Bitcoin exchange-traded funds now collectively manage approximately $104 billion, and are on track to surpass gold ETFs in net assets.
United States Bitcoin (BTC) exchange-traded funds (ETFs) broke $100 billion in net assets for the first time on Nov. 21, according to data from Bloomberg Intelligence.
Bitcoin has dominated the ETF landscape since spot BTC ETFs launched in January. Investor interest accelerated after crypto-friendly President-elect Donald Trump prevailed on Nov. 5 in the US elections.
Collectively, BTC ETFs now manage approximately $104 billion. They are on track to surpass gold ETFs in net assets, which together hold approximately $120 billion in assets under management (AUM) as of Nov. 21, according to Bitcoin Archive.
Bitcoin ETFs are “now 97% of way to passing Satoshi as biggest holder and 82% of way to passing gold ETFs,” Eric Balchunas, an ETF analyst for Bloomberg Intelligence, said in a Nov. 21 post on the X platform.
BlackRock’s iShares Bitcoin Trust (IBIT) leads the pack, pulling $30 billion in net inflows since January, according to Bloomberg data.
Fidelity Wise Origin Bitcoin Fund (FBTC) has been the second most popular BTC ETF, seeing inflows of more than $11 billion so far this year, per Bloomberg.
The crypto market surged following Trump’s victory in the US presidential election, as many believe his win will benefit the industry,Cointelegraph Research said.
Spot BTC traded at more than $96,000 as of Nov. 21, up nearly 120% since the start of 2024, according to Google Finance data.
Nov. 6 was IBIT’s “biggest volume day ever” as investors flocked to cryptocurrencies after Trump’s election win, Balchunas said in a Nov. 6 X post.
On Nov. 7, IBIT clocked $1.1 billion in inflows, reclaiming inflow status after two consecutive days of outflows totaling $113.3 million, according to Farside data.
BTC is expected to top somewhere between $100,000 and $150,000 per coin, MV Global said.
BlackRock’s IBIT now holds more assets than the asset manager’s gold ETF despite only launching in January, data from BlackRock shows.
Investors are turning toward gold and BTC in a so-called “debasement trade” as they brace for a “catastrophic scenario” amid rising geopolitical tensions, according to an Oct. 3 report by JPMorgan.
As Biden Escalates, Half Of Ukrainians Want Negotiated End To War – ASAP
With the Russian army relentlessly seizing more territory while mounting casualties, power outages, and aggressive conscription tactics make life miserable for everyone, half of Ukrainians have had enough: They now want their government to pursue a deal that ends the war as soon as possible.
According to the latest Gallup polls, 52% of Ukrainians agreed with the statement “Ukraine should seek to negotiate an ending to the war as soon as possible.” That’s substantially more than the 38% who said the country should “continue fighting until it wins the war.” These are huge shifts in sentiment from polls taken in 2022. Then, 73% of Ukrainians were gung-ho about fighting to victory, while only 22% were eager for a speedy, negotiated end to the conflict.
Of those who want a negotiated end to the war, 52% say Ukraine should be willing to make territorial concessions; 38% disagreed. Meanwhile, among the “keep-fighting” crowd, the definition of victory is starting to bend to realities on the ground. Last year, 93% of them defined victory as Ukraine regaining all territory, even Crimea. That’s now dropped to 81%.
The important new read on sentiment inside Ukraine comes days after President Biden gave the green light for a major escalation of the war, by authorizing Ukraine to use the long-range, US-made MGM-140 Army Tactical Missile System to strike deeper into Russian territory. Ukraine quickly put its new permission to work, striking a Russian military facility near the city of Karachev in the Bryansk region — about 71 miles from the Ukraine border.
“If someone considers it possible to supply such weapons to a combat zone to strike our territory and create problems for us, then why do we not have the right to supply our weapons of the same class to those regions of the world from which the strikes will be carried out on sensitive objects of those countries that do this in relation to Russia? That is, the answer may be symmetrical. We will think about it.”
On Tuesday, Putin signed off on an update to Russia’s nuclear weapons policy. Under the revised doctrine, a conventional attack on Russia that is enabled by a nuclear power will be considered a joint attack by the two actors. More chillingly, Russia will now consider nuclear retaliation for conventional attacks by a nuclear power.
Since Ukraine is constantly — if dubiously — touted as an exemplary democracy, let’s hope its government yields to its citizens’ growing desire for peace before it’s too late for all of us.
I have previously written about the dubious investigations of the shooting of Ashli Babbitt on Jan. 6th and the alleged violation of the standards for the use of lethal force by the officer who shot her. I strongly disagreed with the findings of investigations by the Capitol Police and the Justice Department in clearing Captain Michael Byrd, who shot the unarmed protester. Now, Just the News has an alarming report of the record of Byrd that only magnifies these concerns.
Liberal politicians and pundits often refer to multiple deaths from the Jan. 6th riot. In reality, only one person died that day, and that was Babbitt, who was shot while trying to climb through a window.
However, the media lionized Byrd and portrayed the killing of the unarmed Babbitt as clearly justified. That is in sharp contrast to the approach that the media has taken in other shootings by law enforcement.
An unjustified killing by police on that day was inconsistent with the public narrative pushed by the pundits and the press.
