gold news

 Clearly uh as I have always mentioned, gold is the antifragile asset with no counterparty risk while Bitcoin is far from being an antifragile asset given its volatility and its correlation with risky asset. [Music] Hello Golds family. Alan Hibbert here with another video and today I'm sitting down with Laurent Lu the macrobutler for the second time and we are going to discuss the differences between Bitcoin and gold and what they might do or not do in an investor portfolio. So Laurent, thank you so much for sitting down with

me again today. How are you? I'm fine, thank you. Thanks for having me again on your channel. Absolutely. And you're joining us from Singapore, right? So, it's uh pretty late at night, your time. Yes, it's evening here. Okay. All right. Well, thank you. Really appreciate you taking the time. Uh so, yeah, let's get into it. We're talking about Bitcoin and gold and what they might do or not do in an investor portfolio. So, at a high level, how do you see the difference between the two assets?

Well, I think in terms of volatility and in terms how it the two asset correlates with other assets such as equities or bonds and cash uh it impacts the way that you implement Bitcoin or gold into a portfolio. So clearly uh as I have always mentioned, gold is the antifragile asset with no counterparty risk while Bitcoin is far from being an antifragile asset given its volatility and its correlation with risky asset. Okay, so gold is an anti-fragile asset, but Bitcoin is not an anti-fragile asset

yet. Maybe it might become one. We'll see. But it would have to become way less volatile and it would have to sort of break its correlation with riskier assets like stocks. Is that kind of a fair assessment? Well, you can summarize this in these two sentence. I guess that if we study correlation of Bitcoin with with NASDAQ and tech stocks in particular, we can see that clearly there's a high correlation between the two. And in this uh case uh you cannot use Bitcoin as antifragile asset in a

portfolio. Okay. Well, that's a perfect segue into our first chart. Uh you you brought us uh four charts to take a look at today. So we have Bitcoin and the NASDAQ uh a high stakes dance of correlation. So we're looking at basically the last 10 years and we can see that the correlation between the two assets is about 4849. Um, and so how do you how do you interpret this that Bitcoin is basically like a risk asset because it's so highly correlated with the NASDAQ which is definitely a risk asset. Well, here I

put the triple QQQ. So is the is the NASDAQ on steroids and you can see that there's quite a very high correlation between Bitcoin and the triple QQQ especially since 2020. So uh I think that you can clearly see that investor who are looking to get beta through triple NASDAQ are also trying to get beta in their portfolio via Bitcoin and that's why that's the prime argument for me to tell that Bitcoin cannot be seen as a diversification in a portfolio where most investor already own tech stocks or

the NASDAQ. Interesting. So, for an investor like me who doesn't own any tech stocks, no stocks of any kind, uh is it possible that Bitcoin could be a diversifier in my portfolio? You know, aside from Bitcoin, the rest of my portfolio is precious metals. It's gold and silver. So, would it would it be okay to think of Bitcoin as a diversifier in that sort of a scenario? Well, I think that the issue that I have with Bitcoin is the is the volatility and how it behaves during risk off uh time in financial markets.

So uh I would say that if you only own Bitcoin and gold in fact you would be better off to own the S&P 500 or the NASDAQ index rather than Bitcoin because during riskoff period uh your portfolio will suffer much bigger draw down uh if you own Bitcoin. So I think that uh the prime goal of most investor is to reduce the volatility of their portfolio and to reduce the maximum draw down and that's why I think that bitcoin is not clearly appealing for most investor. Yeah that makes sense. So I you're you

probably have a better grasp of this than I do because you are a money manager right for for clients. So you do manage their portfolios and you are intimately um you know connected with what their their goals are and their concerns right. So basically reducing volatility is like primary concern for them. Well, well, I guess that my clients what they are looking at when they add an asset to their portfolio is the diversification is also how it behave during risk of time because most fund manager portfolio manager always

talk about risk on and potential upside returns. But uh this is the biggest mistake that most of them make is that uh the most important for a fund manager or a portfolio manager is to manage draw down. That's why uh the goal the primary goal is to find asset that reduce the volatility and reduce the draw down in risk of period. That makes sense. Yeah. Um so for me personally I'm not a portfolio manager. I I don't give financial advice. psych. I don't manage anyone else's money

besides my own. Um but uh I I don't consider volatility to be that much of a concern anymore. Um it was it was a bigger concern for me. So I'm looking at you know performance over 10 years instead of the performance over one year. Um and so I personally don't mind having you know a larger allocation to Bitcoin. But I could totally understand why your clients or or investors more broadly speaking would shy away from such um immense volatility. So, so perhaps if I can add also it depends of

