It’s like a Netflix and a Half Just Vanished Yesterday.

It’s like a Netflix and a Half Just Vanished Yesterday.

Notes From the Field By James Hickman (Simon Black)  January 28, 2025

Yesterday, Nvidia—the company which makes GPUs, including for AI— suffered the largest single-day market value loss in history.

The stock dropped 17.4% wiping $600 billion from its valuation in hours, and actually pulling the entire Nasdaq Composite down 3.4%. 

To put that in perspective, this amount of value loss is like if the entire company of Netflix AND AT&T simply disappeared.

What caused this? A Chinese AI startup called DeepSeek. Over the weekend, it revealed a new large language model (LLM) that matches the output of OpenAI’s ChatGPT and similar models but at a fraction of the cost.

Here’s the kicker: DeepSeek trained its LLM with just $5 million and 2,000 low-tech Nvidia GPUs. Compare that to ChatGPT’s $100 million budget and over 100,000 cutting-edge GPUs.

Venture capitalist Marc Andreessen called this AI’s Sputnik moment.

And that’s true.

It was 1957 when the Soviets launched Sputnik into space, which made the Americans realize how much they needed to catch up.

There was a lot of panic yesterday, and it’s easy to understand why. The whole industry felt they had a competitive advantage that no longer exists.

But the reality is, this is good news for everyone. And this is the topic of our podcast today.

Many of you know that I’m the chairman of a emerging technology company which makes extremely powerful and efficient semiconductors.

It’s completely unrelated to AI, so DeepSeek doesn’t have any impact. But I reached out to a number of people in the business to help me understand this better. And overall there are a few conclusions that are pretty obvious.

One, Nvidia is still going to be able to sell all the GPUs they can produce. The difference is now they will be selling to more people. The days of Nvidia delivering GPUs by armored car are long gone. And now these professional grade chips are going to be available to even the lowliest of AI start-ups.

It also means that AI start ups can launch their businesses and develop their technology with a smaller amount of money.

Instead of having to raise half a billion dollars just to get started, they can create a viable product for just a few million dollars now.

That means more innovation, and hence more productivity for everyone.

The last thing is the market rout yesterday was classic overreaction and panic that extended to sectors that still have me scratching my head.

There was even a sell-off in natural gas stocks, which is absurd.

We talk a lot about real assets, and why they are such a smart buy right now. And natural gas companies are a great example.

Some of these businesses are well managed, profitable, dividend paying, and have pristine balance sheets. And yet the market is now giving them away.

We discuss all this and more in today’s short podcast.

(For the audio-only version, check out our online post here.)

https://www.schiffsovereign.com/podcast/its-like-a-netflix-and-a-half-just-vanished-yesterday-podcast-152017/ 

To your freedom,   James Hickman  Co-Founder, Schiff Sovereign LLCIt’s like a Netflix and a Half Just Vanished Yesterday. [Podcast]

Some Thoughts On Today’s Record High Prices

Some Thoughts On Today’s Record High Prices 

Notes From the Field By James Hickman (Simon Black) January 22 2025

Herbert Hoover was an unstoppable force in 1928.

The Roaring Twenties were in full swing. Prosperity (it seemed) was everywhere. The stock market was soaring. People were making money hand over fist. And Hoover was the ‘status quo’ Presidential candidate that year.

In other words, a vote for Hoover was a vote for the good times to continue. And the guy vanquished his opponent on election day, November 6, 1928, by one of the most lopsided margins in history up to that point.

So the euphoria continued. In the four months between Hoover’s election victory in November, and his inauguration in early March, the stock market soared by more than 20%.

Optimism was everywhere. And, convinced that asset prices would only go up, Americans borrowed heavily to buy shares on the stock market.

But it was less than eight months into Hoover’s presidency that the stock market crashed... and all that confidence quickly evaporated. The Dow Jones Industrial Average went on to lose nearly 90% of its value over the next three years.

Now, don’t get me wrong— I’m not predicting an imminent crash of the stock market. America’s economy today is fundamentally different than it was in 1929.

But there are some similarities.

One key similarity is that stock valuations, i.e. the amounts that investors are willing to pay for every dollar of a company’s earnings, revenue, and/or assets, are more stretched than they were even in 1929.

And the cause is also similar.

By 1929 the Federal Reserve was still pretty new; it had only been formed in 1913, and had spent most of the decade engaged in a rate-cutting monetary bonanza that fueled wild financial speculation.

Roughly nine decades later, the Fed engaged in a similar monetary bonanza as the pandemic began. They conjured trillions of dollars out of thin air and slashed rates to zero, sparking one of the most extreme speculative bubbles in financial history.

I’m sure you remember: even the most outrageous assets— meme stocks, shitcoins, and ‘artwork’ consisting of a banana duct-taped to the wall, traded hands for unbelievable prices.

Interest rates have risen significantly since then, and the Fed has made some efforts to make tiny reductions to the money supply. But most of the excesses still remain— hence historically high stock market valuations like Price/Earnings ratios, or the total stock market capitalization to GDP ratio.

If stock market valuations were to return to historic averages, it would require either a sharp decline in stock prices... or an extended period of stagnant market performance.

But again, I’m not predicting this is going to happen. There’s absolutely no reason why stocks can’t remain expensive... or become even more expensive. Historic averages are indicators of some deviation from the norm. But they don’t dictate immediate outcomes.

But for investors, this environment presents a dilemma. On one hand, it’s difficult to justify paying record high prices for assets at super-stretched valuations. Yet, again, on the other hand, historically high valuations don’t necessarily mean that a collapse or pullback is imminent.

But there is an alternative worth considering.

Early in his career, Warren Buffett favored an ultra deep-value strategy that focused on buying companies trading at steep discounts to their intrinsic worth.

Some of these businesses were of questionable quality. In a way, Buffett was willing to buy almost anything if it were cheap enough.

But soon his long-time partner Charlie Munger entered the picture and introduced Buffett to a transformative idea: instead of sifting through mediocre companies simply because they were cheap, why not seek out high-quality businesses with durable competitive advantages, even if they came at a higher— but still fair— price?