As I have previously written, what occurred on Jan. 6th was a disgrace. However, it was a riot, not an insurrection. (It was certainly not an act of terrorism as claimed by some Democratic politicians). A protest at the Capitol resulted in a complete breakdown of the inadequate security precautions, a failure that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi privately admitted but only recently was disclosed.
The failure of Pelosi and others to properly prepare for the protest, despite the offer of President Donald Trump of 10,000 National Guard troops, does not excuse the conduct of the rioters who attacked the Capitol, interrupted the constitutional process, and committed property damage.
Babbitt was one of those rioters. She was wrong in her actions, but the penalty for breaking a window and unauthorized entry is not death in this country. I previously spoke with her mother, Micki Witthoeft, and her husband, Aaron Babbitt, about their continuing effort to expose what occurred that day.
The new report confirms what many of us had previously heard about the Byrd controversy.
Babbitt, 35, was an Air Force veteran and Trump supporter who participated in the riot three years ago. She was clearly committing criminal acts of trespass, property damage, and other offenses. However, the question is whether an officer is justified in shooting a protester when he admits that he did not see any weapon before discharging his weapon.
Just to recap what we previously discussed in the earlier column:
When protesters rushed to the House chamber, police barricaded the chamber’s doors; Capitol Police were on both sides, with officers standing directly behind Babbitt. Babbitt and others began to force their way through, and Babbitt started to climb through a broken window. That is when Byrd killed her.
At the time, some of us familiar with the rules governing police use of force raised concerns over the shooting. Those concerns were heightened by the DOJ’s bizarre review and report, which stated the governing standards but then seemed to brush them aside to clear Byrd.
The DOJ report did not read like any post-shooting review I have read as a criminal defense attorney or law professor. The DOJ statement notably does not say that the shooting was justified. Instead, it stressed that “prosecutors would have to prove not only that the officer used force that was constitutionally unreasonable, but that the officer did so ‘willfully.’” It seemed simply to shrug and say that the DOJ did not believe it could prove “a bad purpose to disregard the law” and that “evidence that an officer acted out of fear, mistake, panic, misperception, negligence, or even poor judgment cannot establish the high level of intent.”
While the Supreme Court, in cases such as Graham v. Connor, has said that courts must consider “the facts and circumstances of each particular case,” it has emphasized that lethal force must be used only against someone who is “an immediate threat to the safety of the officers or others, and … is actively resisting arrest or attempting to evade arrest by flight.” Particularly with armed assailants, the standard governing “imminent harm” recognizes that these decisions must often be made in the most chaotic and brief encounters.
Under these standards, police officers should not shoot unarmed suspects or rioters without a clear threat to themselves or fellow officers. That even applies to armed suspects who fail to obey orders. Indeed, Huntsville police officer William “Ben” Darby was convicted of killing a suicidal man holding a gun to his head. Despite being cleared by a police review board, Darby was prosecuted, found guilty, and sentenced to 25 years in prison, even though Darby said he feared for the safety of himself and fellow officers. Yet law professors and experts who have praised such prosecutions in the past have been conspicuously silent over the shooting of an unarmed woman who had officers in front of and behind her on Jan. 6.
Byrd went public soon after the Capitol Police declared that “no further action will be taken” in the case. He then demolished the two official reviews that cleared him.
Byrd described how he was “trapped” with other officers as “the chants got louder” with what “sounded like hundreds of people outside of that door.” He said he yelled for all of the protesters to stop: “I tried to wait as long as I could. I hoped and prayed no one tried to enter through those doors. But their failure to comply required me to take the appropriate action to save the lives of members of Congress and myself and my fellow officers.”
Byrd could just as well have hit the officers behind Babbitt, who was shot while struggling to squeeze through the window.
Of all of the lines from Byrd, this one stands out: “I could not fully see her hands or what was in the backpack or what the intentions are.” So, Byrd admitted he did not see a weapon or an immediate threat from Babbitt beyond her trying to enter through the window. Nevertheless, Byrd boasted, “I know that day I saved countless lives.” He ignored that Babbitt was the one person killed during the riot. (Two protesters died of natural causes and a third from an amphetamine overdose; one police officer died the next day from natural causes, and four officers have committed suicide since then.) No other officers facing similar threats shot anyone in any other part of the Capitol, even those who were attacked by rioters armed with clubs or other objects.
The new report confirms prior accounts that Byrd had prior disciplinary and training issues. According to Just the News, they included “a failed shotgun qualification test, a failed FBI background check for a weapon’s purchase, a 33-day suspension for a lost weapon and referral to Maryland state prosecutors for firing his gun at a stolen car fleeing his neighborhood.”
Given this history and the shooting of Babbitt, Rep. Barry Loudermilk, R-Ga., the chair of the House Administration Oversight Subcommittee investigation, wrote to express concern over Byrd’s promotion to captain. Those incidents included Byrd firing at a car and allegedly misrepresenting the incident in claiming that “he fired at a vehicle trying to strike him when the evidence fellow officers found at the scene indicated he shot at the vehicle after it had already passed him and no longer posed a threat.” The letter states the Office of Professional Responsibility found that the evidence did not support his claim and “OPR concluded that the evidence suggests Byrd ‘discharged his service weapon at the vans after they passed him by.’”