how old you are as an investor and what is your time horizon. If you have a longer time horizon of course and if you are younger, you can for sure stomach higher monthly or yearly volatility than if you are looking to generate a recuring income because you are in the late stage of your life and you need a recuring performance and a recuring income every year. you cannot a law of having one year of a minus 20 or minus 25% in your portfolio. Yeah, that makes sense. That's a great point. I'm I'm

still young. I'm in my 30s. Uh hopefully I have a lot of years ahead of me and I I think of it as I can still afford to be wrong. So, if I'm wrong on Bitcoin and, you know, a big chunk of my portfolio goes to zero or or something like it, I can still handle that. I can afford to, you know, work my way back um so to speak through income or through other investments. So I yeah, I think we're definitely coming at this from different angles with different objectives. Um but for yeah, for older

clients certainly you you can't afford a 20% draw down in a year or anything like that. It makes total sense. It makes total sense. So well I think if I may I think that also and I I I'm quite surprised that we have seen very high interest from institutional investor for bitcoin because most of institutional investor the pension funds also would not really uh allow their portfolio to have a major draw down on a yearly basis. So that's why I'm a bit skeptical to see this rising interest from institutional

investor and pension funds for adding Bitcoin in their portfolio. I think it's not really suitable in managing the this kind of portfolio over the long term. Yeah, that's a good point and it sort of brings up two questions in my mind. One is portfolio sizing. So if these um larger institutions only allocate 1% of their portfolio to Bitcoin or or something very small um is the volatility then less of a concern and number two is if there's an overall movement u like a wave of institutions

pension funds and so on nation states that adopt Bitcoin wouldn't that necessarily reduce the volatility because it would add so much gravity to that asset and and reduce the the swings in price. Well, that's that's possible. Uh but but to be honest, uh I'm kind of the old school investment. So, in fact, uh the the base of all my investment are related around the Brown portfolio, which is an equal allocation in cash, bonds, equities, and physical gold. And uh I mean from there you can adapt the

portfolio uh over the business cycle. But uh I would say that as as a professional investor if you own 1% of your portfolio in Bitcoin even if Bitcoin double over the over the one year period I mean the impact on your portfolio will be very minimum. uh while I also have experienced that uh the most painful for a portfolio manager is to explain the losses in a portfolio and again uh if I have a 25 or 50% draw down on this 1% I most likely will spend uh most of my time justifying this 1% against the 99% of the rest of the

portfolio. So that's why uh from a professional investment point of view, I think that Bitcoin is is an entertainment which is not necessary in terms of asset allocation. It's much more important to allocate the portfolio rightly between bonds, cash, gold, and equities rather than to spend too much time to allocate one or even two or three or even 5% to the portfolio of Bitcoin won't change much at the end of the day. And I would think that in the Q environment what I can notice is that institutional investor I I still uh

underweight physical gold as I said on a neutral basis they should own at least 25% of the portfolio in physical gold and I have not seen any banking portfolio with a 25% allocation to physical gold so far. So I would think that as I said uh from from a from a portfolio management point of view uh is is an entertainment rather than uh something that is needed. Yeah, that's a really good point that you you have to explain Bitcoin's draw downs to your clients and uh not only would you have

to believe in the asset and the allocation and the portfolio, but you'd have to convince them to believe in it. and if they don't already believe in it, that's a that's a really tough cell. So I I've I've lived that the last 10 years I've been trying to convince people about the merits of Bitcoin and gold for that matter and it can be quite challenging. So So I can totally relate to you. Um interesting. So yeah, you mentioned the Brown portfolio. Uh four assets, 25% allocation to each stocks,

bonds, gold, and cash. Um and then then adjust based on the business cycle. Interesting. Yeah, I like it. Um In fact, if I may, this brown portfolio, if you do nothing and you uh recalibrate at 25% allocation across the four asset class over the long term, it will give you a 4% real return meaning on top of CPI. meaning that this is what I call the lazy portfolio and the rest is just to to deliver a performance above this 4% real return and as I said in the Q environment uh most investor are still

uh too much underweight physical gold and too much overweight uh bonds and I think that this should be the primary focus of of every investor today is to realize that the most risky asset class in the Q&A environment is and remain bonds. Yeah, that's a great point. I probably agree with you. Um, yeah, the most the riskiest asset class today is bonds. Yeah, I think so too. You you expect that we'll be in a rising interest rate environment for the foreseeable future, next 10 or 20 years or so?