Buffett eventually understood the axiom: “it’s far better to buy a wonderful company at a fair price than a fair company at a wonderful price.”

(Obviously it’s even better if you can find wonderful businesses at wonderful prices.)

Where can you find that today?

Well, it’s very difficult in the US. There are some wonderful businesses. But it’s hard to argue that a 100x Enterprise Value to Free Cash Flow ratio is a “fair price”.

But if you expand your horizons abroad, there are fantastic businesses around the world that trade for next to nothing. It seems like everyone is buying US stocks, but they completely ignore amazing deals overseas.

Another option we’ve talked about many times before is the real asset sector, i.e. vital resources and commodities such as metals, energy, agriculture, and productive technology.

There is a severe lack of investment in many of these real asset companies, to the point where certain commodities are becoming scarce relative to demand.

Uranium is a great example. There is now literally a supply deficit, i.e. not enough production to meet demand. And given the momentum for nuclear power, uranium is poised to become one of the world’s most important resources.

Gold is another example. For years, exploration has been lackluster, partly due to lack of investor interest in the sector. Remaining mine reserves are dwindling, and future gold production is questionable.

Yet demand for gold has skyrocketed— mostly from central banks who have been dumping their US dollars. So the gold miners who have efficient production, high quality mines, and solid reserves are making huge profits... yet their share prices have barely moved.

In other words, investors would rather pay 100x earnings for a popular tech stock than pay 3x earnings for a profitable, debt-free, dividend paying gold stock.

Again, the stock market could keep flying higher to even more dizzying heights. But there are definitely some excellent companies out there which offer profits, dividends, and substantial value— if you’re willing to look beyond the mainstream.

To your freedom,  James Hickman  Co-Founder, Schiff Sovereign LLC

PS- We routinely name specific real asset companies, which we believe are primed to boom under these conditions, in Schiff Sovereign Premium.

We focus on businesses which have valuations just 4 or 5 times their yearly free cash flow, and often pay out a lot of those profits through dividends.

https://www.schiffsovereign.com/trends/some-thoughts-on-todays-record-high-prices-152000/

Is this America 3.0? One Key Question to Ask Yourself

Is this America 3.0? One Key Question to Ask Yourself 

Notes From the Field  By James Hickman (Simon Black)  January 21, 2025

When the Founding Fathers put the finishing touches on the Constitution in late September of 1787, they probably had no idea whether or not it would be formally adopted by the states.  There had been intense debate. Criticism. Dissent. And so the ratification of the Constitution was by no means guaranteed.  Delaware became the first state to ratify the document on December 7, 1787. Then Pennsylvania and New Jersey within the same month.

But Article VII stated that the Constitution would not be considered valid unless formally approved by at least nine states. And that milestone wasn’t reached until June 21, 1788 when the state of New Hampshire ratified the Constitution.

One could easily argue that it was that date— June 21, 1788— that “Project America” really began, i.e. America 1.0.

It’s hard to even imagine the amount of work that had to be done to build a country from nothing, to create a government from nothing. Everything from creating a new currency to establishing postal routes...

They had to create offices, figure out how to hold elections, and even design the ‘swearing in’ ceremonies and oaths of office.

It must have been a mind-boggling amount of work. And they had to do it all with virtually no resources.

The brand new country was in debt up to its eyeballs from the Revolutionary War. It had almost no revenue or economy. Infrastructure, even by pre-industrial standards, was nonexistent.

Yet at the same time, the new nation had enormous potential; the massive continent held vast resources, plus people willing to do the hard work to create lasting prosperity.

That version 1.0 of the United States changed over time— Civil War, Reconstruction, rapid industrialization, etc. But it wasn’t until the 1940s that ‘America 2.0’ took shape.

Word War II was still raging. But by early July 1944 it was clear that the Allies— led by the US— were going to vanquish the Nazis.

It was also that same month when representatives from around world held a formal gathering (which ironically also took place in New Hampshire) called the Bretton Woods Conference.

Bretton Woods was a big deal. Dozens of government officials from countries ranging from Australia, Bolivia, China, to Yugoslavia, literally got together in a room and signed a document formally anointing the United States as the world’s dominant superpower.

The Bretton Woods agreement was formally ratified and went into effect on December 27, 1945. And you could argue that this was the launch date of America 2.0: the biggest, most dominant military and economic superpower atop the new global order— entrusted with the global reserve currency, and armed with nuclear weapons.

America 2.0 went on to win the Cold War, invent much of the world’s most important technology, and become the global beacon of strength and prosperity.

But America 2.0 has been in decline for decades.

A quarter-century of war, unbelievable deficit spending, irresponsible bailouts, extreme government incompetence, etc. have led to a major decline of America’s prestige and status.

The national debt now exceeds $36 trillion. The interest bill alone on that debt is over $1.1 trillion per year and rising quickly, consuming 23 cents out of every single tax dollar collected.

Plus, major entitlement programs like Social Security and Medicare are set to run out of money within the next seven years, and those will require trillions of dollars in bailouts.

Frankly, politicians from both parties have fiddled while this dumpster fire burns.

But as the clock struck high noon yesterday in Washington DC, countless millions of people breathed a collective sigh of relief as Trump 47 announced boldly and confidently, without the slightest hint of doubt, “From this moment on, America’s decline is over,” to be replaced with a new “Golden Age” for the United States.

He may be right. I hope he’s right.

And if he is, future historians may look back— just as we have the luxury today of looking back to 1788 and 1945— and say that January 20, 2025 marks the emergence of America 3.0: a re-imagined, back-to-business, stronger, freer, less divided, more prosperous version of the United States that most people don’t even remember at this point.

And there are similarities between now and 1788.

The task back then was enormous— seemingly impossible. The debt was sky-high, and there were almost no resources to tackle the challenges.

Today, the work that needs to be done also seems extremely difficult. They’ll have to dismantle an entrenched, toxic bureaucracy; killing entire departments and programs; make deep cuts to the budget; eliminate thousands upon thousands of regulations.

Along the way their efforts will be stymied by deranged legacy media, blocked by litigation (likely in California’s activist 9th Circuit Court), and impeded by members of Congress from both parties.