The concern is that the political environment — and powerful interests in Congress — demanded that Byrd be cleared. As discussed in my new book, “The Indispensable Right,” the Justice Department had publicly pledged to bring “shock and awe” in prosecuting anyone associated with the riot. Finding that the only person killed that day was an unjustified shooting would not exactly fit with the narrative.
The incidents also include allegations of improper handling of his weapon, including reports that Byrd left his service weapon in a public bathroom in the Capitol Visitor Center complex used by tourists and visitors.
The Babbitt family has continued to fight to force the facts into the open and has filed a civil case. A trial is now set for 2026.
NatGas Hits Highest Price In Year On “Very Cold Pattern Developing” Across Lower 48
Natural gas futures in Chicago jumped 6% on Thursday, reaching a one-year high as traders price a cold blast across the Lower 48.
Futures for December delivery soared to $3.372 per million British thermal units, up 6% this morning and up nearly 27% since Nov. 8. Prices also touched a one-year.
Ole R. Hvalbye, a Commodities Analyst at Skandinaviska Enskilda Banken AB (SEB), told energy news website Rigzone that NatGas soared on “the latest National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) short-term forecast (6-14 days) predicts colder than normal temperatures spreading from the West Coast, with below-average conditions expected across much of the country, except for the Gulf Coast and East Coast.”
Data from Bloomberg shows that temperatures across the Lower 48 are forecasted to trend below a 30-year average for the next few weeks, indicating that fuel demand will rise as thermostats are turned up.
More weather forecast…
Confidence increasing of a VERY cold pattern developing to end November and start December.
Both the EPS/GEFS is support of a widespread notably below normal pattern for much of the US.
You won’t find a much better upper-level pattern with ridging near Greenland and the N.… pic.twitter.com/uQ2iNN1PxG
Plus, there are major snow threats across the Mid-Alantic and Northeast.
Impact SNOW will fall today from Wisconsin, Illinois and Indiana into West Virginia. Snow will fall tonight and tomorrow in western North Carolina, West Virginia, western Maryland, Pennsylvania, New York state and northwest New Jersey. These could be double digits plowable,… pic.twitter.com/jYw4hQqhrM
“Adding to the bullish sentiment, feedgas supply to U.S. LNG export terminals has climbed to 14.07 billion cubic feet per day, the highest level since January 2024, according to BNEF,” Hvalbye added.
The SEB analyst continued, “This marks a significant increase from last week’s average of 13.5 billion cubic feet per day. Additionally, export flows to Mexico are estimated at 6.6 billion cubic feet per day today, highlighting strong demand from the region.”
He said, “Domestic natural gas production in the U.S. is estimated at 101.8 billion cubic feet per day today, slightly below last week’s average of 102.4 billion cubic feet per day.”
“Meanwhile, demand for nat gas across the Lower 48 states has risen to 79.3 billion cubic feet per day but remains below the five-year average of approximately 82.7 billion cubic feet per day,” he noted.
Hvalbye added that the EU gas market will continue to see upward price pressure as global demand for LNG cargoes intensifies during the Northern Hemisphere winter season.
One of the biggest questions for energy traders is how high prices will rise before drillers, who curtailed output earlier this year, begin ramping up production.
Investors Are Increasingly Reluctant To Buy US Treasuries Even At These Yields
By Bas van Geffen, Senior Macro Strategist at Rabobank
Yesterday, my colleague wrote that not everything is worth worrying about equally. Financial stability reports always provide plenty of fodder for pessimists; after all, the purpose of these reports is to raise awareness of potential downsides. But not all risks are equally concrete or urgent. Having said that, in its latest Financial Stability Review, the ECB was more blunt about financial risks than in previous years.
The central bank is particularly worried about the potential resurgence of the sovereign debt crisis, but unlike the original crisis, France is now being called out as a particular risk: “policy uncertainty [or paralysis], weak fiscal fundamentals in some countries and sluggish potential growth raise concerns about sovereign debt sustainability.” Countries’ debt ratios are high, and this debt increasingly has to be refinanced at higher interest rates. Admittedly, it is somewhat alarming that fiscal metrics haven’t recovered since the pandemic – although ratios have improved over the past few years.
The ECB continues that “large primary deficits make it harder to provide additional investment to combat structural challenges, including climate change, defence spending, and low productivity.” It’s hard to argue with this logic. Yet, at the same time, the bold investments required to fix Europe’s low structural growth rate require big government outlays. And, as we’ve noted almost a year ago now, any government will find it hard to gather voters’ support for structural investments and reforms if this means cutting back on social spending.
Corporate actions only underscore this need for structural improvement: yesterday, Ford announced it would cut 4,000 European jobs due to sluggish demand for electric vehicles and “fierce competition from China.”
At the same time, the outspokenness of the ECB’s Financial Stability Review is perhaps something of a warning to those who are banking on steep rate cuts. Of course, if a crisis were to develop, the ECB may have no other choice but to go back to it’s playbook for most of the 2010s. But the concerns about refinancing risk and higher interest costs imply that the central bank does not anticipate a return to very low rates.