Well, I think if you look back at history and I mean study what happened when tariff are implemented usually uh the global economy is moving into a stackflation or an inflationary bust. So in this environment uh you should not own bonds, you should only own gold in fact. So in fact you should not own 25 but probably 40 to 50% of your portfolio in physical gold and the balance should be in high quality stocks. uh meaning that not the stocks that are in the NASDAQ but the stocks that are the blue chip companies in the D Jones

and that's why again if we come back to Bitcoin I mean given that is highly correlated with the NASDAQ in fact by adding Bitcoin in fact you had more problem that uh you already have because nowadays most investor are still mostly overweight NASDAQ compared to the dojo Jun for instance. Yeah, that makes sense. Yeah. So interesting. Gold uh 40 to 50% in in place of those bonds. Yeah, I like that. I like that. Um beautiful. Okay, so the second chart you have here is the Bitcoin to gold ratio. Um that's the the

red line and you point out how the peaks of of that ratio align with the high in the NASDAQ. So in the end of 2021 we see one of those peaks and then basically present day um you know early 2025 we see another alignment of peaks. So how do you interpret this chart? What what significance does it have to you? Well, again in fact uh this Bitcoin to gold ratio I use it as a leading indicator in terms of asset allocation in terms of equities a and this ratio as I mean of course we don't have a long time of

history because also Bitcoin doesn't have a long-term history to to trade back but I guess this is kind of an indicator that should point that a lot of trouble are coming for investor who are still invested in NASDAQ stock and who have not yet understood that there's a rotation coming in and uh and so in fact I'm trying to implement trading strategies using this uh bitcoin to gold ratio to allocate my client's portfolio in terms of sector allocation in the equity space. Okay, very nice. So yeah, as that

Bitcoin to gold ratio comes down, that basically means gold is outperforming Bitcoin and there's some some pretty significant uh draw downs here that that last more than a year, right? Like pretty much all of 2022, for example, um much of 2024. Um interesting. Do you do you notice um any false positives in this chart? Like I'm looking at the red line and I see early 2021 we had a a draw down in that Bitcoin to gold ratio without an accompanying correction in the NASDAQ and then something similar in

early 2024. Um that ratio came down without a decline in the NASDAQ. Does does that hold uh any significance to you? Yeah, that's right. I mean it's not a bulletproof indicator but I would think that as I said is it's a warning sign that when gold significantly outperform Bitcoin meaning this Bitcoin to gold ratio is entering a downtrend in fact is usually uh the canary in the coal mine for the performance of the NASDAQ and I guess the best example was in 2022 where in fact the Bitcoin to gold ratio peak at

the end of 2021 and we all know that 2022 was quite painful for investor in Bitcoin as well as investor in tech stocks. Yeah, absolutely. And so the conclusion here is uh you're well so you're basically expecting I think from from hearing you speak otherwise you're expecting the Bitcoin to gold ratio to continue falling this year throughout 2025. And does that mean you're also expecting the NASDAQ to continue falling? Well I think this is the my conclusion. In fact, uh I mean we had a

peak in late November, early December, uh and then it was kind of the the start of the rotation in terms of equity allocation. So I mean when I look at other indicator around the business cycle, I think that we are set for a massive underperformance of Bitcoin versus gold in 2025. And therefore we will see a massive uh reallocation across equities and I mean if you remember in fact the out performance of gold against Bitcoin was one of my 10 prediction for the year. I think that I mean we are about three months in the year. I'm

quite in a good shape on on that one and I'm quite confident in fact that we will see further outperformance of gold versus uh Bitcoin in in the next nine months. Yeah, I I remember that prediction for sure. Um yeah, I I would just say careful because Bitcoin can surprise in both directions. We know that it's extremely volatile. And looking at 2024, you know, the first couple months the the Bitcoin to gold ratio was was down early. So gold was outperforming and then you know we can see what happened.

Uh Bitcoin had some some fantastic months in there to sort of make up the difference and uh well if I may say it will all depends of uh the evolution of the business cycle and since the evolution of the business cycle is mostly related uh to the policies implemented by the disruptor in chief at the white house. I guess that uh we will we will see what uh I mean if he's keeping his tariff policies in place and push even more pressure on the rest of the world in in fact I guess that we will see even more outperformance of

gold versus Bitcoin in the next nine months. Yeah, that's funny. The disruptor and chief. It's it's funny. It's like I think of him as like Mr. Volatility, you know? It's like at all costs he doesn't want people to know what he's going to do. You know, shake it up, you know, the business cycle, stock markets, tariffs. I mean, is he going to go to war? Is he going to sue for peace? Is he going to cancel a deal? Is he going to enforce it? I mean, tough. Well, I I would think that I

mean, that's true. there's a lot of volatility but I would say the lesson that we can draw from the first three months of the year since it's almost the end of the first quarter is that I mean since the start of the year we have seen this underperformance of Bitcoin against gold we have seen this underperformance of the NASDAQ against the Dow Jones so I guess that a lot of investors have already kind of positioned or have started to be positioned for this move in the business cycle from the current

inflationary boom into the inflationary burst that is coming and unfortunately uh I would think that if the policies stay in place as they are in fact the Trump stackflation looks inevitable and could last in fact for the rest of his mandate meaning that we could be in a in a cycle of four years in this trend. Wow. Okay. That's a that's a bold claim. I I I think that's absolutely plausible. So, you're thinking that we could enter a stagflationary period, so massive inflation with recessionary bust and

that could last throughout Trump's entire administration, four years. I think that's plausible for sure. How much do you think politics is entering the equation? because Trump has hinted or maybe even quite strongly that if a recession comes now pretty promptly that it's the previous administration's fault. So you do you think he's actually trying to speed up a recession and get to it sooner that way he can say you know it's not my fault? Well, I'm not uh talking politics. I

know that the US is highly partisan nowadays. uh but but I would think that the major issue for the US will be related around its trade policies and again what he doesn't understand I'm sorry for him he doesn't understand that uh by imposing tariff uh he will penalize the the US consumer one way or the other because someone has to pay the bill of the tariff so it's the company or it's the the consumer most likely it will be the consumer who will have to pay the bill of the tariff and

unfortunately for the US the US has been de-industrialized over the past 30 years so you cannot change this trend uh by imposing tariff it will take a long time for the US to reindustrialize it can brag about all the investment that are announced uh in the manufacturing sector in the US. But the issue that to build a manufacturing plan, it lasts at least 12 to 18 months if everything goes well. If everything doesn't go well, it's 24 months or more. So meaning that all this amount of new

investment announced in the US will only be seen in the real economy. I would say uh by mid 2026 or even later. I guess that I mean I hope for him that everything goes well and he can show some results before the midterm election but otherwise I would think that it will take much longer and the issue in fact in the US is still that the US government spend too much. It's not a revenue issue, it's a spending issue from the US government side. So I hope for him that Dodge is successful but I

guess it will be very difficult to have a meaningful impact on the US deficit. Yes, I totally agree with you. And uh I've been thinking lately, you know, in the context of of everything you just said with tariffs and inflation and you know, all the different policies that are intended to help. You know, whether or not they do or or if they take uh one year, two years, who knows? But there's there's the old adage like uh it's it's easier to make a mess than to clean it up. You know, it's like it's like an

order of magnitude more effort to to clean up a mess than it is to make it in the first place. And uh that's one of the downsides I think to having an election cycle that's every four years which is relatively short compared to you know other regimes um is every time you get this turnover you get someone who comes in that tries tries to clean up the mess of whoever was in there before and uh it's just it's simply way easier to make a mess. you know, the first few months, first few year and

first year or so. And then, uh, it takes a long time to clean it up. And by the time that cleanup is bearing fruit, uh, the, you know, there's a new election and there's someone else coming in who says, "No, that's not the right way to do it. Let's make a mess of everything again." So, it's like, uh, this this feedback loop where things just get worse and worse for decades. Um, and everyone's, you know, perpetually blaming. I I think that uh what what needs to be addressed

is the the spending issue. So as I said, Dodge is a positive sign, but it's for now a drop in the bucket in terms of the US deficit. And the other issue is to settle a global peace which will be also much more difficult than four years ago or even eight years ago because I mean a lot of damage has been done in terms of trust that other country can have in terms of signing a peace agreement with the US and its allies. And so I think that uh I mean to to sign a peace agreement you need to be too and

sometime the second site uh is not really keen to trust anymore uh the US administration because as you said nobody knows in four years or even in two years when the midterm election is coming if there's no no change in terms of uh the foreign policy of the US. So I don't think a lot of leaders in in the global source in Asia and in Eastern Europe are ready to take the risk again. They took the same risk almost 10 years ago and it was not really a good a good bet from their side. So I mean clearly

there are a lot of challenges ahead for President Trump. I wish him good luck. uh but I think that uh is on the on the wrong path in terms of the tariff. What is needed is first cut uh government spending is uh they need to cut uh the tax rate and by cutting the tax rate and cutting uh regulation easing regulation cutting government spending in fact they will bring back US corporate in the US. The tariff will not change much. It will just yeah it will bring some money back in terms of investment. But I mean most