Some of those obstacles existed in the 1790s as well. But today’s America has the benefit of having the most advanced economy in the world... so even if they don’t get everything right (which they won’t), as long as they head in the right direction and move quickly, they can make some serious gains.

So, again, they might pull it off. Perhaps this is the emergence of a new golden age.

But any rational person ought to seriously ponder the question: what if they don’t pull it off? What if they aren’t able to overcome the special interests, bureaucracy, media, and activist courts?

Well, in that case the decline may very well continue.

And fundamentally the question is, what will you do in that scenario? It’s really worth thinking about.

In fact, there is no better time to think about this question than when you’re feeling optimistic.

You don’t want to wait for things to get really bad to think about a Plan B; at that point you’ll be emotional and anxious— bad elements which prevent rational decision making.

So I’d encourage you to invest some of today’s optimism into thinking about credible risks— and what sensible steps you could take to reduce or eliminate the consequences in case this isn’t America 3.0, and they are unable to reverse the decline.

This is Plan B thinking. It’s sensible and rational.

How would you deal with the inflation? What about Social Security going away? How would you mitigate higher taxes, or more intense social divisions?

And when you are looking at options, it makes sense to have a global view.

Consider places that could give you the highest and safest return on investment. Or places where you could have a less expensive, more pleasant retirement, where your money goes further, and there is affordable, high quality healthcare.

I’m as optimistic as anyone right now. However, this is the whole point of a Plan B: you might not need it. But you and your family will be in a much better position for giving serious thought to some obvious risks.

To your freedom,  James Hickman  Co-Founder, Schiff Sovereign LLC

https://www.schiffsovereign.com/trends/is-this-america-3-0-one-key-question-to-ask-yourself-151990/

The Most Insolvent Bank In The History Of The World Is. …..

The Most Insolvent Bank In The History Of The World Is. …..

Notes From the Field By James Hickman (Simon Black)  December 12, 2024

As the 1800s came to a close and the world propelled itself full of innovation and optimism into the 20th century, there was perhaps nowhere else on the planet more admired and envied (except for the United States) than Argentina.

In fact, just like America in the late 1800s and early 1900s, Argentina was overflowing with immigrants from all over the world looking for a better way of life in that land of opportunity.

Argentina had already become a rich country at that point. And it was becoming richer so quickly that its economic growth was outpacing even that of the United States.

By 1900 Argentina’s economy was larger than the rest of Latin America combined, and roughly as large as all of Western Europe combined. It seemed like there was nowhere to go but up.

Plus the country was teeming with natural resources— everything from fresh water to some of the world’s most fertile soil, to vast oil and gas reserves. Argentina should have been unstoppable.

(This is still true today; Argentina still boasts one of the largest shale reserves in the world, having quadrupled its output over the last five years.)

You’d have to work really, really hard to screw up such wealth potential. And they did!

For much of the 20th century, Argentina slid into severe economic decay, and it remained that way for decades, mostly due to corrupt, excessive, outrageously irresponsible government spending and idiotic central planning.

Hyperinflation took hold, the banking system collapsed, and the economy has been in an extended depression.

Yet when the new chainsaw-wielding President Javier Milei took over last year, he pledged to change everything. And so far the results are pretty hard to argue with.

Earlier this week, Milei announced that Argentina has just posted a budget surplus— its FIRST surplus since those golden years in the early 1900s.

It’s not an accident. Milei has eliminated entire government departments, fired ministers, and dramatically reduced the size and scope of government.

In his announcement, Milei didn’t hold back, calling his predecessor a “fiscal degenerate” for ballooning the national debt and running massive deficits. These deficits, of course, were essentially funded by Argentina’s central bank, which printed all the money and created inflation.

Milei said that, just last year, his predecessor printed so much money that it was equal to roughly 13% of Argentina’s GDP.

Well, if printing 13% of GDP qualifies as fiscal degeneracy, then the Federal Reserve in the United States is guilty of the same thing— TWICE.

The first instance was in 2009, during the global financial crisis. Under then Chairman Ben Bernanke, the Federal Reserve created trillions of dollars of new money, roughly equivalent to 15% of GDP, to bail out the big Wall Street banks.

The second instance was during the pandemic in 2020 and 2021, when the Fed printed roughly 14% of GDP.

This reckless money printing not only engineered historic inflation in the US, but it also has created enormous problems for the Federal Reserve itself.

The Fed is now wildly and hopelessly insolvent. And that’s not some wild conspiracy theory; it is a fact straight from its own financial statements.

Here’s how it happened:

Going back to 2008, and most significantly during the 2020-2021 pandemic, the Fed created trillions of dollars, then used that money to buy government bonds. They concurrently slashed interest rates to zero.

The net result was that the Fed is now holding trillions of dollars worth of bonds at the lowest yields in recorded history.

But then they suddenly reversed course in 2022, hiking rates rapidly from 0% to more than 5%.

Well, if there’s one thing to understand about bonds, it’s that higher rates cause bond prices to fall. So when the Fed raised rates, they simultaneously caused the value of their bond portfolio to plummet.

And “plummet” is being rather polite.

As it stands today, the Fed faces $818.4 billion in net unrealized losses from all the bonds that it purchased during the pandemic— far exceeding the mere $44 billion it has in equity capital.

Literally according to its own financial statements, the Federal Reserve is totally insolvent. In fact, at nearly $1 trillion, the Fed is the most insolvent bank in the history of the world.

Talk about fiscal degenerates.

Now, the Fed has only a few options:

One, ignore the problem. Continue to pretend that the insolvency of the largest and most systemically important central bank on the planet is no big deal.

Two, request a bailout: Go to the Treasury with hat in hand.

The problem is, the Treasury doesn’t have any money; in fact, the US government already overspends by $2 trillion per year and has to borrow most of that money from the Fed.

So a bailout would first require the Fed to print money, loan that money to the Treasury, and the Treasury then gives it back to the Fed. Talk about bizarre.

The third option is to cut interest rates. Lower rates mean that its bond portfolio will increase in value, thus reducing the Fed’s near trillion-dollar insolvency.

But cutting rates would only invite more inflation.