Likewise, incoming data underscore that the easing cycle may not be as fast as some expect, and that it may end at a substantially higher rate. Yesterday, the ECB reported that Eurozone negotiated wages rose 5.4% y/y in Q3, pouring a bucket of cold water over any remaining expectations that the central bank may cut by more than 25 basis points in December. A rebound had been expected after the 3.5% print in the second quarter but the re-acceleration was significantly stronger than both we and the ECB had anticipated.
A large part of the acceleration can be attributed to strong wage increases in Germany. In Q3, collective agreements led to an 8.8% y/y increase in German wages. Stripping out one-off payments, German wages clocked in at 5.7%; That’s a sharp acceleration from 4% in Q2. We don’t believe that this acceleration will be sustained. The recent IG Metall deal, for example, suggests more moderate wage growth in the coming quarters. Nonetheless, data continue to underscore that wage pressures are receding only gradually.
Relatively sticky wages in other countries are also pointing in that direction. Dutch employers’ association AWVN tracked collectively agreed wages in Q3 at 4.3%, while Italian and Spanish wages appear to have stabilized just above the 3%-mark. On the very other end of the spectrum, French wages are still trending down, from 2.8% in Q2 to 2.7%. This will likely converge to further to the inflation rate in the coming quarters.
So, all in all, these data should not prevent the ECB from another 25bp cut in December, but they do underscore the need for caution as the ECB navigates heightened uncertainty about growth and lingering inflation risks.
Many of these risks are ultimately of Europe’s own making, but incoming President Trump is putting them in the spotlight. Trump has been quick to assemble much of his team, but one of the key roles, Treasury Secretary, remains unfilled for now. The President-elect’s more cautious approach perhaps reflects his awareness of the importance of this position. The FT reported yesterday that Marc Rowan –who is not unfamiliar to Wall Street– is now a top contender for the job.
And Trump is right to consider his options. Because whoever gets the job, it will be a tough one. The incoming Treasury Secretary will have the difficult challenge of uniting Trump’s agenda of disruption and change in the (world) economy, and tax cuts, with stability in financial markets. The potential impact on the US fiscal deficit is getting increasing attention, and yesterday’s auction of 20y Treasury bonds served as a warning to the incoming administration. The auction drew very weak demand, even though 20y yields have risen from 4% in mid-September to around 4.65% currently. Although the 20 year is admittedly a bit of an odd point on the US curve, it does suggest that investors are reluctant to buy Treasuries even at these yields as long as there are concerns about potential impact of Trump’s plans on the deficit.
Musk, Ramaswamy Reveal DOGE Blueprint To Cut Government Waste
Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy have laid out their vision for the newly formed Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE).
According to a new WSJ op-ed, the pair writes that “Our nation was founded on the basic idea that the people we elect run the government. That isn’t how America functions today. Most legal edicts aren’t laws enacted by Congress but “rules and regulations” promulgated by unelected bureaucrats—tens of thousands of them each year.”
They call government bloat “antidemocratic and antithetical to the Founders’ vision,’ as it “imposes massive direct and indirect costs on taxpayers.”
President Trump has asked the two of us to lead a newly formed Department of Government Efficiency, or DOGE, to cut the federal government down to size. The entrenched and ever-growing bureaucracy represents an existential threat to our republic, and politicians have abetted it for too long. That’s why we’re doing things differently. We are entrepreneurs, not politicians. We will serve as outside volunteers, not federal officials or employees. Unlike government commissions or advisory committees, we won’t just write reports or cut ribbons. We’ll cut costs.
As the Epoch Times notes, the urgency for downsizing the federal government is due to the ballooning costs of paying interest on our ginormous national debt. I and others have been writing about the debt problem for decades, but now the national debt has reached a critical stage. According to usdebtclock.org, the federal debt passed $36 trillion last week.
There is nothing inherently significant about the number $36 trillion, but as you can see from the accompanying chart published by the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, the annual cost of the federal debt has exploded from under $600 billion in 2020 to over $1 trillion now.
Here’s the plan:
1. Regulatory Rescissions: Rolling Back Illegitimate Regulations
The most immediate and significant action DOGE will take is targeting the tens of thousands of regulations imposed by federal agencies, many of which exceed the constitutional authority granted to these agencies.
Using Supreme Court Rulings as a Guide: Following the rulings in West Virginia v. Environmental Protection Agency (2022) and Loper Bright v. Raimondo (2024), DOGE will work to identify regulations that overstep the bounds of the authority Congress has granted. These rulings clarify that agencies cannot enact major economic or policy decisions without explicit congressional approval. DOGE will compile a list of regulations that should be nullified and present them to President Trump for executive action.
Immediate Suspension and Review of Regulations: Through executive orders, the president will pause enforcement of these overreaching regulations and initiate a full review process for rescission. This action will prevent regulations that were never approved by Congress from continuing to harm businesses and individuals.
Creating a System to Prevent Reviving Illegitimate Regulations: Once regulations are rescinded, DOGE will ensure that future administrations cannot simply reinstate them. Any reactivation of these regulations would require a new act of Congress, ensuring that regulatory power is returned to the people’s elected representatives.
