October 4, 2026
Bonus Content: Gold ETF Buyers Are Staying. The Price Isn’t Following.
Dear Reader,
Elon Musk can build rockets. Satellites. Factories the size of cities.
But he cannot build minerals he does not control.
I’m Dr. Mark Skousen. My career began inside CIA headquarters, spotting patterns before they became obvious. I warned about Black Monday weeks in advance and called the March 2009 market bottom.
And on January 1, 2027, a U.S. defense restriction expands across the full supply chain for certain covered magnets and strategic materials originating in China and other covered countries.
That is not a headline. It is a countdown.
|
Because every launch system, satellite network, military contract and AI buildout ultimately comes back to physical inputs. No minerals… no machines. No machines… no empire.
One small public company is pursuing a direct line to a vast new source of critical minerals – far from the traditional chokepoints that have trapped Western industry for decades.
The company is pursuing rights to recover mineral-rich nodules from the seafloor. Think of them as loose, golf-ball-sized deposits containing metals the 21st-century economy consumes by the ton.
This could give Musk something money alone cannot guarantee: a strategic supply line beyond China’s grip.
And if he chooses to buy rather than wait? The crowd will not receive a polite warning. The ticker could be repriced before most investors finish reading the press release.
My analysis has flagged this mineral play plus two other public companies positioned at the exact pressure points Musk still needs to control: compute and satellite communications.
|
A hard deadline is colliding with a strategic bottleneck. Waiting is now a decision of its own.
Yours for peace, prosperity, and liberty, AEIOU,
Dr. Mark Skousen
Macroeconomic Strategist, The Oxford Club
P.S. The January 1, 2027, rule is already on the books. Once the countdown hits zero, the market will not care that you meant to look at this later. This obscure mineral play could become essential to Musk’s empire. Learn more details before the deadline – click here now.
Gold ETF Buyers Are Staying. The Price Isn’t Following.
Gold entered October with a bruised chart and a genuinely contested investment case. Spot gold closed September 30 near $4,157 per ounce, ending the month down 8.5% while silver fell 13.5%, as the dollar rallied and crude oil rose, even as US rate expectations eased and bond yields pulled back. Silver’s steeper slide was not a coincidence. Silver’s heavier fall reflected its sensitivity to industrial demand concerns alongside the precious-metal sell-off, with silver dropping about 5 percentage points more than gold, signaling worry about manufacturing and global growth, not just monetary policy.
The mechanism behind September’s damage is worth understanding precisely. Gold slipped as long-end US Treasury yields kept rising even while Fed hike odds fell. Softer August PCE data cut October hike pricing to about 37%, yet the 10-year yield touched 5.34%, its highest since 2002, lifting the cost of holding non-yielding bullion. That is the split professional investors are debating: the Fed’s next move matters less than what the bond market does independently of it. Gold now depends more on long-term US yields than on Fed hike odds.
The Bull Case: Flows Did Not Break
The strongest argument for the bulls is what the money actually did. Global gold-backed ETFs brought in about $18 billion in August, marking one of the largest monthly inflows on record and a clear acceleration point for ETF demand. North American buying alone rose to roughly $7.8 billion in August, versus about $71 million in July. Then real yields shifted hard, and much of that money stayed put. The contrast between flows and price action suggests long-term investors have not abandoned bullion.
That is the structural argument in a sentence: ETF buyers who arrived for fiscal and debasement reasons did not flee when rates rose. Gold’s response has been orderly rather than a rout, suggesting the August buying reflected more than a tactical bet on imminent rate cuts. The measured drawdown against a backdrop of multi-month highs in real yields points to structural demand rather than pure momentum chasing.
The Bear Case: Momentum Funds Already Left
The selling pressure appears concentrated in algorithmic and momentum funds that built positions during August’s rally and have since reversed them as technical signals deteriorated. With GLD well off its 52-week high, the 10-year Treasury yield having hit 5.34% intraday, its highest since 2002, and October rate-hike odds reaching about 70% at the peak of the selloff, the opportunity cost of holding bullion rose sharply. If real yields grind higher, the August flow surge will look like a top, not a floor.
Over the past 20 years, gold has often moved inversely to the 10-year TIPS real yield, but it is not a mechanical month-to-month relationship. That statistical context matters: September’s yield-driven selloff is unusual, not inevitable as a recurring pattern.
What Investors Are Missing
The debate has centered almost entirely on GLD, SLV, and spot price. The quieter conversation is happening in the miners, where the math looks different. Agnico Eagle reported second-quarter payable gold production of 855,816 ounces at an all-in sustaining cost of $1,459 per ounce, with record quarterly free cash flow of $1,335 million. Newmont reported approximately 1.3 million attributable gold ounces in the second quarter and record free cash flow of $2.2 billion. At today’s gold price near $4,160, both companies are still generating substantial margins, a fact that rarely gets mentioned when the spot chart looks ugly.
Stocks to Watch
- GLD / SLV: The cleanest expression of the debate. Gold is getting large ETF inflows while price momentum lags, and institutional investors continue to cite central-bank buying as a stabilizer.
- NEM (Newmont): Headed into third-quarter earnings on October 22, with coverage still focused on free cash flow and capital returns.
- AEM (Agnico Eagle): Reported an all-in sustaining cost of $1,459 per ounce in the second quarter, giving it a wide cushion if gold continues to test lower levels. Agnico has outlined a strategy targeting roughly 20% to 30% production growth over the next decade through organic expansion rather than acquisitions, which matters if the long gold thesis reasserts itself.
The core question for investment committees right now is not whether gold’s bull run is over. It is whether September flushed the fast money or the foundation. The ETF data argues for the former. The yield chart argues for patience before concluding either way.