Inflation is already creeping back. Just yesterday, the latest report showed an increase in the inflation rate with signs it will rise further. Yet the Fed has all but promised to cut rates again next week.

What’s clear is that the Fed is abandoning its responsibility to rein in inflation and maintain a sound currency. Instead, it’s inflating its way out of insolvency.

The result? Every single person who uses US dollars will end up bailing out the Federal Reserve through higher inflation.

And this is why we continue to maintain that real assets— which are an excellent inflation hedge— make so much sense, especially given that so many high quality real asset producers are selling at laughably low valuations.

To your freedom,

James Hickman  Co-Founder, Schiff Sovereign LLC

https://www.schiffsovereign.com/trends/the-most-insolvent-bank-in-the-history-of-the-world-is-151888/

PS: Just a reminder, this week we have opened up Total Access, our highest tier membership. We intentionally keep the membership closed for most of the year, to limit the group to a small, tight-knit community.

If you want to learn more about what Total Access offers, including the unparalleled camaraderie of fellow members, click here.

Great News If You Own A Company

Great News If You Own A Company

Notes From the Field By James Hickman (Simon Black) December 7, 2024

Right at the beginning of the year in early January, I wrote to you about one of the dumbest laws to hit the books in the Land of the Free in a VERY long time. It’s called the Corporate Transparency Act.

The article was called, “Get ready to spend two years in prison,” because, two years in prison is literally the penalty for noncompliance.

You see, the do-gooders in Washington decided that there is too much criminal money laundering taking place in the US banking system. Nevermind that these brainiacs have already passed countless other laws to combat money laundering... all of which seem to be dismal failures.

So they decided to pass yet another anti-money laundering law, which requires every company in America to file a special report to the federal government disclosing the names of its owners.

So if you own a Delaware LLC, for example, to own your family investments, then they wanted you to file this report... even though you ALREADY report the exact same information to the IRS each year.

Well that doesn’t matter. The government wants you to send the same info— but in a different format— to another agency within the Treasury Department. And if you don’t file the report, they threatened everyone with up to two years in prison.

Obviously “ignorance of the law is not an excuse”. They just expect you to keep up with the flood of new laws, plus agency rules, plus court decisions which might modify or nullify all the rules and laws.

Case in point: earlier this week, a VERY sensible federal judge thankfully issued a nationwide injunction on the Corporate Transparency Act, suspending compliance requirements until a final ruling.

This is great news; it means that, at least for now, you do not have to comply with the CTA. But it also illustrates how quickly the laws change. Like literally every single day.

It’s practically a full-time job to keep up with all the changes... and it’s virtually impossible to have a functioning society when the rules are so fluid.

This is the topic of this weekend’s podcast— we hope you enjoy and look forward to speaking with you again next week.

To your freedom, James Hickman  Co-Founder, Schiff Sovereign LLC

ABOUT THE AUTHOR  James Hickman (aka Simon Black) is an international investor, entrepreneur, and founder of Sovereign Man. His free daily e-letter Notes from the Field is about using the experiences from his life and travels to help you achieve more freedom, make more money, keep more of it, and protect it all from bankrupt governments.

https://www.schiffsovereign.com/trends/podcast-great-news-if-you-own-a-company-151858/

What Does It Mean To Have A Plan B?

What Does It Mean To Have A Plan B?

Notes From the Field By James Hickman (Simon Black) December 10, 2024

What does it really mean to have a Plan B— especially these days?

We’ve used the term Plan B for almost the entire 15 years since I started this business in 2009.

Back then the national debt was really starting to become a major problem. The Federal Reserve was printing trillions of dollars to bail out irresponsible bankers. The economy was on the ropes after the Global Financial Crisis.

Plus a guy who told business owners, “You didn’t build that,” had just become President of the United States— and then bizarrely awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.

So the need for a “Plan B” seemed pretty obvious.

Today there is a lot more reason to be optimistic. There’s people coming to power that want to take a wrecking ball to the rot, corruption, and inefficiency that has been plaguing the country for far too long.

Frankly, I’m rooting for them. I’m even willing to pitch in and help. To be frank, I’m not comfortable with a world where China is the dominant superpower.

And there certainly seems to be a real opportunity right now to get the country back on track.

Let’s not be naive though. There are still serious challenges ahead. And the people coming to power have a very narrow window to get things back on track.

But we haven’t had this much reason to be optimistic in quite a while.

This isn’t just about an election or single individual, but rather a clear sign from the entire country, sick and tired of being lectured by out of touch “experts.”

Voters practically demanded a return to sanity and prosperity, even if it means dismantling large chunks of a broken system.

In today’s podcast, we talk about what it really means to have a Plan B in this kind of environment, where there’s reason to be optimistic, yet major challenges remain.

This, after all, is the entire point of a Plan B; to put yourself in a position of strength, and take advantage of great opportunities, while hedging clear and obvious risks.

We talk about that a lot in today’s episode.

We actually start with our CEO Viktorija, fresh off of a Total Access trip to El Salvador, telling us about the VIP treatment our group received from senior levels in both the public and private sector.

Then we transition into things that America needs to get right in short order. And the consequences if this doesn’t happen.

We then discuss the concept of a Plan B, versus having a dangerous “bunker mentality”, and how to think about hedging those risks, both in terms of investments, as well as non-financial solutions.

One of the key ideas is taking steps that make sense, regardless of what might or might not happen int he future. And one example of this is building strong relationships with people who share your values. That’s the whole idea of what “community” is supposed to be.

And this is exactly the type of community that we have developed with our Total Access group.

There are incredible VIP trips, exclusive investment conferences, compelling private investment opportunities, in-depth research, world class discounts, and a whole lot more.

But ultimately, the thing we are most proud of is the community and camaraderie among members.

That is consistently what our Total Access members rate as the biggest benefit to our organization. Many say they have found their tribe.

We usually keep membership closed, and only open up enrollment a few times each year.