2. Administrative Reductions: Streamlining Federal Agencies
Alongside regulatory rescissions, a drastic reduction in the size of the federal bureaucracy will be necessary. DOGE will target specific reforms to reduce the number of federal employees, streamline agency operations, and focus government efforts on its core constitutional responsibilities.
Identifying Minimum Staffing Needs: DOGE will collaborate with agency leaders to identify the minimum number of employees required to carry out essential functions. With fewer regulations to enforce, many agencies will require significantly fewer staff. As regulations are rescinded, the corresponding workforce reductions will follow.
Cost-effective Employee Transitions: For those whose positions are eliminated, DOGE will support their transition into the private sector, providing incentives for early retirement or voluntary severance. Programs designed to make these exits as seamless as possible will be implemented, ensuring a smooth process for both employees and taxpayers.
Leveraging Executive Authority to Limit Bureaucratic Growth: President Trump will use his authority to amend civil-service rules to curtail administrative overgrowth. This could include actions like large-scale firings or moving federal agencies out of Washington, D.C., to reduce costs and decentralize power.
Restoring Accountability in Federal Agencies: Agencies will be required to return to in-person work, ending the COVID-era trend of remote work. This will incentivize employees who are unwilling to meet this expectation to voluntarily exit, reducing the overall headcount.
3. Cost Savings: Tackling Waste, Fraud, and Abuse
Beyond reducing the size of government and eliminating unnecessary regulations, DOGE will focus on eliminating wasteful spending and ensuring that taxpayer dollars are used efficiently.
Ending Unauthorized Expenditures: A significant portion of federal spending, over $500 billion annually, is either unauthorized by Congress or used for purposes Congress never intended. DOGE will work with the administration to end these wasteful programs, including unnecessary funding to international organizations and progressive groups, while scrutinizing expenditures like the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.
Overhauling Federal Procurement: The government’s procurement system is notorious for waste and inefficiency. DOGE will conduct large-scale audits of federal contracts, suspending payments where necessary to identify and eliminate inefficiencies. This will be especially critical for agencies like the Department of Defense, which has failed repeated audits, indicating a lack of oversight over how taxpayer money is spent.
Targeting the Deficit and Overspending: While entitlement programs like Medicare and Medicaid are often the focus of budgetary discussions, DOGE will tackle the more immediate waste, fraud, and abuse that plagues most federal agencies. Through targeted executive actions, DOGE will curb these excesses without the need for new legislation.
A Historic Opportunity
With a mandate for change and a supportive legal framework, DOGE has the opportunity to make meaningful strides in reducing the size and scope of the federal government. Through regulatory rescissions, administrative reductions, and targeted cost savings, this initiative aims to eliminate wasteful spending and restore accountability in Washington.
The ultimate goal of DOGE is to make its own existence obsolete by July 4, 2026 – the 250th anniversary of the founding of the United States. By then, it is hoped that a leaner, more efficient government will be in place, one that is more responsive to the needs of the people and more in line with the vision of the Founders. If successful, this reform effort will be a gift to the nation, ensuring that future generations inherit a government that is both effective and accountable.
Most gold and silver investors begin their journey by purchasing modern bullion coins, such as the American Gold and Silver Eagles from the United States Mint—a practical and popular way to invest in precious metals, and how I started as well. However, I soon discovered that the United States once minted gold and silver coins for everyday circulation, not just for investment purposes like today’s bullion coins. As I delved deeper into these classic American coins, I developed a profound appreciation for their elegance, historical significance, and connection to a time when the U.S. dollar was made from and backed by gold and silver. In this article, I aim to share the benefits and joys of investing in these timeless pieces of American history.
Four years after the ratification of the United States Constitution, Congress passed the Coinage Act of 1792. This landmark legislation established the U.S. dollar as the nation’s standard unit of currency, created the United States Mint, and set forth regulations for coinage. The Act designated the silver dollar as the official unit of money and declared it lawful tender. It also introduced three gold coins: the $10 “eagle,” the $5 “half eagle,” and the $2.50 “quarter eagle,” laying the foundation for the nation’s monetary system. The $20 “double eagle” coin containing 0.9675 troy ounces of gold was introduced in 1849 as a means to utilize and market the significant influx of gold from the California Gold Rush.
From 1795 to 1933, the United States Mint produced gold coins designed for everyday use rather than for investment or collecting. During this period, silver coins were commonly used for daily transactions, while gold coins primarily served as a means of savings and wealth preservation. Gold coins were also used for large purchases, such as land, and in commercial transactions. Due to their high value, gold coins were typically owned by the affluent. In particular, most $20 gold double eagles were stored in bank vaults and seldom circulated in everyday life because of their substantial value, even at the time.
Since pre-1933 U.S. gold coins were rarely used in everyday transactions, a significant number of them have survived in excellent condition, including many graded as Brilliant Uncirculated (BU). What I find fascinating is that many of these coins—provided they are not rare dates or strikes—are surprisingly common and can often be acquired at premiums similar to, or even lower than, modern bullion coins. Yet, they carry with them a rich historical legacy! Many reputable bullion dealers, such as SD Bullion, JM Bullion, Money Metals Exchange, and APMEX, offer these remarkable coins, making them accessible to collectors and investors alike.
