policy commitments from the world’s largest economies:

• The U.S. aims to begin construction of at least eight large reactors by 2030 and quadruple nuclear capacity by 2050.

• China is targeting 400 GW of nuclear capacity by 2060 — 26 reactors under construction, 42 more planned.

• Japan is restarting reactors and targeting 20–22% of energy from nuclear by 2030.

• South Korea reversed its nuclear phase-out entirely.

• The UK is planning 16 GW of new capacity.

We’re witnessing a global policy stampede toward nuclear power driven by AI’s insatiable appetite for electricity, the need for energy security, and the reality that you cannot decarbonize a modern economy without nuclear baseload power.

Every single one of those reactors needs uranium to run. And the supply side? It’s a mess.

The Supply Side Is Broken

Global uranium production last year came in around 165 million pounds.

Annual demand from the existing reactor fleet, before any new builds come online, runs between 190 and 200 million pounds.

That’s a deficit of 25 to 35 million pounds per year, right now, today.

And it’s getting worse.

Kazakhstan has supplied roughly 40% of the world’s uranium for years. Now its largest mines are nearing peak output.

Niger, historically an important supplier to Europe, saw its elected government overthrown by a military junta in 2023. The junta seized control of the country’s main uranium mine. Last year, production was zero.

In Canada, the McArthur River mine lowered its 2025 output due to development delays. In the U.S., in-situ recovery mines have resumed operations but are running behind schedule.

Only two large-scale mines could come online in the next few years… Denison’s Wheeler River and NexGen’s Arrow deposit.

Wheeler River just got its final permit, but won’t produce before mid-2028.

Arrow, the highest-grade uranium deposit on the planet, is still in permitting and might not start until 2031 or 2032.

Meanwhile, the cumulative production deficit through 2040 is estimated at 1.125 billion pounds.

During the last uranium bull market, the price ran from $7 to $137 per pound, roughly $200 in today’s dollars.

And that was without a structural supply deficit. The price spiked purely on fear of a shortage after a major mine flooded.

Today, the deficit is real. The demand acceleration is real. The supply constraints are real.

Why This Is a National Security Problem

The U.S. government issued a Section 232 proclamation on critical minerals, specifically naming uranium as a national security vulnerability.

The numbers should keep policymakers up at night.

America currently produces less than one million pounds of uranium per year, against a domestic need of roughly 50 million pounds. Half of our supply comes from Russia, Uzbekistan, and Kazakhstan.

If the U.S. follows through on its plan to quadruple nuclear capacity, it would need to increase uranium enrichment capacity twelvefold, assuming all fuel is domestically sourced.

Jean-Luc Palayer, CEO of Orano USA, flagged that number. Twelvefold. In an industry where it takes a decade to permit and build a single mine.

The Section 232 proclamation directs the U.S. to negotiate with trading partners and consider remedies such as price floors and trade restrictions.

The Department of Energy has already committed $2.7 billion to strengthen domestic uranium-enrichment services over the next decade.

As it stands, this is a structural repricing that could take years to fully play out.

The last time fundamentals were even remotely this tight, and they weren’t nearly this tight, uranium went from $7 to $137.

Charles here again…

So, are we looking at another 20X move in uranium prices?

I won’t hazard a guess on that. I don’t make a habit of making precise price forecasts because there are always too many variables to consider.

But I will say this…

I do believe that the conditions are in place for a major bull run in both the price of uranium and in the shares of the companies that mine it. Some of these companies aren’t particularly easy to invest in. I’m sure Kazakhstan is a lovely country, but I don’t particularly like the idea of buying stock there.

There are a small handful of American ETFs that offer exposure to uranium. Let me share my favorite one with you now.

Read more

This is geeking out. It’s allowing our minds to wander for a moment.

Don’t dismiss it

We’re already watching science fiction become closer to reality with every passing day. Even 10 years ago, driverless cars felt lik…

Read more

Today, we celebrate the 45 fine, upstanding gentlemen who have led us over the past quarter millennium of our existence as a (mostly) free country.