To your freedom, James Hickman Co-Founder, Schiff Sovereign LLC

We are doing that right now, and you can check out more about Total Access here.

https://www.schiffsovereign.com/trends/plan_b-151869/

They Have To Get This Right For America To Have A Real Chance

They Have To Get This Right For America To Have A Real Chance

Notes From the Field By James Hickman (Simon Black)  December 5, 2024  

On November 20, 1945, an international tribunal first convened in the Bavarian city of Nuremberg to prosecute key leaders of Nazi Germany for crimes against humanity. The Nuremberg Trials were a key aspect of holding individuals accountable for the brutal acts and genocide committed under Nazi rule.

High-ranking officials, including Hermann Göring and Rudolf Hess, faced charges, and they tended to grab most of the headlines. But plenty of lower ranking officers, and even doctors, faced trial as well. Naturally they tried to defend themselves by claiming they were “only following orders”.

But the Nuremberg Trials established a clear precedent that moral responsibility falls on the individual who committed the crime. “Only following orders” is simply not a valid justification for blatant wrongdoing.

It’s always dangerous territory to bring up the Nazis in any intellectual argument because it’s just so sensational. But in this case the analogy is an important one because we’re ultimately talking about accountability.

Bureaucrats and politicians in the US government commit outrageous, egregious acts of wasteful mismanagement on a daily basis. A lot of it is even deliberate.

And yet no one is ever held accountable. The conservative writer Thomas Sowell once argued that “it is hard to imagine a more stupid or more dangerous way of making decisions than by putting those decisions in the hands of people who pay no price for being wrong.”

People in the private sector pay for their mistakes all the time. Businesses who don’t deliver value soon find themselves without customers. Employees who don’t do good work find themselves out of a job.

But government officials have squandered trillions of dollars. They locked down businesses, forced experimental vaccines on children, censored free speech, and violated just about every right imaginable.

How many have been truly held accountable?

TO READ MORE: https://www.schiffsovereign.com/trends/they-have-to-get-this-right-for-america-to-have-a-real-chance-151850/

Is The US Banking System In Trouble?

Is The US Banking System In Trouble?

December 2, 2024  Notes From the Field By James Hickman (Simon Black)

In the year 1157, the Republic of Venice was engaged in a bitter trade war with its arch rival the Byzantine Empire.

While the rest of Europe was barely surviving thanks to the stupidity of their centrally planned feudal economies, Venice was a place where anyone, even the most illiterate peasant, could work hard, take some risks, and become fabulously wealthy.

In short, it was the medieval America. And unsurprisingly its economy was booming.

Trade was the bread and butter of the Venetian economy. Venice had the fastest ships, the boldest captains, the shrewdest merchants, and by far the best legal and economic system.

In the other corner was the Byzantine Empire, a superpower in decline. Even the emperor at that point was more of a figurehead as nearly everything in the economy was controlled by incompetent career bureaucrats.

Even despite its decline, however, the Byzantine Empire still controlled regional trade in the Black Sea and Eastern Mediterranean. And Venice dominated trade in the Western Mediterranean.

It was only natural that the two-- a rising power versus a declining power-- would lock horns in a trade war.

Bear in mind that medieval trade wars were not what we think of today. In our modern era, a trade “war” is mostly harsh words, barbed tweets, and now potentially tariffs.

A thousand years ago, a trade war was almost an actual war-- naval battles, piracy, wanton slaughter… pretty much standard medieval warfare short of a full-blown ground invasion.

And like any war, a trade war was expensive.

So, in the year 1157, rather than raise taxes, the Venetian government launched a special loan program from its citizens. Participation was pretty much mandatory. But the basic idea was that, unlike taxes, the government would pay back the money, with interest.

Investors were issued paper certificates as a guarantee of repayment. And since nearly everyone in Venice had paper certificates (since the loan was mandatory), merchants and bankers began trading certificates to settle transactions.

The government loan certificates had essentially become a financial security-- and even a form of money. And the world’s first real bond market was born.

These days bonds are considered a boring, ‘safe’ investment. And most individual investors seldom bother to even learn about the bond market, let alone actually buy any bonds.

After all, bonds aren’t nearly as sexy as the stock market.

But bonds are still a critical piece of the global financial system. And just like in medieval Venice, bonds are almost a form of money, i.e. large corporations, banks, and governments consider bonds a “cash equivalent”.

Banks in particular are massive hoarders of bonds. When you make a deposit at your bank, most of the time they use that money to buy bonds.

That’s because, again, bonds are considered safe and boring. Especially US government bonds. And banks are supposed to be safe and boring.

But a serious problem started to creep into this ‘safe and boring’ asset class around ten years ago.

You might recall back during the 2008 financial crisis, central banks around the world printed tons of money and slashed interest rates to zero.

Governments also started spending like crazy in an effort to bail out their economies, and most of them went very deeply into debt.

The US national debt was $9.5 trillion just prior to the 2008 financial crisis. Barely three years later it had risen to $15 trillion.

But because interest rates were so low, most of that $5 trillion in new debt had a yield of roughly 1%.

And it was America’s commercial banks (along with insurance companies) which bought up a huge portion of those 1% yielding bonds.

Well, eventually the economy emerged from its crisis… so the Fed began to hike interest rates. But in doing so they created a huge problem for banks.

If there’s one thing to understand about bonds, it’s this: bond values fall when interest rates rise.

Think about it-- the banks bought trillions of dollars’ worth of bonds during the financial crisis. And their bonds were locked in a ~1% yield.

When rates suddenly rose to 2%, the value of the banks’ 1% bonds obviously fell. After all, why would a bond with a 1% fixed yield be worth the same as a new bond that pays 2%?

So, the new, higher rates caused the banks’ bond portfolios to suffer huge losses. Some banks were even heading towards insolvency. But they used a bunch of clever accounting tricks to hide their losses and pretend that everything was fine.

I first wrote about this nearly ten years ago and predicted that some banks will fail as a result.

Fortunately for the banks, the interest rate hikes were short-lived. By 2019 the Fed reversed course and started cutting rates. Then came the pandemic, and rates once again went to zero.

You’d think the banks would have collectively breathed a sigh of relief, learned from their mistake, and vowed to never load up on low-yield bonds ever again.

Yet the opposite happened. Banks bought trillions of dollars’ worth of US government bonds throughout 2020-2021 with yields as low as 0.01%. Crazy.