If your primary goal is to invest in gold while still enjoying a touch of history (as opposed to collecting rare coins), focusing on common-year $20 gold double eagles from the late-1800s and early-1900s is your best bet. As far as classic coins go, these coins typically carry the lowest premiums over the spot price of gold. For instance, SD Bullion currently offers Brilliant Uncirculated $20 Saint-Gaudens double eagles at a 6.05% premium over the spot price of gold. By comparison, the ultra-popular modern 1 oz American gold eagle bullion coin is available at a 5.69% premium. In my opinion, that extra 0.36% premium is well worth it for owning a tangible piece of history!
The smaller $10, $5, and $2.50 gold eagle-series coins are certainly fascinating, and I personally own a few. However, they tend to carry significantly higher premiums compared to the $20 gold double eagles, making them less ideal for investment purposes. Among the $20 gold doubleeagles, the 1907–1933 Saint-Gaudens design is often regarded as one of the most beautiful coin designs in history, which has made it highly sought after. In contrast, the 1849–1907 Liberty Head $20 gold double eagle, while more understated in appearance, is still a desirable piece (and one I also own and appreciate). Notably, the 1933 Saint-Gaudens $20 gold double eagle holds the distinction of being the most valuable gold coin ever sold, fetching an astonishing $18.8 million in 2021 and setting the record for the most expensive coin in history.
In addition to classic American gold coins, I also enjoy investing in classic American silver coins, which were minted for everyday circulation between 1794 and 1970. During this period, dimes, quarters, half-dollars, and dollar coins were made from silver alloys. Today, these coins are a popular way to invest in silver and are commonly referred to as “junk silver,” pre-1965 silver coins, or 90%, 40%, and 35% silver coins. While I own some higher-value U.S. silver coins, such as early 20th-century pieces and silver dollars, the best option for most investors is to focus on common-date silver dimes, quarters, and half-dollars from the mid-twentieth century. These tend to have lower premiums compared to silver coins with greater numismatic value. For finding the best deals on junk silver, I recommend using FindBullionPrices.com, a great resource for comparing prices.
I absolutely love the look, feel, heft, and distinctive “clink” sound of classic American silver coins, which stand in stark contrast to soulless modern non-silver coins. Even when these silver coins have a weathered or slightly tarnished appearance, I find them even more charming, as they carry a tangible sense of history—evidence of the countless hands that have touched and handled them over the years. In fact, I often prefer circulated and weathered silver coins to pristine modern bullion coins because I can freely touch and handle them without worrying about tarnishing or leaving fingerprints. Unlike gold, silver naturally tarnishes, so I feel less guilty about enjoying these historic coins in a hands-on way, adding to their unique appeal.
America’s currency was once backed by and literally made from precious metals, which have served as money par excellence for approximately 6,000 years. However, the U.S. dollar has been steadily devalued since the establishment of the Federal Reserve in 1913. Unfortunately, the Federal Reserve has been a terrible steward of the nation’s currency, enabling excessive government spending by creating new dollars. For instance, within just six years of the Fed’s founding, the dollar lost half of its purchasing power—a trend that has persisted over time.
To add insult to injury, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt took the United States off the Gold Standard in 1933, ceased the minting of gold coins, and banned private ownership of gold. This policy required individuals to turn in their gold eagle coins to the government, which then melted them down. However, many of the pre-1933 U.S. gold coins available today were spared from this fate because they had been stored in European bank vaults, allowing them to survive unscathed and find their way back into the market decades later.
In 1965, the United States stopped minting dimes, quarters, and half-dollars from their traditional 90% silver alloy, replacing it with a cheaper nickel-and-copper composition. This marked yet another significant debasement of the U.S. dollar. As the melt value of the older silver coins soon exceeded their face value, those who recognized their greater worth quickly removed them from circulation. This historical shift explains why these silver coins remain popular among investors and collectors even today.
Finally, on August 15, 1971, President Richard Nixon ended the convertibility of the U.S. dollar into gold for foreign governments, effectively transforming the dollar into a pure fiat or “paper” currency with no intrinsic backing. This pivotal decision removed all constraints on the creation of new money, marking the final nail in the coffin for the dollar’s integrity and purchasing power. Over the ensuing decades, this shift paved the way for rampant inflation, unaffordable housing and other necessities, skyrocketing national debt, and an ever-widening wealth gap. To dive deeper into the steady debasement of the U.S. dollar and its far-reaching consequences, check out my detailed article on ZeroHedge.
Contrary to popular belief, inflation is not simply the rising cost of goods and services—that’s merely the inevitable consequence. True inflation is the expansion of the money supply itself. As Nobel Prize-winning economist Milton Friedman famously stated, “Inflation is always and everywhere a monetary phenomenon.” General inflation is rooted in monetary policy, not in supply shocks like energy crises or droughts that temporarily raise prices for specific goods.
A long-term chart of the U.S. adjusted monetary base, a key measure of the money supply, reveals a staggering 55,440% increase from 1920 to 2020. Curiously, the Federal Reserve stopped publishing this data series in late 2019—a move that raises serious questions. Could they be attempting to obscure the extent of the dollar’s debasement? You decide.