US corporates move outside of the US because of the cost of production and because the tight regulation and because also uh the the high level of taxation. Yeah, I agree with you. Tariffs aren't going to help much. the path forward is reduce government spending, reduce regulation, reduce the tariffs, and uh yeah, incentivize all that business to come back. So, I agree. All right, let's let's turn to our third chart here. Uh we've got during market turmoil, Bitcoin lags gold. Okay, so so gold

outperforming Bitcoin during market turmoil and as market turmoil, you're using the VIX here as a proxy, uh the red line. So, yeah, tell me a little bit about this chart. Yeah. So yeah, I mean clearly when when we we see a rising in terms of volatility, uh we see uh Bitcoin underperforming gold. So again you are not using uh Bitcoin as I would say an antifragile asset. What I what I like with gold in fact is it's antifragile uh nature meaning that as I said is the is the only asset with no counterparty

risk and is the asset that has traditionally been antifragile in terms of market turmoil or in terms of war. I mean, I don't see Bitcoin doing very well during wartime and I also don't see Bitcoin being this kind of antifragile asset. Yeah, I agree. It's it certainly hasn't been for sure. Um, and yeah, gold gold obviously has a 5,000-year history and it's owned by, you know, most of the central banks of the world and and many large uh institutional investors. So, yeah, it makes sense. It makes sense

that gold provides that role in a portfolio and uh especially when volatility is maybe maybe the Achilles heel of so many portfolios. You can't have those draw downs certainly not on an annual basis. It makes so much sense to be overallocated gold. No question. Um and it's my hope and it's sort of my bet and my thesis that Bitcoin will one day perform a role like that in a portfolio, but of course it's not there yet. Of course. Um, so no no argument. No argument for [Laughter] me. Um, all right. Should we turn to

chart four or do you want to you want to say anything else on this? Okay. So, let's let's go to the next chart. In economic downturns, Bitcoin falls behind gold. Um, and for economic downturns, we're looking at the S&P and crude oil, WTI. So, why first of all, why did you pick this ratio to sort of represent as a proxy for economic downturns? And then how do you interpret the relationship here on the chart? Well, in fact, I use this S&P to oil ratio as the way to see if the US economy is in an economic boom

or economic bust. Uh the rational behind it is just that uh the economy is just energy transform. So if uh the S SNP to outperform the W UTI and is above the 7-year moving average in fact it means that the US companies are able to be profit above whatever is the input price of oil. On the other side, if this S&P to oil ratio is in a downturn and break below its 7-year moving average, in fact, it means that the US economy is not able to deliver profits based into based on the input price of oil. And so

in fact here I focus on the the last time we had an economic burst which was around 2022 early 2023 and in fact at that time it was also the time that we had the bitcoin to to gold ratio uh clunging. So once again I think that what it shows here is just that in times of uncertainty investor are going back to the asset they know uh will protect them and if we are as we were in 2022 in an inflationary bust in fact gold is this asset that they should hold. I like what you said there. The economy is just energy transform. I I really

like that. Um I've been thinking in terms of like everything is energy. Uh Nicola Tesla said, "If you if you want to understand the secrets of the universe, think in terms of energy, frequency, and vibration." So yeah, I like I like that the economy is just energy transform. And yeah. Okay. So, so basically when the S&P oil ratio drops below its 7-year moving average, okay, then that implies we're in an economic bust. Okay. Why why seven-year? Where where does that come from?

Well, yeah, I I would say I take a proxy of a sevenyear cycle. I mean, if you look back at history, I mean, seven year is usually uh the round the the time period of a traditional cycle. I mean, it's a number that is arbitrary. I mean from my side you can take eight years you can take six years but seven years is usually the I would say the the good time for for an economic cycle. I would just add here is that uh since everything that we consume and we produce uh I is using uh is using oil that's why I choose oil rather than

another commodity to compare versus the S&P 500 because uh everything we wear everything uh we use in the daily life are made of oil at the end of the day and so that's why I think that the most important uh input is all in fact this week I'm writing a newsletter which is about d o g debt all gold and equity and it's a good summary so if the listener want to take a read this week they they will understand what is behind this S&P to oil ratio and why the price of oil the price of gold matter the most