Today bond yields have risen to more than 4%... and, SHOCKER, the same effect has taken place: banks’ bond portfolios have suffered enormous losses.

The FDIC recently reported the total ‘unrealized’ bond loss to be over half a trillion dollars. That’s a lot.

The US banking system as a whole has enough equity to cover that loss. But individually, many banks do not.

In fact, this is precisely the reason that Silicon Valley Bank (among others) failed in 2023. So if rates don’t fall dramatically (or worse-- rates go up), then we could see more banks fail.

Bank of America is one of the naughty banks with nearly $90 billion in losses from higher interest rates. That’s over a third of the bank’s total equity.

This means that Bank of America is not insolvent; but at some point, the regulators could force them to reinforce their balance sheet by suspending their dividend and raising more capital. This is likely a big reason why Warren Buffett dumped so much Bank of America stock.

(Bizarrely, since reporting massive bond losses in their most recent quarterly report, Bank of America’s stock price has shot up nearly 20%. The same thing happened with Silicon Valley Bank’s stock in 2023.)

But, again, while there’s currently still enough capital in the US banking system as a whole to fend off a major crisis, there’s a MUCH bigger problem lurking-- and I’ll write to you about this soon.

In the meantime, if you’d rather avoid the mess entirely, definitely consider short-term T-bills in Treasury Direct (it’s like having a four-week CD), or dollar-pegged tokens like USDC.

There’s also the option of a foreign bank account in a financially secure jurisdiction, which includes the added benefit of asset protection and diversification.

To your freedom,  James Hickman  Co-Founder, Schiff Sovereign LLC

PS-  Banks are marketed as pillars of security, but in reality represent significant risk to your hard earned money.  In the upcoming Monthly Letter for Schiff Sovereign Premium subscribers, we uncover the cracks in the banking system and explain how these challenges are affecting both individual banks and the system at large.

More importantly, we provide actionable strategies to safeguard your wealth—and even grow it—despite these uncertainties.  

https://www.schiffsovereign.com/trends/is-the-us-banking-system-in-trouble-151833/

What’s up with Buffett and his $325 Billion Pile of Cash?

What’s up with Buffett and his $325 Billion Pile of Cash?

November 20, 2024 Notes From the Field By James Hickman (Simon Black)

Much has been written about Warren Buffett having sold a substantial amount of stocks. And his company, Berkshire Hathaway, is sitting on a record $325 billion cash pile as a result.

Buffett has often said that his preferred holding period for an investment is "forever". So the fact that he has sold so much stock has many observers proclaiming that "Buffett is predicting an imminent stock market crash."

Except that he's not. Buffett is a pretty transparent guy who has never been afraid to speak his mind. If he were predicting a crash, he'd probably say it.

Besides, Buffett has sold plenty of stocks in the past; this is not an anomaly. In 2022 and 2023, for example, he dumped shares of Chevron, Activision Blizzard, Taiwan Semiconductor, and HP.

This time around he sold off some shares in Apple and Bank of America. But he actually explained WHY-- especially with Apple. And I think his reasoning is worth mentioning.

Buffett explained to a reporter that "We don’t mind paying taxes at Berkshire. And we are paying a 21% federal rate,” which amounted to $5 billion last year.

But he continued, saying that the US federal corporate tax rate "was 35% not long ago, and it’s been 52% in the past. . . With the present fiscal policies, I think that something has to give, and I think that higher taxes are quite likely," i.e. that the government will take "a greater share of your income, or mine, or Berkshire's."

"So if I’m [selling Apple stock] at 21% [tax rates] this year, and we’re doing it at a lot higher percentage later on, I don’t think [shareholders] will actually mind that we sold a little Apple this year.”

This is a critical takeaway.

Nations with enormous debts and deficits can’t live beyond their means forever; Buffett isn't predicting a market crash-- he's predicting higher taxes... that, sooner or later, the federal government is going to have a take a much bigger bite out of people's paychecks.

As I've written before, there's a chance that Buffett's prediction might be wrong. It IS still possible for the US to get back on the right track-- a combination of government efficiency, spending cuts, de-regulation, and a technology (AI) fueled productivity boom could generate such an economic boom that the country COULD grow its way out of debt without having to resort to higher taxes (or inflation).

But the new administration will have to get moving immediately. Otherwise, Buffett will be proven right: higher taxes will be inevitable.

His decision to sell Bank of America stock is even more obvious and also bears mentioning. Quite simply, Bank of America is in deep trouble.

You probably recall how the Federal Reserve slashed interest rates all the way down to zero during the pandemic. It was ridiculous-- the US government was able to sell Ten Year notes with a yield of less than 0.4%.

Talk about a ******* deal. The largest debtor in the history of the world was selling bonds with such a pitiful yield that they didn't even keep up with inflation. Who would be such an idiot to buy such a terrible asset?

Bank of America, that's who. In fact, Bank of America invested hundreds of billions of dollars of their depositors' savings in these terrible assets.

Well, now that interest rates are literally more than 10x higher (from 0.4% to more than 4%), those same bonds that Bank of America bought back in 2020 and 2021 have lost a TON of money. BofA is sitting on more than $100 BILLION in unrealized losses from their bond portfolio.

Remember, this is the same reason that Silicon Valley Bank (among others) went bust last year-- the bonds they bought during the pandemic lost a ton of value, and the bank was wiped out. Bank of America is in a similar position now.

The key difference is that Bank of America has enough capital on its balance sheet to sustain those losses. So they might not be wiped out or fail. But the implications for shareholders are pretty bad.

Whenever a bank gets into trouble, the first thing that happens is the regulators step in and start making a bunch of demands. In this case, the FDIC and Fed will probably force Bank of America to raise more capital.

This will have the effect of severely diluting existing Bank of America shareholders... which most investors, especially Buffett, absolutely HATE.

The second thing that regulators always do with troubled banks is force them to suspend their dividend. And dividends are among the top reasons why Buffett likes to hold companies "forever". So given the likely prospect of zero dividends and heavily diluted shares, it looks like Buffett is getting out before regulators drop the hammer on Bank of America.

This is a big difference from "Buffett predicting a crash" as so many headlines across the Internet have been suggesting.

That said, the US stock market in general is definitely looking very expensive and near historically high valuations once again.

But there's at least one sector that's still cheap: real assets.

I've been writing for most of the past two years that real assets make a lot of sense to own, especially during inflationary times. Real assets were THE asset class to own during the 1970s stagflation.

The US is currently on the same path-- with its national debt constantly surging to new record highs (now $36 trillion), suggesting that another bout of nasty inflation could be in order down the road.

But, again, there's now a reasonable chance that the new administration is able to get the nation's finances on the right track... potentially forestalling an inflation spike and debt crisis.

So do real assets still make sense?

For now, yes. Natural gas is a great example-- as I've explained before, US natural gas is still incredibly cheap. And any American energy renaissance will depend heavily on natural gas. Prices could surge as a result, and natural gas producers could boom. Yet many companies' shares are still available for peanuts.

Bottom line, it still makes sense to consider fantastic real asset producers-- especially when they are profitable, low-debt, dividend-paying businesses that trade at absurdly low valuations.

To your freedom,   James Hickman  Co-Founder, Schiff Sovereign LLC

https://www.schiffsovereign.com/trends/whats-up-with-buffett-and-his-325-billion-pile-of-cash-151751/

If You Think Bitcoin Is On Fire, Just Wait For The Natural Gas Boom

If You Think Bitcoin Is On Fire, Just Wait For The Natural Gas Boom

November 12, 2024 Notes from the Field By James Hickman / Simon Black

“Wow, these guys are going to be in for a rude wakening about how much power is going to be available. . .” thought Joe Dominguez, CEO of Constellation Energy.

Dominguez was one of the attendees last May at a private, invitation-only gathering of energy and tech company CEOs held at Microsoft’s headquarters. The whole point was to talk about power.

Everyone already knew that AI was consuming a lot of electricity, and they assumed this demand would grow. A lot. But they didn’t realize by quite how much until OpenAI co-founder Sam Altman told the group that just a single AI model will require as much power as a large city.

Again, that’s just ONE model. And there are plenty of them out there-- Google Gemini, OpenAI, Meta AI, etc. Every major tech company-- not to mention plenty of startups-- have developed or are developing power-hungry AI models.

In terms of energy demand and power consumption, AI will be the equivalent of adding several states to the US over the next few years. And America’s power grid simply doesn’t have the capacity.

Joe Dominguez understood that immediately… which is why his company teamed up with Microsoft to restart the Three Mile Island nuclear power station in Pennsylvania.

But one additional nuclear power plant is barely going to move the needle on America’s energy needs… and it takes way too much time to build new ones.

In fact, the most recent nuclear power facility to come online in the US took more than a decade to build. So even if the industry gets started today (which they won’t), and the permitting process were quick and easy (which it won’t be), nuclear power is still a long way out.

But there’s an easier option for the here and now: natural gas.

I’ve written about this before-- US natural gas is absurdly cheap, especially compared to global prices. That’s because there’s just so damn much of it in the US… combined with the fact that natural gas is complicated to transport.

Oil is simple. Tanker ships crisscross the planet transporting crude from country to country, so the global price for oil is similar everywhere.

But it’s not that way with gas. Natural gas has to first be decontaminated of various impurities at the wellhead in order to be transported in ‘dry’ form through pipelines, then stored underground.

At the moment there is no trans-Atlantic pipeline allowing US natural gas to flow to Europe. And building one would take years if not decades.

That’s why there’s such a tremendous price difference in natural gas between the United States and Europe. The US produces oceans of it but hardly uses it, hence a cheap price. Europe barely produces any but consumes it voraciously, so the price is more than 4x higher.

If only there were a readily available way to transport natural gas across the Atlantic… then US producers would be able to export to Europe. Natural gas would be more like oil-- a global commodity whose price is more or less the same around the world. And the US price would surge.

Well, there actually is a way to do that. Natural gas can be liquefied into a condensed form (about 1/600th of the gaseous volume) and transported at -163C.

Obviously, there’s a cost to liquefying and transporting gas. But a US producer can still make so much more money selling gas to Europe-- even after the additional costs are included.

And this started to happen around 2017; US producers began liquefying their natural gas and exporting to Europe in major quantities. Within a few years, LNG exports were booming.

But then, earlier this year, Joe Biden bowed to the climate fanatics and ordered his Department of Energy to cease issuing permits for new LNG export terminals… essentially shutting down export growth.

It’s safe to expect a totally different policy starting in January, i.e. more US natural gas will flow to Europe. That means less supply in the US. Natural gas prices will rise as a result… and probably by a LOT.

But don’t forget about AI.

Let’s first think about different ways to generate electricity and the types of fuels that are available.

There’s solar and wind, for example. The prices of solar panels in particular… and wind turbines to a degree, are both falling. In large part this is because the Chinese Communist Party heavily subsidizes its domestic solar panel industry.

So, wind and solar are somewhat price competitive. But they carry a security risk: do you really want China manufacturing your entire power grid? Is it possible they built a kill switch in their software?

More importantly, they’re not terribly reliable. There are times (like night!) when the sun doesn’t shine. Germany (which generates nearly 60% of its power from renewable energy) recently experienced yet another dunkelflaute, i.e. a foggy, doldrum period in which there is neither sunshine nor wind.

This doesn’t work for AI. Tech companies need reliability.

Then there’s coal… which is super reliable, not to mention cheap and efficient. But it’s one of the dirtiest fuels known to man. Google won’t get its hands dirty with that one.

Tech companies love nuclear. They understand it is, by far, the most efficient form of energy known to man. But again, new reactors are 10+ years away. AI needs power now.

And that pretty much leaves natural gas. The US has oceans of it and barely uses a fraction of its supply. It’s absurdly cheap. In fact, according to the US National Renewable Energy Laboratory, natural gas is THE cheapest fuel source per MW of electrical capacity.

It’s the cleanest of all the conventional sources. Plus, you can construct a new facility in about two years… so new power can come online quickly. And the Big Tech companies have demonstrated that they are more than willing to shell out the cash needed to finance natural gas power plants.

