From Ghost Industry to National Priority
This White House statement on critical minerals explicitly listed uranium as a critical mineral, and it looks like they’re actually considering a price floor guarantee. The US used to be a powerhouse in uranium, but the industry is basically a ghost of its former self now. The government seems to be stepping up and back producers with some real institutional support. Things like strategic stockpiling or a price floor could be a massive game-changer. Between the skyrocketing power demand and energy security needs, support seems to be coming. Source: JH @CRUDEOIL231
This is HISTORIC: The gold-to-silver ratio plunged to 50, the lowest in 14 YEARS.
This means it now takes just 50 ounces of silver to buy 1 ounce of gold, down from ~105 in April 2025. Since then, gold prices have rallied +43% while silver prices have SKYROCKETED an unbelievable +186%. Silver is outperforming gold at the fastest pace in decades. Source: Global Markets Investor Global Markets Investor
The Shanghai premium is screaming stress.
The Shanghai premium is screaming stress. Silver is now trading 9.4% higher in the East than in the West (see chart). Late 2025, you could dismiss this as temporary. That narrative is dead. In the East, silver is already triple digits and the West will soon follow. Source: Bloomberg, Karel Mercx
Stocks keep making new highs, but commodities are telling a very different story.
The relative performance of commodities versus the S&P 500 is sitting near levels that have only shown up a few times in history. Those gaps didn’t last forever Source: SentimenTrader
According to technical models, hashtag#silver $SLV should’ve stopped about 47 trendlines ago...
Source: Trend Spider
Silver storms through the $90 level. This is unprecedented! Both exciting & concerning at the same time.
Source: Silver Gold News
The Gold/Silver pair down to 52x - the lowest since Dec 2012
Since: zerohedge
The next 24 hours could be extremely volatile! supreme court tariff ruling is expected today at 10:00 am et
Markets price a 71% chance that courts rule Trump’s tariffs illegal, raising the prospect of $600B+ in refunds and significant market uncertainty. A non-consensus view argues the opposite outcome is more likely: keeping the tariffs may be less disruptive than reversing them. U.S. businesses have already adapted by restructuring supply chains, repricing goods, and adjusting investment plans, so a sudden rollback could punish those who adjusted and reward those who didn’t. Early fears of runaway inflation, collapsing earnings, and stalled growth have not materialized. Striking down the tariffs would also create legal and fiscal uncertainty around refunds and replacement measures, increasing volatility. Once embedded, tariffs function as a fiscal revenue tool, not just trade policy. Bottom line: The court may prioritize the least disruptive outcome—maintaining or modifying tariffs rather than eliminating them outright. Source: Cassian @ConvexDispatch, @BobEUnlimited