It’s no easy feat to spend us close to $40 trillion into debt… write an estimated 270,000 pages of regulations… and bluff and bluster our way into 123 military conflicts… only five of whi…

Read more

Read more

18 months ago, I was convinced Google was doomed. Their entire business model revolved around search advertising… and then this little upstart called ChatGPT made traditional internet search obsolete.

But then a funny thing happened. Google quietly became the leading name in AI… and is now positioned at the fro…

Read more

For those uninitiated in AI-speak, artificial general intelligence (AGI) is the point where AI can effectively replace a human. Rather than doing one-off tasks at a command prompt, an AGI agent can think across disciplines, transferring knowledge from one domain to another and actua…

Read more

But for younger and working class Americans, it’s a very different story. Incomes haven’t kept up with inflation, and high pric…

Read more

The margins were a rather unimpressive 14%. Oracle’s legacy software and services businesses generate margins of around 70%.

Read more

The hyperscalers — Microsoft (MSFT), Meta (META), Alphabet (GOOGL) and Amazon (AMZN) — are transforming from uber profitable software companies into something more resembling lumbering public utilities or oil majors.

Well, it seems that Wu isn’t the only person beating that drum today.

Per Bloomberg,

For two decades, the playbook for Big Tech was simple and successful: Create disruptive innovations, deliver blinding growth rates and keep a lid on spending.

A handful of behemoths like Alphabet, Amazon, Meta Platforms and Microsoft used this formula to seize market share from legacy businesses and power the US stock market to record after record. Now, a key part of the program — the relatively small amount of capital required to generate those huge profits — is increasingly under threat from the race to develop artificial intelligence.

“They’re some of the best business models the market has ever seen,” said Jim Morrow at Callodine Capital Management. “Now you’ve seen this explosion in capital intensity to the point where it’s now the most capital intensive sector in the market. That’s just a radical change.”

Microsoft is — or at least was! — a software company. And yet today, the company’s capital spending as a percentage of sales is more than double that of ExxonMobil (XOM), traditionally one of the asset-heaviest companies in the world.

Extracting, refining and transporting oil and gas is incredible capital intensive. Think about the massive amount of infrastructure needed for that undertaking.

And yet Microsoft spends more than double what Exxon does in capital spending relative to its sales.

That’s neither “bad” nor “good.”

Some companies require a lot of property, plant and equipment… others don’t.

But here’s the thing.

Software companies trade at premium valuations precisely because they are capital light.

Microsoft trades at a P/E ratio of 34, or exactly double that of Exxon. Does a premium like that still make sense in a world where Microsoft is a more expensive and cumbersome business to operate… and one in which brutal competition from Amazon, Google and others will likely put pressure on margins?

Learning the Wrong Lessons from 1999

I remember the 1990s dot-com bubble.

It was fun!

Right up until it wasn’t.

But what strikes me today is how poorly most investors remember that period. We remember the absurd excesses… profitless companies with no viable business model priced based on “eyeballs” rather that profits… and that obnoxious Pets.com sock puppet that made it to the Super Bowl.

But what they forget is the massively inflated prices of legitimate and highly profitable businesses.

Intel (INTC) may be a joke today, but it was the Nvidia (NVDA) of the 1990s and 2000s. It supplied the critical hardware that made the PC and internet revolution possible.

It was a fantastic company that regularly generated returns on equity in the 30% to 40% range.

It didn’t matter. When demand couldn’t keep up with the unrealistic expectations built into stock prices, the stock cratered by more than 80% and, 25 years later, is still below its old dot-com-era highs.

So when you hear a glassy-eyed tech pollyanna saying that it’s different this time because AI stocks are actually profitable…

It’s not different this time.

Code Red for ChatGPT

I can’t tell you what will be the eventually straw that breaks the camel’s back and causes the bubble to implode. It could be any of an infinite number of things.

Read more

Centuries before the letters “AI” started popping up everywhere, technology was automating jobs away, just as it has been since the dawn of the Industrial Revolution.

Read more

I’ve reproduced his letter, slightly edited for brevity.

Buffett has been a hero of mine for the past quarter century, and his wit an…

Read more

I don’t know if this is “it.” I can’t tell you with any certainty that this recent bout of market weakness is the start of a real rotation out of hypergrowth AI stocks and into more tangible “old economy” stocks.

And I’m even less confident that this is the start of a broader bear market. By this time tomorrow, it’s entirely possible that investors rediscover their animal spirits and send tech stocks to new all-time highs.

But the market narrative today — that tech stocks are expensive and that investors are overpaying for growth that may or may not ever materialize — is spot on. It’s a rare moment of relative sobriety in a market where investors have had zero appreciation for risk.

Japanese investment firm SoftBank — which is about as close to a pure tech permabull as you’re ever going to find — really set the mood this morning when it announced it has liquidated its entire position in Nvidia (NVDA).

SoftBank founder Masayoshi isn’t bearish, per se. He claims to be freeing up cash to fund other AI projects. But it’s still the sort of headline that gets your attention. If one of tech’s biggest permabulls is finding better opportunities elsewhere… maybe the Nvidia AI trade has run its course.

Meanwhile, Palantir (PLTR) posted its 21st straight revenue beat last week with 63% year-over-year growth and raised its full-year guidance. Yet that wasn’t enough to send the shares higher. To be fair to Palantir, I don’t know that any company in history could have lived up to the expectations implied by a price earnings ratio that was over 500 at the time.

High valuations alone don’t cause a bear market. But they do make a potential bear market far more painful.

So with that said, let’s take a look at what has Wall Street spooked, starting with the biggest AI stocks.

Really stop and marvel at the valuations before you. As recently as last week. Nvidia has a market cap of over $5 trillion. Even at its current $4.7 trillion, that’s larger than the entire entire economy of every country in the world except the U.S., China and Germany. And it’s within spitting distance of Germany.

Nvidia by itself is 15% the size of the entire U.S. economy. Throw in Apple (AAPL) and Microsoft (MSFT), and the three together are more than 40% the size of the U.S. economy.

Yes, all of these companies are phenomenal success stories and some of the most innovative companies in the history of American capitalism. But does it really make sense for Apple to trade at 10 times sales when its last major product innovation was the iPhone… back in 2007?

What would Tesla (TSLA) need to grow into in order to justify a price/earnings ratio of 291?

These numbers simply don’t make sense. Even if the wildest AI profit scenarios come to pass, it’s hard to see a lot of continued upside with prices at these levels.

Of course, the S&P 500 has 491 more stocks. How does pricing look for the index as a whole?

Not great.

Read more

Remember, remember, the 5th of November,
Gunpowder, treason and plot.
I see no reason
Why gunpowder treason
Should ever be forgot.
Guy Fawkes, Guy Fawkes, ‘twas his intent
To blow up the King and the Parliament
Three score barrels of powder below
Poor old England to overthrow
By God’s providence he was catch’d
With a dark lantern and burning match
Holler boys, hol…

Read more

We’ll be covering signs that the AI bubble is reaching its climax and explain how we’re positioning ourselves to profit from the blow-off top while al…

Read more

We’ll be covering signs that the AI bubble is reaching its climax and explain how we’re positioning ourselves to profit from the blow-off top while …

Read more

It seems that after the torrid run that gold has enjoyed over the past two months, a pullback was inevitable. We certainly got one Tuesday, as both gold and silver sold off aggressively. The SPDR Gold MiniShares (GLDM) was down over 6%, and the iShares Silver Trust (SLV) was down over 8%.

As for the “why,” there was no obvious catalyst. Investors seem marginally less concerned that the trade war is escalating and marginally less concerned about inflation. But the more reasonable explanation is that the precious metals markets had gotten overheated, traders decided to take profits, and the selling snowballed.

Do we still have more selling in front of us?

Maybe.

Corrections of 10% or more are perfectly normal and healthy in a durable bull market. Given the massive run in metals this year, there are no doubt plenty of short-term traders looking to take their profits and cash out.

I expect that the longer-term bull market is very much intact, however, because nothing has fundamentally changed. The Federal Reserve didn’t suddenly wake up and discover a backbone. They’ve already begun slashing rates, making it abundantly clear that they don’t take their mandate to keep inflation in check seriously.

Congress and the White House didn’t suddenly discover the importance of fiscal rectitude. Last I checked we were still $37 trillion in debt and adding a good $1.7 trillion to that total this year. And unless I missed something, the trade war is still giving the rest of the world every incentive to ditch dollars and replace them with literally anything else.

I’d also add that most of the buying to this point has been driven by central banks. We still have yet to see widespread buying by regular mom and pop investors.

Ask yourself: How many people do you know that have been buying gold? I do this professionally and even I can only name a handful.

So, until I see compelling evidence to the contrary, my assumption is that the bull market in gold is still in effect.

Great!

What do we do about it?

We’re maintaining our permanent position in gold via GLDM. We’re up 103% since I first recommended it back in December 2023, and I believe we’ll probably see another 100% or more in returns before this bull market runs its course.

If your gold position has become outsized relative to the rest of your portfolio, by all means rebalance and sell it back down to target. As I wrote last week,

As much as I like gold in this environment, we should remember that the barbarous relic can be wildly volatile. In a “normal” base case scenario, I’d argue that keeping 5% to 10% of your portfolio in gold and precious metals is a reasonable allocation. I think it makes sense to go a little higher than that today, but I probably wouldn’t recommend more than 15%. That’s aggressive but not unreasonable, particularly if the rest of your portfolio is fairly conservative.

Time to Take Profits On Speculative Metals Plays

GLDM is a permanent position, but our positions in silver and gold miners are not. These were always designed to be more speculative, and they’ve done fantastically well for us. Even after Tuesday’s blow-up, we’re up 101% in Agnico Eagle Mines (AEM) in a little over a year. We’re also up 29% in Royal Gold (RGLD) and 55% in the iShares Silver Trust (SLV).

Unfortunately, we’ve hit our stop losses, so it’s time for us to move on.

Actions to take:

Sell your shares of Agnico Eagle Mines (AEM)

Sell your shares of Royal Gold (RGLD)

Sell your shares of iShares Silver Trust (SLV)

Before I sign off, let’s talk about the broader market.

I’ve made no secret of my belief that stocks are in a bubble and that I believe it will end badly. To quote Alan Greenspan, Fed chair throughout the go-go years of the 1990s, the market is “irrationally exuberant.” Valuations cannot be justified at current levels. It is absurd that Palantir (PLTR), a stock with a $400 billion market cap, trades at a P/E ratio of 585. There’s no reality in which that makes sense.

But I also know that bull markets don’t end because stocks are expensive. Valuation alone won’t do it. There needs to be a catalyst, such as a recession or a collapse in earnings.

We’re not there yet.

We may get there soon. For all we know, some unknown catalyst could hit tomorrow. But for now, we should maintain our exposure to stocks.

That’s going to wrap it up for today. Note that I have included the model portfolio below for paid subscribers.

To good investing,

Charles Sizemore

Read more

And then I saw this come across my screen this morning:

On second thought, maybe they do ring a bell at the top.

This isn’t an internet spoof. It’s real.

I’m a big believer in allowing people to take risks and to enjoy the payoff (or suffer the loss), s…

Read more

“I’m not a gold buyer — it costs 4% to own it. It could easily go to $5,000, $10,000 in environments like this. This is one of the few times in my life it’s semi-rational to have some in your portfolio.”

Jamie Dimon, CEO of JPMorgan Chase

Jamie Dimon touting gold?

The cynic might assume that JPMorgan was launching a gold fund to get in on the action. Or…

Read more

On the downside, it could also lead to massive unemployment and create the greatest gulf between rich and poor since…

Read more