Between these two trends: AI power demand, and the upcoming export boom, natural gas prices are probably going to soar.

We’ve just watched the Dow Jones Industrial Average rise by 7% to an all-time high in the last week. Bitcoin has surged by more than 30% to its all-time high.

That’s nothing compared to what we could see in the natural gas price.

It’s obviously not going to happen in a week, these trends will take longer to unfold. But it’s definitely a good time to look at some of the extremely undervalued natural gas producers whose profits will boom.

To your freedom,  James Hickman  Co-Founder, Schiff Sovereign LLC

https://www.schiffsovereign.com/trends/if-you-think-bitcoin-is-on-fire-just-wait-for-the-natural-gas-boom-151726/

What About Gold?

What About Gold?

November 18, 2024  Notes From the Field – James Hickman/ Simon Black/ Sovereign Man

It was early January 2020, and weird things were happening in the world.

Socialism was on the march in the Land of the Free. Conflict, it seemed, was exploding everywhere, both abroad (North Korea, Iran, Yemen) and at home.

And most notably, over in China, the Communist government was literally welding people into their homes to ‘keep them safe’ from a bizarre virus that was spreading rapidly

It was only January, but 2020 was already looking pretty uncertain.

I wrote an article about preparing for uncertainty. And, with respect to finance, I wrote that gold was a very sensible asset to own in such times: “Frankly I don’t think anyone can credibly say that they have any idea what’s going to happen in the world in 2020. And that’s why I own gold.”

We soon found out. One of the most ridiculous hysterias in human history gripped the world. Countries were locked down. Governments and central banks conjured trillions of dollars out of thin air to pay people to stay home and not work.

Three months later, in mid-April, I wrote again that the Fed’s virtually unlimited money printing was going to be “very inflationary” and encouraged readers to consider gold once again (along with other real assets).

Quite predictably, the price of gold shot up, from $1560 in early January, to $1720 in April, to nearly $2000 in August.

At that point there was a lot of fickle, speculative capital flowing into the gold market. Gold ETFs were receiving huge inflows, pushing the price to (what was then) an all-time high.

So I wrote to our audience again on August 3rd stating that, “a short-term correction may be in order” for gold. The price peaked three days later, and then fell be several hundred dollars per ounce.

I started writing about gold again in earnest back in early 2023, a few months after the price had bottomed out. The fiscal trajectory of the United States under Joe Biden was painfully obvious at that point. The national debt was growing at an unprecedented peace-time pace, and other nations were lining up against the dollar as the global reserve currency.

Gold was a smart move. And by the end of the year I concluded that “we could easily see central banks around the world ditching their US dollars and loading up on gold as part of a new, de-dollarized global financial system.”

And that’s what started happening: fed up with dollar inflation, US government dysfunction, and America’s gargantuan national debt, foreign central banks began trading their dollars for gold.

THE GOLD PRICE SOARED AS A RESULT

Even in March of this year, when gold was at its all time high of the time at $2,150, I wrote that gold was actually a contrarian investment with a lot more room to rise.

It went all the way up to almost $2,800.

Now, I’m not citing my own work to be boastful. Trust me, I’ve gotten plenty of things wrong.

My point is to illustrate that I AM NOT A GOLD BUG. I don’t hold a fanatical view about gold that it’s the only thing worth owning and is only going to go up.

Furthermore, I don’t think about gold strictly in terms of price; that’s way too one-dimensional.

Gold is a great insurance policy. It’s a hedge against systemic risks. It’s great for estate planning and asset protection. It holds its value over inflation over long periods of time. And, sometimes, it can also be a fantastic speculation.

The above examples demonstrate that I’m not shy about saying whether I think gold has been overbought, is too expensive, or too cheap. My assessment obviously changes when the information changes.

Right now one thing is clear: foreign central banks were the ones responsible for driving the price of gold to all-time highs throughout 2024, just as I suggested would be the case in 2023.

And that was happening at a time when most individual investors (plus ‘smart money’ hedge funds) were actually selling gold. So they were missing out on the boom.

But that started to change over the past few months.

Data from Gold ETFs around the world show that individual investors have been buying tons of gold. Problem is— that money tends to be very short-term... and fickle.

We can already see it; a lot of those same small investors have already yanked their money out of gold after the US election, which is why the price is down about 10% from its record high.

But, again, the real long-term driver of gold demand is central banks. And I think a lot of foreign central banks are sitting on the sidelines right now.

With gold already near its all-time high, they have paused their buying spree, and they’re now looking at this incoming administration to see what happens next.

Can Elon trim the federal budget? Will there be a US energy renaissance or AI-fueled productivity bonanza? Will the government become functional once again? Will America’s unparalleled military superiority be restored? Will sensible monetary policy reign in inflation?

Because if those things actually happen, then the dollar has a pretty good shot of continuing its reign as the dominant global reserve currency.

And I think a lot of central banks that have been buying so much gold are happy to wait for the next several months to see what happens. Hence gold could easily trade sideways for a while, or even fall.

All that said, gold is still worth owning... because there’s still long-term risk to the US and to the dollar.

Vladimir Putin recently made some comments that a lot of folks misinterpreted as “Russia and the BRICS nations will keep using the dollar. . .”

But that’s not what Putin said.

Putin said it was the US government’s weaponization of the dollar that pushed Russia and the BRICs nations away. And as long as that threat remains, the BRICS+ bloc is plowing ahead with developing an alternate financial system.

Many large economies have already started trading with one another in a currency other than the US dollar. And that trend is likely to continue, i.e. the dollar is going to have competition.

Not to mention, there’s still a ton of uncertainty in the world. The national debt is still way too high. The Leftists still want to storm to power and Make America California. Conflict might still break out.

hese are all sensible reasons to own some gold.

But given that the key driver of the gold price, i.e. central banks, are probably going to sit on the sidelines over the next few months, I wouldn’t be buying right now on the expectation of a short-term price surge.

To your freedom,   James Hickman   Co-Founder, Schiff Sovereign LLC

https://www.schiffsovereign.com/trends/what-about-gold-151745/