Another key measure of the money supply is the M2 money supply, and its correlation with the price of gold is clear. This relationship highlights why gold serves as an excellent long-term hedge against money printing and inflation. Silver also tracks the M2 money supply, though its price tends to exhibit greater volatility compared to gold.
The long-term U.S. Consumer Price Index (CPI) chart, which dates back to 1800, vividly illustrates how each successive erosion of the dollar’s integrity has led to soaring living costs and a dramatic decline in the dollar’s purchasing power. Remarkably, consumer prices in the United States were relatively stable for nearly a century until the establishment of the Federal Reserve in 1913. This marked a turning point, unleashing inflation on an unprecedented scale. Since the Fed’s inception, U.S. consumer prices have risen more than thirtyfold!
It’s difficult to imagine a time without steady, relentless inflation, but that was the reality throughout much of the 19th century. During this era, money was far sounder, backed by gold and silver, providing a stable foundation for the nation’s economy—despite the lack of modern technology and so-called “sophistication” we have today.
Since its creation in 1913, the Federal Reserve has overseen the U.S. dollar’s staggering loss of nearly 97% of its purchasing power—a decline that shows no signs of stopping, unfortunately:
Another striking way to visualize the dollar’s dramatic loss of purchasing power is by comparing it to gold. Over the past century, the U.S. dollar has lost an astonishing 99.25% of its purchasing power relative to gold.
The harsh reality is that the devaluation of the dollar will continue until it meets the same fate as every paper currency throughout history—complete worthlessness. Unfortunately, it’s not just the dollar that is on this trajectory; the euro, British pound, Japanese yen, Chinese yuan, and other fiat currencies are all on the same precarious path. Governments have always struggled to resist the temptation of money printing, a practice enabled by paper currencies but restrained when money is backed by gold and silver.
As I recently explained, the U.S. national debt has surged past $36 trillion, with annual interest payments now exceeding $1.1 trillion. This staggering figure surpasses federal spending on defense, income security, health, veterans’ benefits, and even Medicare, making it the second-largest expense for the U.S. government—second only to Social Security. This unsustainable fiscal situation will inevitably compel the U.S. to rely heavily on printing more money just to meet its obligations—a vicious cycle that will accelerate the currency’s decline.
Classic American gold and silver coins evoke a bittersweet feeling for me. On one hand, I love that they serve as a tangible reminder of a time when we had sound money; on the other, it saddens me that this era of monetary integrity is long gone. Anyone with wisdom and foresight should safeguard their hard-earned wealth with gold and silver—timeless forms of money that have reliably served humanity for thousands of years.
While I enjoy investing in modern bullion coins and bars, there’s something uniquely special about pre-1933 American gold coins and pre-1965 silver coins. Their history, craftsmanship, and connection to a bygone era set them apart. I believe you’ll understand exactly what I mean once you hold a piece of this history in your own hands.
If you enjoyed this article, please visit Jesse’s Substack for more content like this
Israel Reacts After ICC Issues First Ever Arrest Warrants Targeting A Democratic Country
In a decision which was expected and has long been previewed in international reports, the International Criminal Court (ICC) on Thursday issued arrest warrants for Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former defense minister Yoav Gallant over the war in Gaza.
Three judges of the ICC’s “Pre-Trial Chamber I” issued the warrants unanimously, accusing the Israeli leaders of crimes against humanity. They wrote: “The chamber considered that there are reasonable grounds to believe that both individuals intentionally and knowingly deprived the civilian population in Gaza of objects indispensable to their survival, including food, water, and medicine and medical supplies, as well as fuel and electricity.”
“The Chamber also found reasonable grounds to believe that Mr Netanyahu and Mr Gallant each bear criminal responsibility as civilian superiors for the war crime of intentionally directing an attack against the civilian population,” the ruling continued.
Over the summer as the arrest warrants were pending and expected at any moment, Netanyahu had actually begun altering his travel plans, in July avoiding stopovers in central Europe while en route to the United States.
Some 120 countries are party to the ICC, but Israel and the US are not. They have long blasted the war crimes investigation, and have condemned the warrants. Israeli media has highlighted that—
The decision marked the first time the ICC has ever issued arrest warrants against leaders of a democratic country.
Now, with the final issuance of formal ICC warrants, Netanyahu and Gallant face potential arrest should they travel to any of these 120 countries; however, the ICC of course lacks an enforcement mechanism and relies on the individual countries to follow through. Clearly the American pressure on The Hague-based court didn’t work.
But interestingly, the ICC has referenced Israeli leaders’ own words in making the case for their intentionally laying siege to a large civilian population. For example, in Oct. 2023 – within days after the Hamas terror attack which killed 1,200 and resulted in some 250 Israelis being taken hostage – Gallant said: “I have ordered a complete siege on the Gaza Strip. There will be no electricity, no food, no water, no fuel, everything is closed. We are fighting human animals and we are acting accordingly.”
Netanyahu has long warned that the ICC investigation and warrants would set a “dangerous” precedent for other democratic countries, including Israel’s allies. “Israel is given here a bum rap. I think it’s dangerous. Basically, it’s the first democracy being taken to the dock when it is doing exactly what democracies should be doing in an exemplary way,” he told CNN months ago. “It endangers all other democracies. Israel is first, but you’re next. Britain is next. Others are next, too.”