for the economy and or they should allocate around the business cycle. I like that. All right, Doge uh debt, oil, gold, equities. Okay, so hopefully we can uh depending when this video airs, hopefully we can link to that letter um in the description. That's awesome. I I can't wait to read that. Um so, okay. So zooming out just looking at looking at the charts you've presented here and sort of the conversation we've had to sum up basically um in a portfolio most investors want to avoid volatility which

means you don't want to have something as volatile as Bitcoin in your portfolio also as a money manager you don't want to have to explain why one of the investments has you know a terrible year for example you know a massive draw down in one year that's that's not a fun conversation um and the correlation with Bitcoin and some riskier assets like the NASDAQ or the triple QQQ. Uh that's basically not performing any kind of diversification that's like amplifying volatility rather

than diversifying. Um so it it doesn't have that uh doesn't have that stability quality yet. Is that sort of a general summary of of how you feel about Bitcoin? Yes, I think it's a good summary. Again I'm coming back uh to this brown permanent portfolio. I mean it's made of gold equity debt and cash and uh any investor in fact should should allocate their portfolio around these four asset class. Uh the rest is an entertainment from my point of view. Okay. Um, my, you know, my thought is,

it just so happens, I went back and looked, I was pretty sure, but it just so happens that I've been an investor in gold and Bitcoin for almost exactly 10 years each. The first time I bought um, gold was July of both of them actually was July of 2015. So, I bought them both in the same month. Um, and if I if we look at the Bitcoin gold ratio, for example, the uh, the green line in the last chart, we can see increasing minimums, right? I I don't think anyone is is surprised by this. There's

increasing minimums, which basically means that over a 10-year period, Bitcoin has outperformed gold, of course. Um, and you know, I did the math recently, and Bitcoin has outperformed gold by over a factor of a 100. So, two orders of magnitude. So I think for for someone like me or investors who have a decadel long view who don't mind one one year where you lose 30 40 50% um you know it's it sucks. I'm not going to lie. It sucks. But you can you know keep going if you if you believe in what

you're owning. Um and you know you're not going to give up on yourself. Um unlike you might you might give up on your portfolio manager your money manager. Um, so yeah, so for a decade long viewpoint, I feel like you got to have at least a little Bitcoin. You know, even if you put 1% into Bitcoin and 99% into gold, after 10 years, you'd have more Bitcoin than gold. So, you know, based on the last 10 years. So, I'm I'm a believer in Bitcoin. I think people should continue to learn about it

and uh, you know, choose the right portfolio size. And for a lot of portfolios, the right size is 0% for sure. For some, it's 1%. For some, it might be more. So anyways, that's that's my thesis. Any any reaction to that? No, I mean if uh some listeners have the the risk appetite and the stomach of owning Bitcoin, uh I mean it's up to them. But as I said, uh if you want to come back to a more professional way of managing uh assets, uh I would think that uh you you better own today 50% of your

portfolio in gold rather than 2% in Bitcoin. And again, I think that as of today, there are probably more people owning 2% of Bitcoin in their portfolio than 50% in physical gold. So I guess that uh investor should think twice and uh look back and uh on a longer time horizon and if they want to sleep well at night uh they they should uh focus more on physical gold rather than on this one or 2% in Bitcoin. I agree. I do think just about every investor is under underallocated gold. And uh there's

there's more investors who are underallocated gold than who are underallocated Bitcoin. I think that that's probably true. And I mean uh if you look at institutional investor even if they move half of their allocation they have currently in bonds into the physical gold market. I mean gold can still easily uh double or even triple from here. So when people tell me gold at $3,000 is expensive, but in a sovereign debt crisis scenario and if investor are forced to move even 50% of their bond

allocation into physical gold, I would think that gold can easily double or triple from current price. Yes, I agree. $3,000 gold is cheap. It could easily double or triple. Um and yeah and we are seeing a capital rotation event out of equities and probably out of bonds as well. I just am not as uh familiar with the numbers into gold. So I do expect the price of gold to double or triple in the near future. Absolutely. Well Lauren, thank you so much for sitting down with me today. This has been an

awesome discussion. Um folks can get your your uh article on Substack right at the macrobutler. Anywhere else they can find you. Yeah, that's right. I'm on Substack at the macrobutler and if they are interested to contact me, they can send me an email at info@themacrobutler.com. info@themacrobutler.com. Awesome. Thank you, Lauren, so much. Appreciate it. Thank you. [Music]