On Thursday, reacting to the new ICC warrants, Netanyahu’s office has blasted the ruling as “absurd and false lies” and characterized the decision as “antisemitic.”
Supporters of Israel in the West, including Democratic Senator John Fetterman, also reacted fiercely on Thursday:
Avi Mayer, the former editor of the Jerusalem post, has highlighted the selectivity of the new ICC move. Mayer wrote:
“In order to create a false impression of fairness, the international criminal court also issued an arrest warrant for Hamas military leader Mohammed Deif … who is dead. That should tell you just how ridiculous and politically motivated these warrants are. The ICC is a joke.”
Other than impacting potential travel of ‘wanted’ officials, the warrant is largely symbolic. But it creates a dilemma politically, and a possible strain on relations for some countries.
For example Russia’s Putin, also subject of a prior ICC arrest warrant, recently canceled an in-person trip to a BRICS summit in South Africa precisely to avoid putting the South African government in a sensitive position.
Existing Home Sales Rise YoY For First Time Since July 2021, But…
Existing Home Sales were expected to rebound modestly in October (+2.9% MoM) after dropping for 6 of the last 7 months to the lowest levels since 2010, and they did. Sales rose 3.4% MoM (a beat) but thanks to a downward revision for September from -1.0% to -1.3% MoM. What is most shocking about the shift is that it pushed the YoY change for existing home sales positive (+2.9% YoY) for the first time since July 2021…
Source: Bloomberg
…but in context, that shift up to 3.96mm SAAR homes sold is nothing…
Source: Bloomberg
High borrowing costs have led to a shortage of previously owned homes on the market, discouraging many would-be home sellers from listing their properties for sale and having to part with their current low financing costs.
“Additional job gains and continued economic growth appear assured, resulting in growing housing demand,” NAR Chief Economist Lawrence Yun said in a prepared statement.
“While mortgage rates remain elevated, they are expected to stabilize.”
Last month, the inventory of available homes edged up 0.7% to 1.37 million, continuing to trend higher although well below pre-pandemic levels.
Despite the weakness in sales, tight inventory is keeping prices elevated, yielding one of the least affordable housing markets on record. The median sale price last month increased 4% from a year earlier to $407,200, the highest ever for any October, the NAR figures show.
Contract signings rose in all four US regions, led by a 6.7% jump in the Midwest.
Sales of single-family homes increased 3.5% in October; purchases of condominiums and co-ops were up 2.7%
Finally, while that’s all very exciting – a scintilla of growth off almost record lows – the fecal matter is about to strike the rotating object as rising mortgage rates lagged impact threatens…
Source: Bloomberg
In October, 59% of homes sold were on the market for less than a month, compared with 57% in September, and 19% sold above the list price. Properties remained on the market for 29 days on average, compared with 28 days in the previous month. First-time buyers made up 27% of purchases, still historically low.
AI-Fueled iPhone Sales Drop During World’s Biggest Shopping Holiday In China
The strength of the Apple iPhone 16 upgrade cycle has been one of the most critical questions for Wall Street analysts tracking the handset market. Apple’s latest earnings reveal that the highly anticipated AI-driven upgrade supercycle this fall has largely fallen short, compounded by new data from a research firm indicating underwhelming demand in the Chinese market.
Counterpoint Research published a new note on Wednesday showing that iPhone 16 sales during China’s Singles’ Day—the world’s largest holiday shopping period, spanning two weeks—bombed as consumers opted for domestic brands instead.
The country’s two-week Singles’ Day sales period this year yielded “a double-digit, year-on-year decline in iPhone sales”, as Apple “faced pressure from an abnormally high number” of new flagship smartphone models that domestic competitors launched just before and during the annual shopping extravaganza, according to a report published on Wednesday by Counterpoint Research.
The report did not provide the exact percentage drop or the fewer number of iPhone sales that Counterpoint tracked during the event’s sales period, which ran from October 28 to November 10.
…
This year’s Singles’ Day debacle for Apple, which saw iPhone 16 prices slashed as part of online promotions, reflects the continued cutthroat competition in the world’s biggest smartphone market, where major Chinese handset vendors have already launched on-device artificial intelligence (AI) ahead of the US tech giant.
Overall, Singles’ Day smartphone sales this year fell 9 per cent compared with last year, as market demand and consumers’ enthusiasm for promotions have been subdued by economic headwinds, according to the Counterpoint report.-SCMP
Chinese smartphone brands, such as Vivo, Huawei, Xiaomi, Honor, and Oppo, are quickly taking market share away from Apple. Counterpoint’s report last month showed that Apple held the sixth spot with about 13.5% market share.
Apple’s much-awaited AI-led upgrade supercycle in the world’s largest handset market has been delayed primarily because Beijing still has to approve its AI services.
Meanwhile, competitor Huawei plans to launch the “most powerful” Mate Smartphone this month.
“The most powerful Mate in history! See you in November!” Huawei’s consumer group chairman, Richard Yu, wrote in a short post on Chinese social media platform Weibo.
Trade war fears with incoming President-elect Donald Trump have likely increased patriotic fervor in China to ditch Tim Cook’s products for domestic ones.
We have covered the dismal iPhone upgrade supercycle this fall:
