Yesterday, Meta released Muse Spark 1.1, undercutting the field on both price and speed rather than trying to out-frontier the frontier. Weeks earlier, Z.ai released GLM-5.2, an open-weight Chinese model that's since climbed above Anthropic on OpenRouter and near the top of the Artificial Analysis intelligence index - at roughly a sixth of the cost of the leading US models it's being compared against.

Together, they tell us something critical about where this market is going and how we think about positioning around it from here.

Below, we work through what that means for enterprise adoption, for token demand, and for who ultimately captures the value.

Read more

We analyzed the sheer scale of the copper crisis, exploring how the world must mine more copper over the next 25 years than in all of recorded human history just to keep pace with AI infrastructure and global electrification. The insights extended across the strategic spectrum: we unpacked the significant industrial deficits keeping silver in a structural shortfall, and the urgent bottlenecks facing US uranium independence.

Navigating the tension between terminal brownfield depletion and the severe lag in bringing new greenfield projects online, we believe the current entry points for high-quality critical mineral assets offer a great combination of structural growth and deep value. We look forward to sharing these session notes with you, as these dynamics are going to be critical for navigating the markets in the months ahead.

Speakers:

◼️Anfield Energy (TSXV:AEC) (NASDAQ:AEC) - Corey Dias, CEO
◼️Ecora Royalties (TSX:ECOR) (LSE:ECOR) - Kevin Flynn, CFO
◼️Hilltower Resource Advisors - Tracy Schuchart, Founder
◼️Hot Chili (TSXV:HCH) (ASX:HCH) - Christian Easterday, CEO
◼️Aftermath Silver (TSXV:AAG) (OTCQX:AAGFF) - Michael Williams, Chairman

Anfield Energy: Positioning for the Nuclear Renaissance

• The Nuclear Imperative: Nuclear power is increasingly recognized as a critical source of low-cost, baseload power capable of sustaining global populations. With roughly 440 reactors currently operating worldwide, a massive pipeline of 70–80 proposed reactors and another 200+ under consideration suggests a potential doubling of global nuclear capacity.

• The Uranium Supply Deficit: The mining sector is currently undersupplied and lacks the growth prospects to meet even current demand. The US, which possesses the world’s largest reactor fleet, produces only about 5% of its required uranium, leaving it heavily dependent on geopolitically risky jurisdictions like Russia, Kazakhstan, and Uzbekistan. Even at full capacity, existing US processing facilities could only meet roughly 50% of domestic demand.

• Uranium Prices and the “Tipping Point”: Despite current term prices around $85–$86, these levels are insufficient to incentivize the launch of new mining projects. Anfield believes “triple-digit” prices are necessary to bring marginal projects online. The market is currently driven by slow and steady utility reentry, but Anfield expects a potential “panic” as aggressive RFPs reveal the true depth of the supply-demand imbalance.

• Managing Costs at the Shootaring Canyon Mill: To mitigate inflationary pressures, Anfield has moved away from third-party contractors—who carry heavy margin requirements—and toward an in-house team. This transition has allowed the company to be more granular with project requirements and effectively control costs during the rebuild process.

• Financing and Government Support: Anfield is exploring a 30% equity / 70% debt financing mix for its projects. Management is actively pursuing non-traditional sources, including potential low-interest loans from the US Department of Energy (DOE) earmarked for processing facilities, and Department of Defense (DOD) grants for mining assets.

• Permitting and Mill Optionality: The company is aggressively advancing its permits, with the radioactive materials license for the mill expected by the end of 2026. Anfield’s mill is designed with significant flexibility; while it can process material from the company’s internal portfolio (including JD8, SM18, and SlickRock), the mill capacity also allows for toll-milling third-party material.

• Operational Milestones: Near-term catalysts include the decommissioning of unused mill equipment to facilitate refurbishment, obtaining the radioactive materials license, and securing mining permits (Plans of Operations) for the JD8, SM18, and SlickRock mines.

Ecora Resources: Building a Future-Facing Royalty Portfolio

• Copper Supply-Demand Fundamentals: Ecora maintains a bullish outlook on copper, driven by the structural mismatch between growing electrification demand and the increasing difficulty of permitting and bringing new mines online. Supply disruptions from major producers have bolstered prices in the short term, but more importantly, the “incentive price” required to bring new supply online has risen due to inflation. The royalty model is particularly effective in this environment because it operates on a nominal basis, allowing investors to participate in higher price environments without being penalized by capex or inflationary cost drags.

• Critical Minerals Opportunity Set: While critical minerals are core to Ecora’s strategy, the company avoids branding itself as an “EV-only” shop. Instead, their portfolio is built around the broader theme of “electrification,” which encompasses how energy is produced, stored, and used. While the company retains base metals as a core component, it has deliberately diversified into niche areas like vanadium, rare earths, and nickel to ensure low earnings volatility.

• Macro Drivers: Beyond electrification, Ecora views defense spending as a major, under-invested macro driver. Western governments are increasingly focused on securing supply chains for critical minerals to support defense needs, and Ecora expects this trend to remain a key pillar of long-term demand.

• Ecora’s Royalty Portfolio: The company distinguishes itself by focusing outside of the well-served precious metals market. Today, 50% of its Net Asset Value (NAV) is in copper, and over 80% is in base metals. A key pillar of the portfolio is quality: 80% of assets sit in the first or second quartile of the cost curve, which is critical for resilience through commodity cycles. Furthermore, 50% of the portfolio is currently in production, providing immediate torque to spot prices rather than relying on long-term price assumptions.

• Evolution of the Royalty Industry: Over the last 14 years, the industry has shifted from royalties being perceived as a “financing of last resort” to a mainstream, sophisticated component of capital structures. Even mining majors like BHP are now utilizing streaming transactions, validating the model’s utility.

• Lifecycle & Valuation Catalysts: Ecora is currently in a growth phase, using its cash-generative royalty base to de-lever and invest in new deal flow. Key catalysts for the next 12 months include the continued production ramp-up at Voisey’s Bay and Mimbula, and the roll-off of private area assets like Kestrel, which will lead to a more visible, long-term production profile that can be measured in decades rather than years.

Hot Chili: Solving the Copper Scarcity Crisis

• The Copper Supply/Demand Reality: The world is approaching a state of copper scarcity that will likely drive prices to historic highs. To meet demand projections—which expect a 50% increase by 2050—the world must mine more copper in the next 25 years than humans have mined since the Bronze Age. Demand is no longer cyclical; it is policy-driven (AI, defense, electrification), meaning end-users are price-takers who will absorb higher costs to secure supply.

• The “Inertia” of Major Producers: The industry’s supply response has been muted for years due to declining ore grades and aging deposits. While majors have focused on “brownfield” expansions to mitigate risk, these are becoming prohibitively expensive, with some reaching capital intensities of mid-$20,000 per annualized ton. This has created a “tipping point” where majors must pivot back to cost-effective greenfield developments.

• Gamechanger: The La Verde Discovery: La Verde is a recent, high-grade discovery that acts as a major economic lever for Hot Chili’s flagship Costa Fuego project. With recent drill results including wide, high-grade intercepts (e.g., 61m at 1% CuEq), La Verde is expected to significantly reduce payback periods and boost NPV and IRR by providing high-grade feed for the front end of the mine plan.

• Drilling Catalysts Ahead: Hot Chili is currently running an intensive drilling program with 22 holes awaiting assay results due to lab backlogs. These results will culminate in a maiden resource for La Verde by the end of 2026, which is expected to be material to the company’s 1-billion-ton resource base and potentially extend the mine life of Costa Fuego from 20 to 30 years.

• Understanding Valuation Dynamics: While M&A activity among majors is cooling, the focus has shifted toward securing “meaningful bolt-ons”. Trading significantly below the 0.5x–0.7x PNAV valuation range supported by current M&A environments, Hot Chili sees a clear path to a re-rate as they integrate La Verde and demonstrate the economic upside of the Costa Fuego hub.

• The Huasco Water Project: Beyond copper, Hot Chili holds a highly strategic maritime license for desalination. In the water-scarce Atacama region, where mining projects can no longer draw from underground aquifers, Hot Chili’s ability to supply desalinated water to its own projects—and potentially to neighboring regional clusters—is a significant, untapped value proposition for the company.

Tracy Shuchart: The Copper Supply-Demand Mismatch

Renegade Resources

Macro commodity landcape and geopolitics

By Tracy (Chi)

• The Copper Supply-Demand Math: We are currently consuming 28 million tons of copper annually. Projections from S&P Global and BHP suggest demand will climb to 42–50 million tons by 2040–2050. To meet this curve, the world must mine more copper in the next 25 years than humans have mined in total recorded history since the Bronze Age.

• Key Demand Drivers: Demand is no longer solely tied to traditional construction; it is being driven by five converging, policy-backed vectors that are price-inelastic:

  • Traditional Industrial Growth: Urbanization in India, Southeast Asia, and Africa, including the addition of two billion air conditioners by 2040.

  • Energy Transition: Transmission and distribution infrastructure is expected to see $7.5 trillion in cumulative investment through 2040.

  • EV Penetration: Modern EVs require 2.9 times more copper than internal combustion engine vehicles, with the sector seeing massive incremental growth.

  • AI & Data Centers: Beyond power grid expansion, data centers require vast amounts of internal copper wiring and specialized cooling systems.

  • Defense: NATO’s pledge for 5% GDP defense spending is fueling demand for naval shipbuilding, hypersonics, and hard communications.

  • Humanoid Robotics: Modest adoption by the late 2030s could add another half-million tons of annual demand.

• The Supply and Discovery Drought: While demand explodes, supply has collapsed over the past 12 months. World-class producers are struggling: Codelco is producing less copper than it did in 1997, and major players like Freeport, Ivanhoe, Anglo-American, and Glencore have all faced production cuts due to seismic events, mud rushes, and declining ore grades. Consequently, over 1.6 million tons of supply that consensus modeled for 2026 will not materialize. Furthermore, major copper discoveries (deposits >500k tons) are at record lows, with three of the past four years delivering zero new major finds.

• Resolving the Mismatch: Traditionally, high prices led to demand destruction (”Dr. Copper”). Today, demand is policy-driven and price-inelastic; AI, defense, and electrification mandates will proceed regardless of cost. Because scalable substitutes like aluminum do not effectively replace copper’s conductivity and utility, the only resolution to this structural deficit is significantly higher prices.

Aftermath Silver: Silver’s Industrial Transformation

• Silver’s Industrial Transformation: Silver is currently in a structural deficit, with demand consistently outstripping supply by 40–60 million ounces annually. While historically viewed as a financial asset, its industrial usage has climbed to 65% of total demand. As the most conductive metal on the planet, silver is now a critical component in aerospace, high-efficiency EV electronics, defense systems, and the explosive growth of AI data centers.

• The Silver Scarcity Dilemma: Silver is exceptionally difficult to bring into production because 70% of global supply is a byproduct of copper, lead, or zinc mining; there are very few “pure-play” open-pit silver opportunities. Furthermore, exploration success is at a record low: since 1990, the industry has discovered 220 copper deposits, but only 10 in the last decade. This supply inertia is creating a long-term setup for elevated metal prices.

• The Manganese Value Add: Aftermath Silver’s flagship Berenguila project in Peru contains a unique, high-quality “oxide” manganese. This specific type of manganese is increasingly vital for EV battery chemistries (like LFP and nickel-cobalt-manganese batteries), where it acts as a “doping” agent to increase cycle life and efficiency. Furthermore, it serves as a cheaper, more ethically sourced alternative to cobalt, which is largely controlled by jurisdictions prone to human rights concerns.

• Project Roadmap & Tier-1 Status: Aftermath has bypassed a Preliminary Economic Assessment (PEA) to head straight for a Pre-Feasibility Study (PFS), which is slated for release in Q1 of 2027. Williams categorizes Berenguila as a “Tier-1 asset,” defined by its ability to remain robustly economic even in a “bad” market environment.

• Near-Term Catalysts: The company is executing an aggressive drill program at Berenguila. Key follow-ups include drilling the high-grade Eastern targets—where they previously hit 157 meters of 1.12% copper and 290g/t silver—and testing a separate “skarn” mineralization target four kilometers away. These results, alongside the upcoming PFS, are expected to be the primary drivers for a company re-rating.

Author: Chris Wood

There has been a general surprise that markets have not corrected more in recent months given the historic newsflow in the Middle East.

But that also means that the rally on the news of the MoU first signed digitally on 14 June between Vice President JD Vance and Iran’s Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf has been more muted, save for the understandable decline in the oil price.

Still, if the ceasefire holds, which is a big if, it should lead to renewed outperformance of Europe and Japan over the US with a renewed emphasis on cyclical stocks.

What about the motivation for the deal itself?

Donald Trump was clearly desperate.

The master of the art of the deal has succumbed to what looks like almost a total capitulation after no less than 38 U-turns in recent months in terms of threatening death and destruction on Iran only to reverse course hours later with the latest twist and turn taking place on 12 June.

The key reason for Trump’s desperation to do this deal, in this writer’s view, has been continuing disastrous polling five months ahead of the November mid-term elections.

The Donald’s disapproval rating has been running almost as high as Richard Nixon’s during the worst period of Watergate, while his approval rating for managing the economy remains similarly low in spite of a booming stock market.

The latest Reuters/Ipsos poll conducted between 12-15 June put Trump’s disapproval rating at 62%, though down from 63% the previous week.

This compares with the 66% disapproval rating for Nixon back in early August 1974, a few days before his resignation, according to historical Gallup polls.

The latest Reuters/Ipsos poll also shows that 63% of Americans disapprove of Trump’s handling of the economy, compared with only a 30% approval rating.

The damage done to the Trump presidency by the decision to agree to the pressure from Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to launch a joint US-Israel attack on Iran is, therefore, clear.

Indeed the blow to US credibility is also real with comparisons to Britain’s Suez Crisis in 1956 not so far-fetched.

China’s Commoditization of AI Models

Meanwhile if the geopolitical risks raised by the Iran issue are real, the US stock market is currently all about celebrating in the short term the continuing AI capex arms race, while in the medium term the critical issue remains whether the hyperscalers, and related parties, will be able to make a reasonable return on their massive investments.

This writer remains highly sceptical.

Indeed the base case is massive capital destruction, which is why the best AI trade has always been owning the picks and shovels plays such as the DRAM stocks.

Meanwhile, China remains a formidable competitor to the US on AI.

This writer was in the China capital a few months ago and had an opportunity to read a physical copy of the China Daily.

There was one article which particularly caught the attention, in part because it reconfirmed another base case, namely that China is on course to win the AI arms race both because of its open source approach to large language models as well as its overwhelming advantage in terms of having access to cheap power.

The article, with the provocative title “Chinese tokens ‘crush’ foreign competitors”, focused on how China is packaging its massive reserves of cheap electricity and computing power to process tokens – remember that “tokens” have become the unit measuring demand in the brave new AI world (see China Daily article: “Chinese tokens ‘crush’ foreign competitors” by Cheng Yu, 14 March 2026).

The result is a surge in what the article refers to as “token exports”.

It highlighted how in a “watershed moment”, Chinese AI models processed 4.12tn tokens on the global aggregator platform OpenRouter in the week ended 15 February, surpassing US models’ 2.94tn for the first time, based on the weekly usage of the top nine models on OpenRouter.

The figure has since risen to 21.37tn tokens for the top Chinese AI models in the week ended 21 June, compared with 5.76tn tokens for the top US models.

Yet US users reportedly make up nearly half of the platform’s base.

As a result, exporting tokens has “quietly” become China’s most efficient value-added energy trade as the country exploits the advantage of its access to almost unlimited cheap electricity, in terms of the dramatic improvement in battery storage technology which has meant that solar has become cheaper than coal in China even before the increased coal price triggered by the Iran conflict, as discussed here previously (see China’s Energy Endgame: Is Battery Storage Making LNG and Nuclear Obsolete?, 13 March 2026).

On this point, Beijing included “computing-electricity synergy” (算电协同) as a national priority in its 2026 Government Work Report at the National People’s Congress in March, which means in reality leveraging its energy infrastructure to build a strategic moat for the digital economy.

Meanwhile, in terms of the cost advantage, the above referenced China Daily article noted that raw power in China sells for roughly Rmb 0.5 per kilowatt-hour if exported.

Converting that same electricity into AI computing power and selling it as tokens yields an estimated 22-fold increase in value.

China’s Energy Advantage is Forecast to Grow

Meanwhile, the remarkable scaling up of electricity generation is not over even though China has massively increased its power generation capacity relative to the US in recent years as also discussed here previously (see China’s Energy Endgame: Is Battery Storage Making LNG and Nuclear Obsolete?, 13 March 2026) and shown again in the charts below.

This writer heard an estimate in Beijing that the cost of electricity will decline to one-third of the current level in ten years as the access to solar is further ramped up.

All of the above is why it is correct to say that China has secured energy dominance in a global context.

For paid subscribers we dive deeper into the financials of China’s largest upcoming memory producer IPO and what memory capacity expansion out of China could mean for the outsized profits currently generated by the memory cabal (Samsung, SK Hynix and Micron)

Read more

Author: Chris Wood

It is now more than 14 weeks since the US-Israel attack on Iran, and there remains a remarkable lack of collateral damage in the markets, particularly the US stock market, given the continuing closure of the Strait of Hormuz during this period.

The explanation of course remains the ongoing celebration of the AI capex trade, and the related positive earnings revisions discussed here recently (see Why The AI Picks-and-Shovels Boom May Be Peaking, 13 May 2026), with the issue now whether the pending mega IPOs signal the peak in AI euphoria. There has to be a good chance that that will prove to be the case.

It is now clear that the rules governing IPOs are going to be changed to accommodate the interests of the promoters.

Most importantly, in the case of SpaceX, the company is going to be “fast-tracked” into the indices at a higher weighting than the percentage of the company due to be floated.

For example, Nasdaq’s new rules, effective 1 May, include eliminating minimum float requirements for new listings and allowing so-called “fast index inclusion”.

The rules will allow large-cap new listings like SpaceX to join the Nasdaq-100 index after only 15 trading days compared with the previous minimum seasoning period of three months.

The minimum 10% free-float requirement is also removed while, for the purpose of calculating the index weight, a mega-cap with a small free-float will be valued at three times its initial free-float (see Financial Times article: “New Nasdaq rules offer SpaceX free liquidity”, 2 May 2026).

Such “fast tracking” of new listings into indices has never happened before in America, so far as this writer is aware.

The significance of the move is clearly that it will force passive funds to buy the shares uptil the relevant weighting in the index.

Meanwhile, according to the updated S-1 filing last Wednesday, SpaceX plans to sell 555.6m shares at a fixed price of US$135 per share, raising US$75bn in the IPO which would value the company at US$1.77tn, meaning only a 4.2% free float.

But it will be treated as having a 12.7% float for the Nasdaq-100 index weighting calculation.

These valuations are in the context of a company which had an annual revenue of US$18.7bn last year and an estimated US$27bn this year, according to Bloomberg. SpaceX is expected to start trading on the Nasdaq on 12 June.

It is also worth noting that MSCI’s existing methodology already includes a rule for the fast-tracking of large IPOs.

This states that large IPOs are eligible for early inclusion after 10 trading days if they meet certain size thresholds and may qualify even with a low free float.

This is relevant as the inclusion of such mega IPOs in America will increase the US weighting in the MSCI AC World Index.

For now the US weighting at 63.4% is still below the all-time high of 67.2% reached on 24 December 2024.

This writer had thought that the biggest risk to the base case that the US reached an all-time peak share of world stock market capitalisation at the end of 2024 was that the hyperscalers successfully monetise their AI capex.

This is clearly not this writer’s base case. But these new listings create another such risk, at least theoretically.

The other key change in the listing rules appears to be that insiders will be able to sell their shares quicker than normal.

The standard rule is that insiders have to wait 180 days after an IPO.

But in the case of SpaceX, according to the S-1 filing, insiders can sell up to 20% of their eligible locked-up shares after reporting earnings for the second quarter ending 30 June and, if the stock is trading at least 30% above the IPO price, an additional 10% can be sold.

Revisiting China’s Stock Market

Meanwhile, amidst the near all-consuming focus on AI and the pending IPOs, it is worth looking again at the China stock market which remains out of most global investors’ focus.

In the mainland recently it remains clear to this writer that the “slow bull market” (慢牛市) remains the mantra of the central government as regards the stock market.

The goal remains clear: for the stock market to replace the deflating property market as the main source of wealth generation.

If this is the plan, there remains a lack of evidence that the Chinese middle class has yet bought into the long-term equity story, even though the growth of institutional investors has been dramatic in the last many years in a mainland A share market that used to be almost completely dominated by retail investors.

The main driver of the growth in institutional equity investment has been the life insurance companies, which now have in some cases more than 20% of their assets in equities at government prompting.

This remains one of the main reasons for the continuing outperformance of the major bank stocks.

They have continued to pay out attractive dividends even in the context of continuing deflation and a deflating residential property market, both of which would normally be very negative for bank stocks.

The Big four banks’ H share prices have risen by 66% since the beginning of 2021, compared with a 30% decline in the MSCI China over the same period.

The same banks have an average dividend yield of 4.9%. Similarly, the CSI 300 Banks Index has outperformed the CSI 300 by 35% on a total-return basis since the beginning of 2021.

The stock market as a whole has continued to perform satisfactorily since bottoming in September 2024 in a macro environment where nominal GDP growth has been lower than real GDP growth for the past 12 quarters and a micro environment where price competition between leading players has remained brutal in high-profile sectors such as electric vehicles and e-commerce, though in both cases there are some reasons to believe that the competitive feeding frenzy may be on the point of peaking.

Source: National Bureau of Statistics

The CSI 300 Index has risen by 51% since bottoming in September 2024, while MSCI China is up 55% from its low in January 2024 .

Still, this remains a stock market where pricing power is at a premium as regards individual companies, which is why investors are most on the lookout for quasi monopolies in areas prioritised by the government, which of late has meant primarily companies in the tech hardware and industrial spaces.

Meanwhile, from an overall stock market standpoint, the government, and in particular the responsible regulator, the China Securities Regulatory Commission (CSRC), remain supremely focused on preventing another boom-bust cycle, which has been the fate of all China bull markets in the reform era.

This is also the reason why MSCI China has underperformed the MSCI AC World Index by 72% since November 2007.

China and the “Slow Bull Market”

The base case is that this time will be different precisely because the government is focused on preventing another boom-bust outcome as a result of the need for another driver of wealth aside from property, given that there is, based on the latest data, Rmb172tn (US$25tn) in household deposits while property is down on average around 40% from the peak in China’s four major cities based on secondary market prices.

There have been even worse declines in the smaller cities where there has also been a collapse in transactions.

Still, there are now growing hopes that the residential property market is bottoming out in the major cities, given the relative lack of negative equity.

That said, there is no expectation of an imminent rebound.

So there is a clear need to promote the stock market.

As a result, the regulators have continued to promote higher dividend payout ratios and increased share buybacks, while they have also continued to control the supply of equity.

The result is that the stock market has been generating net cash for investors in the sense that dividends and share buybacks have been running ahead of IPOs and secondary issuance.

Thus, the onshore market distributed an estimated Rmb2.6tn of dividends last year and bought back Rmb143bn of shares, while equity issuance totaled Rmb1.2tn, including Rmb132bn of IPOs.

To help incentivise this process, the return on equity has been elevated as a key reference point to target for managers of state-owned enterprises, as opposed to net profits.

There has also been since October 2024 a Rmb300bn PBOC relending facility to help finance share buybacks.

This policy context has not been seen in any other bull cycles in China and is perhaps the best reason to give the benefit of the doubt to the “slow bull market” story.

Meanwhile, the other way the authorities have been seeking to reduce the risk of another boom-bust cycle is for the so-called national team to sell stocks when share prices rise too rapidly.

The Incentive for Chinese Households to Invest in Stocks is Growing

Meanwhile, the incentive to invest in equites must be growing, given declining interest rates and the lack of a visible recovery in the property market.

There are about Rmb50tn of 3-year household deposits due to mature this year, or 30% of total household deposits.

When that money was fixed three years ago, the three-year deposit rate was 3.5%. It is now 1.2%.

Valuations remain undemanding.

MSCI China now trades at 11.6x 2026 consensus forecast earnings assuming 13.4% earnings growth, while the CSI 300 is on 15.4x 2026 forecast earnings assuming 19.7% earnings growth, according to IBES.

Still, the deflationary backdrop clearly limits the potential for multiple expansion, with nominal GDP growth of only 4.9% YoY in 1Q26, which is why investors will pay a big premium for evidence of pricing power.

Chinese Memory Makers Are Hungry for Global Market Share

Meanwhile if the political signaling in China of late has been on the need to do more to boost consumption, the evidence remains that the central government remains primarily focused on technological upgrading and independence, in terms of a lack of reliance on others, as reflected in the official signals that China no longer needs Nvidia chips.

Such is the negative consequence for the US of the decision in October 2022 to control the exports of advanced semiconductors to China.

Coming months will see IPOs of China’s leading DRAM and NAND flash makers which will also cause global investors to focus more on the growing competitiveness of China in the semiconductor area.

The subscriber only section of this week’s note looks at China’s DRAM and NAND memory champions and their ability to take market share and profits from the dominant global memory giants, SK Hynix, Samsung and Micron.

Read more

We also took a deep dive into the macro backdrop with Jeroen Blokland, whose work on The Great Rebalancing defines the current macro struggle: in aging economies, policymakers resort to debt-fueled growth, creating a cycle of fiscal dominance that guarantees the long-term destruction of fiat purchasing power. While gold has seen some expected volatility after its recent highs, the structural thesis remains incredibly robust. Whether it is China’s ongoing accumulation or the way gold historically thrives during inflationary spikes and periods of extreme debt, these are long-term dynamics that aren’t going anywhere.

Insights from the conference extended beyond hard money assets. Our conversation with Leigh Goehring provided a critical “other side of the coin” regarding oil and the broader commodities complex.

We also navigated the tension between the current market focus on AI and the search for value across asset classes; we believe the current entry points for hard money assets offer a compelling combination of value and growth.

Finally, we tackled the Bitcoin piece of the puzzle, acknowledging the ongoing volatility that continues to shape the digital asset narrative. Between the shifting macro winds and the tactical opportunities in mining and energy, this conference was held at an opportune juncture. We look forward to sharing these session notes with you, as the themes we unpacked over the last few days are going to be critical for navigating the markets in the months ahead.

Speakers:

• David Shaver, Executive Vice-President - Kinross Gold (NYSE:KGC)

• Derek Macpherson, CEO - West Point Gold (TSXV:WPG)

• Rob McLeod, CEO - Cambria Gold Mines (TSXV: CAMB)

• Andrew Clark, CEO - Summit Royalties (TSXV:SUM)

• Mark Brennan, CEO - Cerrado Gold (TSXV:CERT)

• Jeroen Blokland, Blokland Smart Multi-Asset Fund

• Steve Cope, CEO - Silver Viper Minerals (TSXV:VIPR)

• Luke Alexander, CEO, Newcore Gold (TSXV:NCAU)

• Stephen Soock, VP Investor Relations, Heliostar Metals

• Leigh Goehring, Goehring & Rozencwajg Associates

David Shaver, Executive Vice-President - Kinross Gold (NYSE:KGC): Firing on All Cylinders with a 10% Free Cash Flow Yield

• A Shift in Industry Discipline: David Shaver reflects on the evolution of the gold mining industry, noting a shift away from the “growth at all costs” mentality of past cycles. Previously, companies heavily leveraged their balance sheets for M&A and production growth, which did not translate to outsized shareholder returns. Today, the industry—and Kinross specifically—is intensely focused on capital discipline, prioritizing return on invested capital (ROIC), internal rates of return (IRR), and shareholder-friendly initiatives like dividends and buybacks.

• Conservative Planning in a $5,000 Gold Environment: While spot gold is flirting with $5,000, Kinross is not operating its business as if those prices are permanent. The company uses conservative baseline metrics—calculating reserves at $2,000 and resources at $2,500—to ensure profitability across all market cycles. However, for short-term guidance and 2026 planning, they are running numbers closer to the $4,500 spot price, which is generating exceptional margins.

• The 10% Free Cash Flow Juggernaut: This capital discipline and higher spot price environment have resulted in record free cash flow for the company. Kinross currently boasts an impressive ~10% free cash flow yield, a metric that is actively attracting generalist investors, pension funds, and sovereign wealth funds who historically may have avoided the sector.

• A De-Risked, Americas-Focused Portfolio: Kinross has strategically shifted its operational footprint to become more heavily biased toward lower-risk jurisdictions in the Americas, successfully exiting Russia and Ghana. This pivot is anchored by massive, high-margin assets like Paracatu in Brazil and upcoming tier-one projects like Great Bear in Ontario, Canada.

• Aggressive Shareholder Returns: The company has a clear, three-pillar capital allocation strategy: reinvesting in the business, maintaining a strong balance sheet, and returning capital to shareholders. Having successfully deleveraged to a net cash position of $1.4 billion, Kinross is now targeting a return of 40% of its free cash flow to shareholders. While they recently raised their base dividend by 30%, management is currently biased toward aggressive share buybacks—having repurchased roughly $900 million in stock since Q1 2025—to directly improve per-share metrics.

Derek Macpherson, CEO - West Point Gold (TSXV:WPG): De-risking with a Maiden Resource and aggressive exploration in the Walker Lane Gold Trend

• Focusing on the Gold Chain Project: West Point Gold is an exploration-stage company operating in the southwestern US, specifically within the Walker Lane Trend across Arizona and Nevada. Their flagship asset is the Gold Chain project, located just across the Arizona-Nevada border. The company’s immediate goal is to steadily de-risk this asset, advancing the project to the point where larger players see its acquisition value.

• The Imminent Maiden Resource: The primary objective of their recently wrapped 20,000-meter drill program is to deliver a maiden resource at the Tyro Main Zone by late Q3 or early Q4 of 2026. This zone features a one-kilometer-long outcrop with historical mining activity. Recent drilling has been highly encouraging, with holes intercepting 30 meters at 9 grams per ton, establishing a 20-to-30-meter-wide zone of high-grade material extending down to 300 meters. The company believes that simply defining this resource—which targets 1 to 3 million ounces at 2 to 3 grams per ton at surface—will significantly de-risk the company and highlight its undervaluation.

• A Pipeline of Regional Discoveries: While the Tyro Main Zone is the immediate focus, Gold Chain spans over 10,000 acres and holds a half-dozen high-quality step-out targets. The company has already announced discoveries at Black Dyke and Sheep Trail, which have the potential to become small resources themselves. They are also awaiting assays on Bull 8, a target situated on the intersection of two major structures (the Frisco Mine fault and Union Pass fault).

• The “Big Prize” Frisco Graben Target: Beyond the current drill zones lies the Frisco Graben, a massive, blind target measuring 4 kilometers long by 750 meters wide. Because there is no gold at surface, it is a high-risk, high-reward target. The company plans to systematically de-risk the area by drilling around it—including at Tyro and Bull 8—before likely taking a direct shot at the Frisco Graben in 2027.

• The Kinross “Jefferson Canyon” Option: In 2022, West Point struck a highly favorable option agreement with Kinross regarding the Jefferson Canyon project, which sits just seven kilometers from Kinross’s depleting Round Mountain mine. Kinross is handling the complex US Forest Service permitting process and will conduct exploratory drilling. Crucially, if Kinross wants to acquire an interest in the project, they must write direct checks to West Point—$5 million US for a 70% stake, and another $5 million US for an additional 10%—rather than just sinking money into project expenditures. This provides West Point with potential non-dilutive capital to reinvest in its flagship Gold Chain asset.

Rob McLeod, CEO - Cambria Gold Mines (TSXV: CAMB): A Clear Path to Restarting the Premier Mill

• The Red Mountain Solution: CEO Rob McLeod outlines the fundamental challenge that caused the Premier mine to fail under previous management in 2024: an inability to locate enough accessible ore to consistently feed its 2,500-ton-per-day mill. Cambria’s solution is the Red Mountain deposit, which McLeod describes as the best undeveloped underground gold deposit in Canada. Located 50 kilometers away, it boasts an incredibly wide, high-grade ore body with nearly 800,000 ounces in the measured and indicated categories (including 544,000 measured ounces at 8.8 grams per ton). The plan is to truck this ore to the Premier mill, creating a combined operation targeting roughly 150,000 ounces of annual production.

• The “Unicorn” Copper Spin-Out: In a massive value-unlock for shareholders, Cambria is spinning out its legacy Mount Margaret copper asset located in Washington State. Discovered in the 1970s but halted by the eruption of Mount St. Helens, the deposit features a historic resource of 577 million tons at 0.72% copper equivalent outcropping right at surface. As McLeod notes, a copper mine of this scale hasn’t been built in the US in 50 years. The new U.S.-domiciled company will target a listing on an American exchange, with Cambria shareholders expected to retain a 49.9% stake.

• Warrants as a Financing Mechanism: In a refreshing approach to capital management, McLeod shared advice received from Franklin Templeton: warrants should not be viewed merely as “sweeteners” but as a primary financing mechanism. If the half-warrants attached to their January 2026 private placement are fully exercised by their expiration in early 2027, they will bring in an additional $125 million CAD. This non-dilutive capital is earmarked to fund the operation to production, potentially including a $30 million aerial tram line to mitigate extreme winter snowfall at Red Mountain.

• No Need for Definition Drilling at Red Mountain: While exploration is always a consideration, it is not the current focus. McLeod emphasizes that Red Mountain is so well-defined—having been scissor-drilled, bulk-sampled, and heavily endowed with measured resources—that it likely won’t need any additional drilling for five years. The immediate focus is solely on executing the restart plan and putting the mill into production.

• A Potential Fast-Tracked Restart: Construction on the critical Red Mountain access road is beginning imminently, with the goal of starting underground development and ore trucking in 2027. However, management is actively evaluating an early restart scenario as soon as mid-2027. By utilizing a bulk mining approach at the nearby Big Missouri and Silvercoin deposits—blending those tons with high-grade ore from the Premier mine—Cambria could generate early cash flow and eliminate costly care-and-maintenance expenses while the final infrastructure for Red Mountain is completed.

Andrew Clark, CEO - Summit Royalties (TSXV:SUM): A High-Growth, Aggressive Market Entry

• The Star Royalties Acquisition: CEO Drew Clarke provides context on their recent acquisition of Star Royalties. The transaction is highly accretive on a Net Asset Value (NAV) per-share basis and dramatically increases Summit’s cash flow per share by an estimated 28% to 30%. A crucial component of this deal is Star’s Copperstone asset in the US, which recently entered construction. It features a new Preliminary Feasibility Study (PFS) indicating an IRR of over 100% and a resource base that has doubled, setting it up for production next year. Summit aims to close this acquisition by late June or Q3.

• Aggressive Revenue Targets: Summit came to market with an initial target of $10 million in revenue. With the Star acquisition propelling them past that milestone, management has immediately set their sights on $20 million, which they expect the current portfolio to generate by the end of 2028. At 15 times revenue—which is a discount to peer multiples—a $20 million revenue line implies a $300 million business, suggesting a potential share price of $3.00 US ($4.00 CAD), compared to their current trading level of $1.50. Once they hit $20 million, the target moves to $30 million, underscoring a relentless focus on scaling the business.

• A Non-Dilutive Debt Strategy: Uniquely, Summit has raised significant capital thus far without issuing warrants. As they move forward, debt is firmly in the toolkit. With the portfolio shifting from four producing assets to six next year, the business becomes highly bankable. Management is actively in discussions with banks—some of which have been inbound inquiries—to secure debt that will allow them to acquire future royalties on a non-dilutive basis, enabling them to make accretive deals even if they pay slightly above NAV.

• Closing the Valuation Gap: Despite the stock rising 66% since its November listing, Summit continues to trade at a significant discount to its peers, hovering between 0.75x and 0.8x NAV. Clarke argues that because almost all of Summit’s growth comes from assets that are either already producing or in active construction—managed by well-capitalized, $800M+ operators—the portfolio deserves to trade at or above 1x NAV. The company is actively pursuing aggressive marketing and expanded research coverage to bridge this gap.

• Major Upcoming Catalysts: Investors can expect a steady stream of updates across the portfolio. Highlights include the ongoing commissioning of West Red Lake’s Madsen mine, which is expected to have a strong second half. Additionally, a Preliminary Economic Assessment (PEA) is due for the Banyan project, targeting over 300,000 ounces a year, where Summit holds 1% and 2% royalties on key deposits. Finally, the Zancudo project in Colombia is installing a 1,000-ton-per-day mill later this year, expected to ramp up to 45,000–50,000 ounces annually, potentially adding another $1 million to $1.5 million to Summit’s revenue line.

Mark Brennan, CEO - Cerrado Gold (TSXV:CERT): Extending Mine Life and Advancing a Multi-Asset Portfolio

• MDN Mine Life Extension and Consolidation: Mark Brennan emphasizes that the Minera Don Nicolás (MDN) project in Argentina is currently the company’s most critical asset, as it generates 100% of their near-term cash flow. Historically challenged by a short, two-to-three-year mine life, management is now highly confident they can extend this to five to six years. This optimism is driven by their recent acquisition of the Falcon project from Pan American Silver, which fits into a regional consolidation strategy focused on processing lower-grade material at the Calandrias heap leach operation.

• Three Pillars for Production Growth: Beyond simply extending the mine life, Cerrado is actively working to push MDN’s production guidance from the current 50,000–60,000 ounces per year to higher levels. This growth will be driven by three key initiatives: optimizing current underground operations, expanding and upgrading material for the heap leach, and executing an aggressive 50,000-meter drill program designed to drive higher-grade material through the plant.

• The Portugal Turnaround: The company has faced regulatory hurdles with its Portuguese asset, specifically an unexpected environmental rejection despite addressing requested adjustments (such as eliminating cyanide use). In response, Cerrado has filed an injunction and a lawsuit to protect its interests. Management plans to resubmit a revised Environmental Impact Assessment by December 1st, 2026, alongside detailed engineering. They anticipate approval within 150 days, which would position the project to begin construction by the summer of 2027.

• The Quebec Iron Ore Upside: While further out on the development timeline, the Mont Sorcier iron ore project in Quebec represents massive potential scale. The deposit holds 1.1 billion tons of high-grade, high-purity iron ore, with 550 million tons in the measured, indicated, and proven/probable categories. A feasibility study is expected by the end of June 2026. Following this, the company plans to submit its environmental assessment in early 2027, targeting construction in early 2029 and first production by 2031.

• Clear Valuation Catalysts: Brennan lays out a compelling case for a significant market re-rating. Delivering the Quebec feasibility study could unlock $100M–$200M in value (assuming a 0.1x to 0.2x multiple on a potential $1B NPV). In Portugal, simply recovering credit for the historical $150M NPV of the project adds immediate upside. Finally, proving the five-to-six-year mine life at MDN could add another $100M–$200M to the market cap. Combined, management believes these three catalysts have the potential to add $300M to $500M to the company’s valuation in the near term.

Jeroen Blokland, Blokland Smart Multi-Asset Fund - The Great Rebalancing and the Shift to Scarce Assets

Link to Jeroen Blokland's New Book "The Great Rebalancing": https://shorturl.at/1uQad

• The Evolution of Bitcoin and Collateralization: Blokland maintains his bullish stance on Bitcoin despite recent underperformance, noting that it has simply lacked a specific recent catalyst compared to overwhelming market narratives like AI or gold. He is not concerned about the threat of quantum computing, arguing that the Bitcoin community is ahead of the curve and can implement a software update to address what will ultimately be a society-wide data privacy issue. More importantly, he highlights the rapid growth of Bitcoin-backed lending, where investors can now secure 30% to 50% loans against their Bitcoin collateral. This completely refutes the outdated argument that Bitcoin lacks intrinsic value or cash flow, as investors can now post it as collateral for US dollars to earn yield in a money market fund.

• Gold’s Historical Reaction to Inflation: While gold has recently pulled back 20% from its highs amid the Iran conflict and fears of higher interest rates, Blokland believes the long-term thesis is stronger than ever. He notes that China must accumulate true gold to build trust if it wants to successfully move away from the US dollar. Looking back at the two major inflationary spikes of the 1970s, gold surged 283% and 285% in real terms. During those same periods, bonds—often viewed as a safe asset—lost 11% and 17% in real terms, while equities also suffered massive drawdowns.

• The Problem: Debt-Driven Economies and Fiscal Dominance: In his newly published book, The Great Rebalancing, Blokland outlines the core problem facing global markets: aging societies naturally produce lower GDP growth. To artificially prop up growth and avoid shrinking, politicians rely heavily on debt. This creates a system where debt sustainability becomes the ultimate goal for policymakers and central banks, leading to higher taxes, forced lower interest rates, and higher inflation. Ultimately, this dynamic guarantees the ongoing destruction of purchasing power.

• The Solution: A New Portfolio of Scarce Assets: To combat abundant fiat money and inflation, Blokland argues investors must store their wealth in scarce assets. The Blokland Fund implements this philosophy by resembling a traditional 60/40 portfolio, but completely eliminating traditional cash and bonds. Instead, the fund maintains a 25% strategic weight in physical gold, a 10% weight in Bitcoin, and allocates just over half the portfolio to special, high-quality scarce equities.

• The “Emergency Brake” Mechanism: The fund utilizes a sentiment-driven “emergency brake” designed to neutralize equity exposure during severe market crashes, such as the dot-com bust or the Great Financial Crisis. The primary goal is to protect investors from 30% to 60% drawdowns that cause emotional, irrational selling. While the brake was triggered in April during the Iran conflict, the market’s rapid V-shaped recovery meant the fund re-entered at a slightly higher level; however, Blokland emphasizes the mechanism is built to protect against deep, structural bubbles popping rather than shallow, short-term volatility.

Steve Cope, CEO - Silver Viper Minerals (TSXV:VIPR): Aggressive Exploration and Strategic Growth in Mexico

• The M&A Strategy and Target Thresholds: CEO Steve Cope outlines the company’s clear strategy: aggressively building resource packages that attract mid-tier and major miners. For major miners (like Fresnillo), the target threshold is typically 2 million ounces of gold or 200 million ounces of silver equivalent. Mid-tier miners may engage at lower levels, roughly 500,000 ounces of gold or 50 million ounces of silver equivalent. Silver Viper’s exploration programs are laser-focused on advancing assets that have the scale potential to hit those “big boy” thresholds.

• Aggressive Drilling at La Virginia: Silver Viper has positioned itself as one of the most aggressive explorers in Mexico. They are currently executing a 30,000-meter drill program at La Virginia, having completed roughly 10,000 meters so far. The program is moving quickly, and management believes that if they add a second rig, they can comfortably complete the entire program this year, paving the way for a highly anticipated resource update in Q3.

• The “Deep Target” Below El Rubi: One of the most significant near-term catalysts is the upcoming drill test of a deep target below the El Rubi area at La Virginia. Geophysical testing (magnetotellurics) championed by Quinton Hennigh of Crescat Capital has revealed a large target at the contact point where the upper, brittle andesite rock meets the denser, tighter rhyolite package below. Geological theory—supported by occasional high-grade, base-metal-rich sulfide fragments blasted to the surface—suggests a massive blowout of mineralization occurred at this contact. Drilling this target could potentially reveal a multi-million-ounce, polymetallic deposit at depth. That is management’s hope.

• Leveraging the Fresnillo Partnership: Major miner Fresnillo is currently Silver Viper’s largest shareholder. Having successfully closed the Caneto acquisition, Fresnillo is now looking to open up its portfolio of 15 to 16 other Mexican assets that currently sit below their 200-million-ounce silver equivalent threshold. Silver Viper’s geology team is actively evaluating this portfolio to identify projects where they can acquire cheap ounces, create synergies, and rapidly advance the assets, focusing specifically on their preferred jurisdictions of Sonora and Durango.

• The Caneto Opportunity: The Caneto project currently holds a resource of roughly 50 million silver equivalent ounces, derived from just 6 of the 40 known veins on the property. Crucially, the old workings on these un-drilled veins only scratched the surface (20 to 50 meters down) because historical miners could not process below the water table. Because typical Mexican epithermal veins extend 300 to 600 meters deep, Silver Viper sees massive “easy” discovery potential by simply drilling directly beneath these historic workings. The company is planning a 25,000 to 30,000-meter drill program at Caneto to rapidly build out the resource.

• A Re-Rating on Ounces in the Ground: Cope argues that the junior mining sector is poised for a massive macro re-rating. Historically, in a weak market, an ounce of silver in the ground was valued between $0.50 and $2.00. However, in past bull markets, companies were often valued at a “third, a third, a third” rule (a third of the metal price for the asset, a third for costs, and a third for the acquiring company’s upside). Even taking a conservative approach, Cope believes valuations of $5 to $10 per silver ounce in the ground should become the new standard as majors increasingly pay premiums for quality assets, presenting a massive arbitrage opportunity for investors today.

Luke Alexander, CEO, Newcore Gold (TSXV:NCAU): Advancing the District-Scale Enchi Gold Project in Ghana

• Ghana as a Tier-One Mining Jurisdiction: CEO Luke Alexander highlights that despite common perceptions of emerging markets, Ghana is a premier, tier-one mining jurisdiction. The country has a thousand-year history of gold production, a well-established mining code, and a strong regulatory environment supported by the Minerals Commission and a robust Chamber of Mines. The country’s tier-one status is underscored by the presence of major global producers, including Newmont—which operates its second-largest global gold producing asset in Ghana—Gold Fields, and AngloGold Ashanti.

• The Enchi Gold Project: Newcore’s flagship Enchi project is located on the Sefwi-Bibiani belt, a prolific trend that hosts several major mines, including Chirano (5.5M oz) and Bibiani (6.5M oz), and runs along strike from Newmont’s 20M+ ounce Ahafo complex. The project currently hosts a global resource of 2.1 million ounces (1.5M oz indicated and 0.6M oz inferred). Crucially, the resource remains shallow, with current pit constraints only reaching 85 meters in depth, leaving massive potential for growth both along strike and at depth.

• De-Risking Catalysts: Newcore is currently moving from a Preliminary Economic Assessment (PEA) to a Pre-Feasibility Study (PFS), which is targeted for release in June 2026. This study marks a major de-risking phase for the project. While the current 60,000-meter drill program has been ongoing, Newcore has already cut off data for the upcoming PFS to focus on current resource certainty; therefore, the remaining 21,000 meters of planned drilling will be reserved to strengthen future feasibility studies and resource updates.

• Aggressive Exploration Strategy: Newcore is utilizing a sophisticated, result-based exploration strategy. With four drill rigs (three diamond, one RC) currently turning, the team is aggressively chasing high-grade feeder zones at depth, which have yielded some of the highest-grade intercepts in the project’s history during 2026. Beyond the main resource, the company has identified roughly 25 additional targets across its 100 kilometers of shear zone, utilizing soil sampling and trenching to prioritize which greenfield targets warrant initial drill testing.

• Strong Institutional Backing: Newcore recently closed a $15.15 million financing led by long-term, deep-pocketed institutional investors, pushing their institutional ownership above 55%. This capital ensures the company is well-funded not only to complete its 60,000-meter program but to expand it significantly. These funds will also begin the necessary technical work for a full feasibility study, including metallurgical, geotechnical, and hydrological assessments.

Stephen Soock, VP Investor Relations, Heliostar Metals (TSXV:HSTR): A Value Added Bootstrapping Approach to Building a Mid-Tier Gold Producer

• The “Bootstrap” Growth Methodology: Heliostar Metals is executing a unique strategy to reach its goal of becoming a 300,000-ounce-per-year producer. Instead of relying on heavy equity dilution to fund major development projects, the company uses its two cash-flowing mines to act as an internal “cash engine”. This allows the company to fund development activities and infrastructure growth through operational cash flow, a methodology management describes as a “bootstrapping” approach to building a producer.

• Flagship Asset: Ana Paula: The company’s flagship development project, Ana Paula, is described by management as a “unicorn” in the industry due to its rare combination of high-grade mineralization over wide widths, allowing for bulk-tonnage mining with high margins. A recent Preliminary Economic Assessment (PEA) outlines a 100,000-ounce-per-year production profile with an all-in sustaining cost (AISC) of $1,000 per ounce over a nine-year mine life. The company plans to reach a construction decision by late Q2 2027 and estimates the asset will generate roughly $200 million in annual after-tax free cash flow.

• Operational Cash-Flow ATMs: Heliostar currently operates two mines in Mexico. San Augustine serves as a short-term “cash flow ATM,” with 14 months of mine life on the books projected to generate $60 million in net free cash flow. Drilling has already suggested an additional 9 to 12 months of mine life, potentially adding another $50 million to that cash flow profile. Simultaneously, their La Colorada mine is currently mining a six-year reserve, but management believes that through expansion pits (like Veta Madre Plus) and high-grade underground potential, they will comfortably extend production at the site well past a decade.

• Geographic Diversification into Utah: Reflecting its growth, Heliostar recently acquired the Gold Strike project in Utah for $75 per ounce—a move management describes as “hiding in plain sight” under previous ownership. The asset holds a million-ounce resource and serves as a key step in geographically diversifying the company’s portfolio beyond Mexico while remaining in a premier mining jurisdiction (the Great Basin).

• Path to 300,000 Ounces: The company’s long-term production roadmap is clear: it is scaling from the current 50,000+ ounce annual run rate toward a 300,000-ounce target by the end of 2030. This is achieved in stages: first, by optimizing existing cash flows, then bringing AnaPaula online by 2028, and finally, integrating the Cerro del Gallo project.

• Upcoming Catalysts: Management highlighted a busy news flow over the next 12–18 months, focusing on:

  • Drill Results: Ongoing mine-life extension drilling at San Augustine and deep-tier drilling at AnaPaula to test the potential for a multi-million-ounce system at depth.

  • Permitting & Financing: Submission of the permit modification for AnaPaula in August 2026, and ongoing financing discussions exploring a blend of bank debt, Nordic bonds, and private equity.

  • Feasibility Milestones: Completion of the full feasibility study for AnaPaula, slated for late Q2 2027.

Leigh Goehring, Goehring & Rozencwajg Associates: The Coming Energy Crisis and the “Reverse April 2020” Setup

• Oil’s Unbelievable “First Leg”: Goehring argues that we are currently in the first leg of a massive oil bull market that remains largely unrecognized by the broader market. Despite a ~60% gain since mid-December, investor sentiment remains skeptical, with many dismissing the move as a temporary reaction to geopolitical tensions in the Strait of Hormuz. Goehring draws a direct parallel to the gold bull market of 1999–2001, where a radically undervalued asset class was ignored by the majority of the market before embarking on a multi-year secular move.

• The “Reverse April 2020” Scenario: Goehring forecasts an “unadulterated crisis” in global oil markets that will mirror the historic crash of April 2020 in reverse. While April 2020 was defined by a glut and fears of overflowing storage (leading to negative prices), the current trajectory is rapidly draining global inventories toward “tank bottoms.” When refiners finally realize supply is unavailable, it will trigger a frantic bidding war among major trading houses, potentially leading to a rapid, violent price spike to $200 per barrel.

• Algorithmic Short-Selling as a Funding Mechanism: A significant reason for the muted response in oil prices is the “carry trade” used by hedge funds and algorithmic traders. To fund positions in high-growth, long-duration assets like the “Magnificent Seven” and semiconductor leaders (e.g., Micron), funds have been shorting short-duration assets, specifically oil and oil-related equities. Goehring expects this trade to unwind violently, adding massive buying pressure when the oil price breakout forces these short positions to be covered.

• Gold: A Frustrating Period Ahead: Following a massive bull move from 2023 to 2025, Goehring believes the gold market is entering a “frustrating” period. Triggered by a “silver catch-up rally” that signaled the end of the primary gold bull run, history suggests precious metals may face a multi-year period of sideways trading or a significant correction, especially if real interest rates rise. While he recommends retail investors hold their long-term positions, he advises performance-focused investors to reduce exposure for the next couple of years until the next major default-driven leg of the gold bull market begins.

• High-Conviction Commodities for 2026:

  • Coal: Despite being a “four-letter word” in polite society, Goehring highlights an intense resurgence in global coal consumption, driven by Asian nations pivoting back to coal to ensure energy security. With Indonesian exports being curtailed and U.S. domestic consumption growing, this ignored asset class offers significant upside.

  • U.S. Natural Gas: U.S. natural gas currently trades at an 80% discount to international markets. While Permian supply has remained resilient longer than expected, Goehring remains confident that supply will eventually roll over. He views the current price of ~$3.20/MCF as a generational entry point for a commodity that could eventually converge toward international pricing levels.

These listings will completely reset how investors think about index concentration, benchmark risk, and sector allocation. Once free floats unlock, we are talking about instant top-10 names. For the NASDAQ 100, it means a massive rotation toward structural disruption - permanently. SpaceX is reportedly targeting an IPO valuation of $1.8 trillion, up from $1.25 trillion just four months ago.

In this report, we focus on SpaceX’s standalone valuation. This is where the DARP (Disruption at a Reasonable Price) framework becomes essential, the foundation of our DARP ETF. We look for companies capable of a tangible free cash flow inflection within a visible 4-to-6-year window. That discipline puts you in a vastly superior risk-adjusted position versus chasing 10-year narratives.

This analysis goes beyond whether to participate in the IPO. Due to its sheer scale, SpaceX will sit at the core of pension funds, endowments, and 401(k)s whether investors actively buy it or not. Understanding its foundational value matters, because this company is already destined to impact money you have parked in the market.

Read more

The newsflow remains focused on the Middle East, and the Strait of Hormuz, with the continuing lack of a more dramatic market sell-off explained by the fact that investors have learned in recent years to treat such events as buying opportunities.

There has also been a continuing assumption that the conflict will not last long (first days, then weeks and now months).

This dangerously underestimates the resolve of an Iranian regime which faces an existential crisis. Meanwhile, Tehran has done what it said it would do if attacked, namely attack US missile bases in the region regardless of the surrounding collateral damage.

And the damage to these bases has much been greater than first admitted to, as has started to be reported in the Western media (see, for example, Washington Post article: “Iran has hit far more US military assets than reported, satellite images show”, 8 May 2026).

The US-Israel attack on Iran was always highly risky for the American president politically unless there was some pre-agreed deal in place with an anti-regime element in Iran’s security forces.

For now there is no sign of this, though a New York Times article last week revealed there may have been such a plan which backfired (see New York Times article: “Early War Goal Was to Install Hard-Line Former President as Iran’s Leader”, 19 May 2026).

This article gives some insight as to why the Israelis, and the Trump administration, were so confident that they could secure regime change.

This is because they reportedly thought they had secured an “asset” close to the regime similar to the Venezuela precedent. Such hopes have now been dashed.

The surge in energy prices, triggered by the seeming closure of the Strait of Hormuz, will not have been to the liking of the 47^th US president.

The Brent crude oil price and European natural gas prices have risen by 36% and 45% respectively since the onset of the Iran war at the end of February even after recent declines on renewed deal hopes.

This creates the continuing potential for another Trump U-turn, where the 47^th president opts to exit from the conflict on the argument that he has already decapitated the regime.

This, however, will not be to Israel’s liking.

Meanwhile, Trump’s initial claim that the American navy will be able to secure safe passage though the 21 miles narrow Strait has not been credible as reflected in soaring shipping insurance rates.

US Outperforming the World in Q1 and Valuations Remain Reasonable

Moving on from Iran, the renewed momentum in the AI trade since the start of this quarter, combined with the reality that America is much less dependent on imported energy, has led to renewed US outperformance of late.

The MSCI USA has outperformed the MSCI AC World ex-US Index by 7.5% since the end of February.

It has also led to renewed concentration in the US stock market in terms of the dominance of Big Tech as defined as Nvidia and the four major hyperscalers.

Still if they are back near the peak percentage of S&P500 market capitalisation, valuations are below recent peaks.

Nvidia and four major hyperscalers’ share of S&P500 market capitalisation rose from 23.8% in late March to 27% in mid-May and is now 26.1%, compared with the peak share of 27.4% at the start of November 2025.

But they are now trading at 22.9x 12-month forward earnings, compared with a recent high of 29.2x in late October 2025 and 33.1x in July 2024.

This de-rating reflects growing concerns that hyperscalers’ projected capex this year, at US$680bn, accounts for a projected 92% of their operating cashflow, as recently discussed here (see Why The AI Picks-and-Shovels Boom May Be Peaking, 13 May 2026).

Without the Mag-7, US Stock Markets Would have Looked More like Europe’s.

In the paid portion of this week’s strategy note we look at growing concentration not only in developed markets, but emerging markets as well.

You may be surprised to see what is really driving emerging market outperformance in 2026.

Read more

The key medium-term issue for the US stock market at the start of 2026 remains whether the hyperscalers will be able to monetise their AI capex, which this year is now forecast to reach a staggering US$680bn for the major four US hyperscalers following the latest earnings guidance.

The market has viewed the increased capex for Alphabet, Microsoft and Amazon as positive because it has seen growing revenues in their cloud businesses.

Google Cloud’s revenues rose by 63% YoY last quarter, while Amazon Web Services (AWS) and Microsoft Cloud increased revenues by 28% and 29% YoY respectively.

Still there is an element of circularity here since cloud is benefitting from the pickup in demand from the likes of OpenAI and Anthropic.

The real winner from the AI capex thematic in stock market terms remains the picks-and-shovels trade with the huge gains in the three global suppliers of DRAMs, two of which are quoted in the Korean market.

This has been the main driver of very positive earnings revisions in both the US and Asian equity universes.

The LSEG I/B/E/S consensus data as of 8 May shows that S&P500 1Q26 earnings are expected to rise by 28.6% YoY, up from 10.9% growth expected last July.

The IT sector now has the second-highest forecast 1Q26 earnings growth of 52.5%, up from 20.7% last July.

Thus, the IT sector is expected to earn US$190.1bn in 1Q26, up from US$124.6bn in 1Q25, with all 12 sub-industries in the sector having higher earnings than a year ago.

Earnings for the IT sector account for 27.9% of the I/B/E/S forecast 1Q26 earnings for the S&P500, up from 23.5% in 1Q25. Unsurprisingly, the semiconductors and electronic components sub-industries have the highest earning growth (110.2% and 54.7%, respectively).

If these two sub-industries are excluded, the forecast growth rate for the IT sector declines to 27.1%.

Meanwhile, the Communication Services sector, which includes Alphabet and Meta, has the highest forecast 1Q26 earnings growth rate of 54.8%.

As for Asian equities, consensus 2026 earnings growth for the MSCI Asia Pacific ex-Japan universe is now 37%, but “only” 13% if Korea and Taiwan are excluded.

Consensus 2026 forecast EPS for the MSCI Asia ex-Japan universe has been revised up by 17% over the past three months, with the IT sector earnings being revised up by a massive 54%.

The result has been a dramatic rise in the stock market capitalisation of the likes of Samsung and Hynix.

Their profits this year are now forecast, for example, to be more than three times the total forecast profits of the benchmark Nifty 50 Index in India.

Samsung and Hynix are forecast by consensus to earn profits totalling W452tn (US$307bn) this year, compared with the total forecast profits of US$102bn for India’s Nifty 50 universe.

Still, it should be noted that the DRAM makers book their revenues up front, highlighting the front-end loading of profits.

By contrast, the hyperscalers are delaying the payment of the AI capex via extended depreciation schedules.

Still, the deprecation bill is rising…

Below we look at the extent to which the US and global economies are being propped up by AI CAPEX. Also do Hyperscalers have the financial capacity and do investors have the appetite to fund continued record levels of AI CAPEX spending?

Read more

This writer remains of the view that Treasury bonds are in a structural bear market and that equity investors should hedge their portfolios by betting on a pickup in bond “vol” as discussed here previously (see AI Stock Buyers Beware, 17 December 2025).

This is because a renewed uptick in Treasury bond yields in coming months is one obvious risk to US equities which continue to be driven by the AI capex trade after the sell-off triggered by the Iran War.

Nvidia and the four hyperscalers have risen by 27.2% from the recent low reached in late March, while the S&P500 is up 13.1% over the same period.

It is also the case that Nvidia and the four hyperscalers still account for an estimated 45% of the gains in the S&P500 since the start of 2023 when the AI capex arms race commenced.

Meanwhile, the market will start to focus on the likely arrival of Fed Chairman appointee Kevin Warsh at the US central bank.

Our Thoughts on Incoming Treasury Secretary Kevin Warsh

Warsh has continued to talk about balance sheet contraction, which is interesting since the Fed decided in December to resume balance sheet expansion again by initiating purchases of shorter-term Treasury securities (mainly Treasury bills) “for the sole purpose of maintaining an ample supply of reserves over time”.

It has since scheduled to purchase US$40bn of Treasury bills per month starting 12 December under the so-called “reserve management purchase” operation, though the pace has reduced to US$25bn in the month beginning 14 April.

This followed signs of emerging liquidity stresses in the repo market last October. In addition to such purchases, the Fed also reinvests all principal payments received from the Fed’s holding of agency securities into Treasury bills.

This amounts to around US$13.4-15.5bn per month. As a result, the Fed’s holdings of Treasury bills have risen by US$229.7bn from US$195.5bn on 10 December to US$425.2bn on 22 April.

The base case remains that Warsh will be quick to back off a balance sheet contraction strategy on any sign of renewed stresses in the repo market.

What Do the Cayman Island Have to do With Treasury Bonds?

In the subscriber-only analysis below we dig through the implications from a recent Federal Reserve Board report unmasking the hidden marginal buyer of US treasury bonds the last three years.

The buyer is not who we would have expected and has critical implications for what will happen to the US dollar, gold and bitcoin prices should treasury yields continue rising towards the all important 5% level.

Read more

At one point this writer used to think that the mid-term elections were not so important to Donald Trump personally because he cannot run again for the presidency.

But it subsequently became self-evident that such an assumption was wrong when it was pointed out that the House of Representatives has the power to launch impeachments. For such a reason alone continuing Republican control of the House this November is a priority for the 47^th president.

This is one reason, among many, why the decision to launch the attack on Iran on 28 February was so risky domestically as all the polling continues to show that such a policy was unpopular both that decisions and has continued to be after it.

The latest CNN poll conducted between 26-30 March found that 66% disapprove of the US decision to take military action in Iran, up from 59% in the previous poll conducted between 28 February and 1 March, while 68% oppose the US sending ground troops into Iran.

There is also the not unimportant point that Trump’s election campaign was all about ending foreign wars.

Then there is also the issue of Trump’s unfavourable polling as regards the economy in spite of economic data and a stock market which shows an American economy in comparatively good health even if a significant part of that growth remains driven by AI capex.

The Economist/YouGov poll conducted between 3-6 April shows that 57% of Americans disapprove of Trump’s handling of the economy compared with only a 39% approval rating.

While the CNN poll conducted between 26-30 March saw 69% of Americans disapprove and 31% approve of the president’s management of the economy .

AI is the One Bright Spot in the US Growth Story

As for AI capex, the latest 4Q25 US GDP data shows no sign of any pickup in capex outside of AI.

Real AI-related capex, measured as non-residential private fixed investment in information processing equipment, software and data center construction, contributed 1.11ppts or 56% to US real GDP growth of 2.0% YoY in the four quarters to 4Q25.

US real AI-related capex rose by an annualised 18.5% QoQ in 4Q25 and was up 19.6% YoY, while non-AI capex declined by an annualised 8.0% QoQ in 4Q25 and was down 3.0% YoY.

Similarly, real AI-related capex rose by 26.8% over the past two years to 4Q25, while real non-residential private fixed investment excluding such AI-related capex declined by 4.9% over the past two years.

Tariffs Unsurprisingly are Unpopular with the Average American

Meanwhile, it has become clear in recent months that Trump’s tariff policies were increasingly unpopular long before the Supreme Court decision on 20 February to declare most of them illegal.

Those are the “reciprocal tariffs” imposed under the so-called International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA).

Thus, an Economist/YouGov poll conducted between 15-17 November showed that 47% of respondents want tariffs on foreign goods to be reduced and only 13% want them to be increased.

While 73% of Americans said that Trump’s tariffs have increased the prices they have paid either a lot (40%) or slightly (33%).

It is also the case that the more recent Economist/YouGov poll conducted between 20-23 February, following the Supreme Court decision, showed that 60% of US adult citizens disapproved of the way Trump is handling tariffs, while 57% approved of the Supreme Court’s decision on tariffs with only 23% disapproving.

A total of 71% of Americans also said Trump’s tariffs increased the prices they paid for things.

This reaction is not so surprising since the longer the tariffs are in place, and they were then running at an annualised US$376bn based on October data, the more likely most of the bill will be paid for by the American consumer.

These political pressures explain why the Trump administration in November suddenly cut tariffs on items like beef, coffee and bananas to the benefit of a country like Brazil which, it should be recalled, was suddenly hit by 50% tariffs in late July because Trump did not like the treatment of former president Jair Bolsonaro.

Thus, Trump exempted in November food items such as beef, coffee and bananas from the “reciprocal” tariffs imposed on most US trading partners.

Meanwhile, monthly government receipts on tariffs have declined since the Supreme Court decision from a peak of US$31.354bn in October to US$22.155bn in March.

Tariff Refunds Could Spook the Treasury Bond Market

As regards to the Supreme Court, it might have been assumed that, since Trump appointed three of the nine Supreme Court justices with another three appointed by previous Republican presidents, that America’s highest court would not rule against Trump even though the legal argument of the administration is tenuous in the extreme.

This is because under the US Constitution, Congress oversees taxation, not the president.

The argument of Trump’s legal team on tariffs was that the US trade deficit, which has been a reality for 50 years, is a “national emergency” justifying the unilateral tariffs imposed by the administration.

For the record, the tariffs now average 11.8% based on the latest announced tariffs as of 8 April, the highest level since 1941, according to the Yale Budget Lab.

Still, the Supreme Court decision will now lead to a huge refund bill for the Treasury totaling about US$166bn, resulting in an administrative and bureaucratic nightmare, not to say a costly one. Total tariff collection was US$318bn in the 12 months to March, or a US$235bn increase from US$83bn in the previous 12 months.

An added complication is that the tariff revenue is now part of the US General Fund, which Congress controls, though it is managed by the Treasury.

Certainly, the sudden realisation that the tariff revenue may no longer be “money good” is also a potential negative for the Treasury bond market for those who view the increased revenues from tariffs as one explanation for the relative calm of the long-end of the Treasury bond market in recent months compared with some other G7 markets.

Meanwhile, another sign that Trump has begun to react to the negative impact of tariffs politically is that he proposed in November giving every American, excluding “high-income people”, a dividend of “at least” US$2,000, presumably to compensate for the price hikes caused by tariffs.

In addition to the precedent from Covid of what such handouts can do in terms of exacerbating inflationary pressures, such a policy would also be a negative in terms of the fiscal impact.

This is because such a handout is estimated to cost at least US$400bn. A study in November by the Yale Budget Lab estimated that a one-time US$2,000 per person rebate for Americans earning less than US$100,000 per year would cost US$450bn.

While the Supreme Court decision makes such a policy less likely, anything is possible in terms of stimulatory policies domestically in the run-up to the mid-terms, most particularly as the Iran War has already caused a noticeable pickup in inflation as a result of the surge in energy prices.

The latest US CPI data shows US headline CPI inflation increasing from 2.4% YoY in February to 3.3% YoY in March, and energy CPI inflation rising from 0.5% YoY in February to 12.5% YoY in March.

Meanwhile, it is interesting to note that the mid-terms are the year in the presidential cycle when share prices rally the least.

On that point, in the past 24 presidential cycles since 1929, the S&P500 rose by an average 3.3% in the second year of a cycle with only 54% of those years posting a positive return.

So far year to date the S&P500 is up 0.6%.

With near-term inflationary pressures rising in the US courtesy of the Iran War, the potential risk for the US stock market is a self-off in the Treasury bond market out of the recent tight trading range.

This has begun to happen.

The ten-year Treasury bond yield has broken out of the range which has been prevailing since last August, reaching a peak of 4.48% on 27 March and is now 4.28% (see following chart), as bond investors have focused anew on Iran-driven stagflation risks rather than AI-triggered white-collar job losses which was the main concern prior to the attack on Iran on 28 February.

Any move in the ten-year yield beyond the 4.5% level will surely be negative for equities, as well as causing investors to refocus on America’s fiscal issues.

It is also the case that Treasury bond market volatility has picked up of late, as reflected in the MOVE index. It surged by 28% on 20 March to a high of 108.84.

This was the biggest one-day gain since October 2020 during Covid.

The index rose to a recent high of 115.02 on 26 March, though it has since declined to 74.42.

Prior to this, the Treasury bond market has been benefiting from Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent’s ever-increasing resort to financing at the short end, as well as buybacks at the long end.

On buybacks, in the latest quarterly refunding review in early February, the US Treasury estimated that buybacks, including liquidity support and cash management buybacks, will increase from US$50bn in 1QCY26 to US$53bn in 2QCY26.

Meanwhile, gross Treasury bill issuance totaled US$26.27tn in the past 12 months to March, accounting for a massive 84.9% of the total gross marketable Treasury issuance of US$30.95tn.

Rising Yields Due to Iran Conflict are Making it Harder for Trump to Cut Debt Servicing Costs

The other point is that the energy price shock stemming from the Iran War means that financial markets are less convinced than they used to be that the Fed will be cutting rates this year.

Since the commencement of the Iran War, money markets have gone from assuming 61bp of Fed easing this year to 14bp of Fed tightening in late March and are now discounting only 9bp of Fed easing.

The key focus of the Trump administration remains on reducing debt-servicing costs, with net interest payments and entitlements rising to 92.7% of total federal government revenues in the 12 months to March, though down from a recent high of 95.6% in the 12 months to January 2025.

An added negative in this respect is that the flow of tariff revenue should be drying up as a result of the Supreme Court decision.

As already noted, monthly tariff revenues have declined from a peak of US$31.354bn in October to US$22.155bn in March, down from US$27.742bn in January prior to the Supreme Court decision.

The Art of the TACO

We believe the market is having a tough time deciphering and differentiating between the two kinds of TACO (Trump Always Chickens Out): Tariff TACO vs. War TACO. When physical assets are blown up the ability to execute a clean TACO reduces significantly. This reality left us very skeptical about Monday’s announced two week ceasefire and the ‘immediate’ reopening of the Straight of Hormuz.

First off, let’s start with the traffic data from the Strait of Hormuz, there’s no meaningful change from the prior weeks - the Strait remains effectively closed. And if the latest Trump pronouncement is to be taken as face value, traffic from the Strait is going to zero.

Second, the Strait is booby-trapped. A recent New York Times report highlights a technical nightmare: even if Iran wanted to open the lanes today, they’ve essentially booby-trapped the Strait with mines they don’t even know how to remove.

And lastly, negotiations have not gone swimmingly; the American delegation is headed home without a deal.

This will certainly temper the market’s dovish orientation towards an unfettered War TACO. The dramatic selloff of the energy complex on the back of the ceasefire news highlights the market’s misunderstanding of the structural changes that have taken place and more critically how unloved energy assets are. Heck the only assets more unloved are SaaS (Software as a Service) stocks.

Below is a clip from our recent BNN Bloomberg interview where we shared our view on the profound structural changes taking place in the global energy marketplace, specifically LNG.

Who Wins From The Qatar LNG Shutdown?

The key question for energy investors is who benefits from a disrupted Qatari LNG industry?

In this research note we dig deep into the fundamentals of the global LNG market, quantify the Iranian conflict’s impact so far and outline where we think the investment opportunities are and the timeline for investment.

Lets get into it…

Read more

The Iran war is in the headline for entirely understandable reason. But AI remains the other key story for the US stock market.

The latest Nvidia results confirm that AI capex remains strong.

This is no surprise based on recent hyperscaler guidance. Nvidia quarterly revenue rose by 20% QoQ and 73% YoY to a record US$68.1bn in the three months ended 25 January, with data center revenues up 22% QoQ and 75% YoY to US$62.3bn.

Still the key point remains if markets start to focus more on how the investors in AI capex are going to make the returns to justify this enormous spending.

Remember that the four major US hyperscalers’ capex is projected to grow by a further 65% to an enormous US$620bn this year based on latest company guidance.

This questioning began with the 4Q25 results announced this quarter, with the shares of the four major hyperscalers underperforming the S&P500 by 7.1% so far this year.

This is why the base case of this writer is that the AI picks and shovels trade in the Western World has seen its best days in terms of the gains to be made in these stocks, most particularly in terms of relative outperformance.

Indeed Nvidia has stopped outperforming the S&P500 since early November, though the DRAM memory producers are still outperforming for now.

Nvidia has underperformed the S&P500 by 12% since 3 November, while Micron, Hynix and Samsung Electronics have outperformed by 90%, 60 and 80% over the same period.

The other issue is who, if anyone, will most successfully monetise AI in the world outside China.

The best guess is that victory will go to Alphabet, which appears to have successfully integrated its Gemini AI into traditional search.

In this respect, the latest data continues to show people are spending less time on ChatGPT.

Gemini’s web traffic share in the Generative AI market has increased from 5.7% to 24.4% over the past 12 months, while ChatGPT’s market share has declined from 75.7% to 61.7% over the same period, according to SimilarWeb.

Unlike Last Cycle, Credit Spreads Won’t Foreshadow a Future Crisis

Moving on from AI, there continue to be problems emerging in the private credit space.

There have been two examples of late of BlackRock marking down a loan from 100 cents to zero.

The first involved private debt it had extended to Dallas-based Renovo Home Partners.

This was written down from a value of 100 cents on the dollar in October to zero in November.

BlackRock held the majority of Renovo’s roughly US$150m of private debt (see Bloomberg article: “BlackRock Faces 100% Loss on Private Loan, Adding to Credit Market Pain”, 10 November 2025).

The second BlackRock loan written down from 100 cents to zero occurred more recently.

An SEC filing released in late February shows that BlackRock slashed the value of a US$25m loan to Infinite Commerce to zero at the end of 2025, just three months after valuing it at par (see Bloomberg article: “BlackRock Slashed Private Loan Value From 100 to Zero”, 5 March 2026).

Fraud appears to have played a role in some of the recently publicized problems in private credit.

But it is becoming ever more obvious that the dodgy loans in this cycle have been extended in the unregulated private credit market rather than in what used to be known as the junk bond market — as has long been this writer’s base case (see “Private debt – A ticking time bomb”, 30 August 2023).

As such, credit spreads in the high-yield market will not play their usual role as a warning indicator.

Rather, the risk is that there will be no warning whatsoever, which was the case with the above cited examples.

Meanwhile, the US high-yield corporate bond index is still trading at “only” 312bp yield spread over the Treasuries, compared with 1,100bp in March 2020.

Fundamentally, it is worth re-iterating that the explosion in private credit in the US over the past 15 years has been one massive regulatory arbitrage after the over regulation of the commercial banks which followed the subprime mortgage crisis of 2007-2008.

This regulatory arbitrage has limited what well-meaning commercial bank regulators can do about shadow banking because they do not regulate private credit. Nor for that matter does anyone else.

But increasingly concerned US bank regulators have started to address the issue by telling commercial banks to report their exposure to non-bank financial institutions (NBFIs), starting from December 2024.

Could the Shadow Banking System be a Systemic Risk?

The latest information shows, unsurprisingly to this writer, a dramatic surge in commercial bank lending to NBFIs, as previously discussed here (see “The Financial Assets Most at Risk From Trump’s ‘Bull in a China Shop’ Strategy”, 3 June 2025).

US commercial banks’ loans to NBFIs have risen to US$1.92tn in the week ended 11 March, up 65.9% since the last week of 2024.

While commercial and industrial (C&I) loans rose by only 1.1% to US$2.82tn over the same period. This latest data is the result of a loan reclassification since the start of 2025.

A Moody’s report published last October has provided more data on this area of lending (see Moody’s report: “US private credit market reshapes bank lending and risk”, 21 October 2025).

The report confirms that lending to NBFIs has been the fastest-growing loan category in US commercial bank lending, with such loans representing 10.4% of total US bank loans as of 2Q25, up nearly threefold from 3.6% a decade ago.

A further data point worth noting is that NBFI lending accounts for a higher 15% of the loans of the 25 largest US domestic banks as of 2Q25.

Meanwhile latest weekly data released by the Federal Reserve shows that NBFIs’ share of US bank loans has increased further to 11.6% for all US domestic banks and 16.2% for the 25 largest banks as of the week ended 11 March 2026.

Note: Data up to the week ended 11 March 2026. Source: Federal Reserve

Another Moody’s report published last November focuses on a related issue.

That, the growing exposure of US life insurers to private credit or what are termed “less-liquid and privately rated investments” (see Moody’s report: “Private assets boost US life insurers’ returns but reduce liquidity, transparency”, 12 November 2025).

Such illiquid investments accounted for 18% or US$685bn of the industry’s US$3.8tn in fixed income holdings at the end of 2024, according to Moody’s.

Furthermore, the exposure is concentrated with 10 life insurers accounting for 43% of the illiquid assets. The same Moody’s report also notes that life insurers’ exposure to illiquid assets has continued to grow in the first half of last year.

On a related point, it is also worth highlighting that UBS Chairman Colm Kelleher warned last November that insurers shopping for better ratings on their private credit assets are creating a “looming systemic risk” to global finance (see Financial Times article: “UBS chair warns of ‘looming systemic risk’ from private credit ratings”, 4 November 2025).

Kelleher said the insurance industry, especially in the US, was engaging in “ratings arbitrage” akin to what banks and other institutions did with subprime loans before the 2008 financial crisis.

Similarly, the Bank for International Settlements (BIS) also said last October that ratings on private credit assets held by US insurers might have been inflated and warned of the risk of fire sales during periods of financial stress.

Smaller rating agencies have captured market share in private credit by providing so-called private letter ratings, which are typically only visible to an issuer and select investors, according to the BIS (see BIS Paper – “The transformation of the life insurance industry: systemic risks and policy challenges”, 27 October 2025).

The above is why it is no surprise to read that the National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC) recently restructured its task force focused on the “scrutiny of private and complex asset holdings”.

The regulatory focus is long overdue, given the longstanding practice of growing “payments in kind” (PIK) in private credit also previously discussed here (see “Private Credit’s Incredible Vanishing Cashflow”, 16 December 2024).

This is a practice where companies financed by private credit are opting to increase their principal balance outstanding rather than paying cash to make interest payments.

While such PIK is counted as “income” each quarter, the private credit funds do not receive cash payments until the loan is refinanced or matures.

Retail Investors Beware

Then there is the related issue that private credit has begun to be sold to retail investors following deregulation last May.

This is despite the fundamentally illiquid nature of the underlying assets as has become clear of late as investors have tried to pull out of these so called “semi-liquid” funds.

Still, some transparency on the pricing in this sector can be obtained by monitoring quoted business development companies (BDCs).

On this point, the Cliffwater BDC Index of 41 lending-oriented exchange-traded BDCs has shown a diverging trend with the S&P500 since mid-July 2025.

The index has declined by 20.1% since mid-July on a total-return basis and is down 14.9% since the start of 2025.

By contrast, the S&P500 has risen by 4.2% since mid-July on a total-return basis and is up 12.4% since the start of 2025.

Meanwhile there is a certain symmetry, or should this writer say inevitability, in that the two obvious areas of excess in this cycle have begun to converge: private credit and AI capex.

Still, this writer would advise all lenders, be they commercial banks, insurers, or private credit players, to become extremely wary of extending more credit to data centers, as this cycle is now so well advanced.

Investing in data centers, or what used to be characterized as “digital infrastructure”, seemed entirely sensible a few years ago. But as the AI capex arms race has reached ever more maniacal proportions, and as debt has increasingly been employed rather than cash to finance such spending, the endgame in terms of a massive oversupply of data centers seems increasingly inevitable.

The Iranian conflict continues to spiral, and we are no longer looking at a marginal disruption. We are witnessing a structural break in the global energy system.

As Wood Mackenzie’s Alexander Araman noted today, the halt of LNG production in Qatar - representing ~19% of global supply - has moved from a “temporary outage” to a fundamental reset of the market. While the consensus previously expected a return to balance by mid-2026, those assumptions have evaporated.

The math is stark: every month this disruption continues removes roughly 1.5% of global annual LNG supply. After six months, the market becomes structurally short. We are shifting from a period of volatility into a period of physical scarcity and sustained repricing.

To help you navigate this transition, we’ve put together a primer on the metrics and companies best positioned to weather this reset across the hydrocarbon value chain. Below the fold, we highlight 5 companies we believe have the best leverage to this supply/demand crunch—specifically those capable of filling the 19% hole left by Qatar’s Ras Laffan LNG.

Read more

We caught up with a great group of CEOs to cut through the noise, uncover the valuation disconnects, and map out exactly what the future holds for commodities in 2026.

Full Conference: X | iTunes | Spotify | YouTube

Cambria Gold Mines (TSXV:CAMB): The Turnaround Playbook | Rob McLeod, CEO

• The M&A Trigger: While the metals have moved significantly, mining equities are still catching up, and the real bull market liftoff historically occurs when major M&A activity accelerates. Mid-tier and major producers are under severe pressure to grow, but there is a distinct lack of advanced assets available to acquire. Cambria Gold Mines aims to position itself as a prime acquisition target later in 2026 as these larger companies look to replenish their portfolios.

• The Fiore Group Playbook: Cambria was recapitalized by the Fiore Group, which specializes in rescuing “hated assets” that have significant sunk costs. The group successfully executed a $190 million rescue package for the company—formerly known as Ascot Resources—which was on the brink of bankruptcy. This turnaround strategy mirrors the group’s past successes with the Madsen mine (West Red Lake Gold) and the Minto copper-gold mine (Selkirk Copper), where they brought in Tier 1 management to fix undercapitalized operations.

• The Core Problem & Solution: The previous management team failed because they did not drill enough tight-spaced holes to properly define the stopes, leaving their brand-new 2,500 ton-per-day mill starved for ore. The new strategy is straightforward: conduct the necessary development drilling and build an access road to the high-grade Red Mountain deposit to finally fill the mill.

• Pivoting to Bulk Mining: Because the existing mill is designed to self-grind, it must be completely filled with ore to function properly; it cannot be run at half capacity. To ensure a consistent feed, the new management team is looking at ways to pivot away from difficult, skinny veins and instead focus on bulk mining strategies, including potential open pits. The Red Mountain deposit is perfectly suited for this, boasting measured and indicated grades of nearly 9 grams per ton over massive widths ranging from 15 to 100 meters.

• Major 2026 Catalyst: The most significant upcoming catalyst for Cambria Gold Mines will be an updated feasibility study expected near the end of the year. Management’s goal is to use this study to demonstrate the project’s stellar economics to the market, ultimately aiming to emulate the massive value creation seen in successful peers like Skeena Resources.

Silver Viper (TSXV:VIPR): The “Go Big” Blueprint in Mexico | Adam Cegielski, Chairman

• Silver’s Fundamental Breakout: Silver has broken out of its traditional $15 to $25 trading range, smashing through the $100 mark before consolidating in the $80s. This fundamental break in the system has brought a massive influx of new capital into the sector, driven by silver’s industrial utility and its role as a hedge against the printing of money.

• The Mexico Advantage: Mexico offers some of the richest geological potential for silver globally, backed by a 400-to-500-year history of extraction. The current high-price environment transforms previously marginal shallow projects—often sitting in the top 30 to 50 meters of ground—into highly profitable operations that can quickly generate cash flow. This lucrative dynamic has already helped elevate several local operators into multi-billion dollar companies.

• A Tier 1 Turnaround Team: The Silver Viper leadership team has a rich, proven history of developing Mexican assets into major acquisition targets. Their track record includes the development of El Burkino, which was sold to Agnico Eagle for $210 million, and Orco Silver, which was sold to Coeur Mining for approximately $250 million. They have also strengthened their technical roster by bringing in Technical Director Gernot Wober, who previously discovered the Cordero deposit that helped build Discovery Silver into a nearly billion-dollar company.

• Aggressive Expansion & Upgraded Economics: The company recently completed a 5,000-meter drill program at its 100% owned La Virginia project, which currently holds about 500,000 gold equivalent ounces. They plan to drill an additional 15,000 meters to aggressively chase a potential multi-million ounce resource. Crucially, upcoming 43-101 resource updates will utilize much higher base metal prices—such as $3,500 to $3,800 per ounce for gold and $50 to $60 per ounce for silver—which will drastically improve the project’s baseline economics compared to older studies.

• Immediate 2026 Catalysts: Over the next six months, investors should watch for pending drill results from La Virginia and the initiation of drill programs at new parallel targets. Additionally, the company is expecting the imminent closing of the Caneto project acquisition—a massive 50 million ounce silver asset purchased from Fresnillo—and will be updating the market on potential future M&A activities as they look at all options to create value.

Newcore Gold (TSXV:NCAU): The CIL Pivot and High-Grade Upside | Luke Alexander, CEO

• CIL Pivot & $5k Gold: In 2024, Newcore released a Preliminary Economic Assessment (PEA) that outlined a simple open-pit, heap-leach operation based on $1,850/oz gold. However, in today’s robust environment with gold trading over $5,000/oz, the project’s economics have completely changed. After extensive metallurgical test work in 2025, the company shifted to a Carbon-in-Leach (CIL) processing flow sheet for their upcoming Pre-Feasibility Study (PFS). This pivot unlocks significantly higher recoveries ranging from 89% to 98%, compared to the 75% to 85% recoveries modeled in the previous heap-leach scenario.

• Institutional Backing: The company recently received a $10.3 million cash injection from the exercise of deep-in-the-money warrants. These warrants were held primarily by five major, deep-pocketed institutional investors who are focused on the long-term potential of the district-scale exploration. Currently, Newcore boasts a massive 55% institutional ownership base, signaling strong, long-term market confidence in the project’s trajectory.

• Hunting High-Grade at Depth: The company is currently executing a 45,000-meter drill program, with about 33,000 meters already completed. While the initial focus was on resource expansion and stepping out the mineralized footprint, Newcore has brought diamond rigs back to the site to aggressively chase high-grade shoots at depth. This strategy is already yielding massive intercepts, including 1 meter at 175 grams per ton, 1 meter at 147 grams, and wider intercepts like 25 meters at 3.2 grams, proving out the underlying geological models.

• Mid-2026 PFS Catalyst: Despite the strong gold market, Newcore is currently trading at a heavily discounted multiple of roughly 0.15x the Net Present Value (NPV) of the project. Management views the upcoming PFS, targeted for release in June 2026, as a critical de-risking milestone. As the project is de-risked from a PEA to a PFS, the market typically assigns a higher valuation multiple, which is expected to trigger a significant re-rating of the stock.

• Consistent News & Alignment: The management team and board of directors are highly aligned with shareholders, holding a combined 13% ownership stake in the business. With the recent warrant capital injected into the company, Newcore is fully funded to expand its drill program well beyond the initial 45,000 meters. Investors can expect a steady and consistent news flow, with drill results anticipated every four to six weeks throughout 2026 and well into 2027.

Anfield Energy (TSXV:AEC | NASDSQ:AEC): The Road to 2027 Uranium Production | Corey Dias, CEO

• The US Uranium Squeeze: The United States operates the largest installed base of nuclear reactors globally, consuming roughly 50 million pounds of uranium annually while producing less than one million pounds domestically. Corey Diaz expects this massive supply-demand imbalance to drive uranium prices into the triple digits in the near future. Furthermore, this dynamic is expected to create a bifurcated market where highly coveted, domestically produced uranium will command a premium price over non-U.S. material as domestic utilities and competing parties vie for a secure supply.

• The “Manufacturing” Moat: Anfield Energy has strategically separated itself from typical junior exploration companies by securing one of only three conventional uranium mills in the United States. By focusing on controlling their own processing capabilities rather than just exploring for ounces in the ground, Anfield operates much like a manufacturing business. This unique infrastructure asset allows them to dictate their own production timeline and fundamentally shifts them off the traditional mining exploration curve.

• Regulatory Fast Lane: The U.S. government is actively pivoting toward domestic energy independence, shifting from distant encouragement to tangible financial and regulatory support. This includes the rollout of Department of Energy (DOE) low-interest loans and Department of Defense (DOD) grants tailored for the mining sector. For Anfield, this highly favorable environment has already resulted in unprecedented, expedited permitting timelines for their assets, clearing major regulatory hurdles at a record pace.

• The Production Roadmap: The company has laid out a clear timeline culminating in ultimate uranium production in 2027. In the second half of 2026, Anfield expects to complete construction at the Velvetwood mine and receive its Radioactive Materials License upgrade from the State of Utah. This license approval will trigger a 9- to 12-month refurbishment of their mill facility. By early 2027, the company plans to begin stockpiling mined material so it is ready for processing once the mill is fully operational.

• Massive Valuation Disconnect: Anfield is currently one of only about five companies with the realistic capability to produce uranium in the U.S. within the next couple of years. However, there is a severe dislocation in how the market is pricing the stock; the other four capable companies are currently valued anywhere from four to forty times Anfield’s market capitalization. As the company hits its upcoming milestones and closes in on its 2027 production target, management expects this massive valuation gap to shrink considerably

Ecora Royalties (TSX:ECOR | LSE:ECOR): The Base Metal Inflection Point | Marc Bishop Lafleche, CEO

• The 2025 Inflection Point: 2025 marked a landmark year for Ecora Resources, serving as a major inflection point for their cash flow profile. For the first time in two decades, over 65% of the company’s revenue base—which totaled $57 million last year—was generated from critical minerals. Furthermore, base metals alone accounted for exactly half of that total revenue.

• Copper at the Core: The company has deliberately built its portfolio around copper, which currently represents 50% of its Net Asset Value (NAV). Within their base metals exposure, copper makes up approximately 80% of the mix. The remaining 20% of the portfolio offers diversification through high-quality uranium and rare earths, including exposure to the NextGen Patterson corridor and the Cigar Lake mine.

• Tier 1 Quality Focus: When evaluating new royalties, Ecora’s absolute first criterion is the quality of the underlying ore body, as this dictates the cost profile, scale, and mine life. This stringent approach is reflected in their deployed capital, with approximately 80% of their portfolio consisting of Tier 1 projects that sit comfortably in the first or second cost quartiles of their respective commodity complexes.

• Aggressive Deleveraging: Despite utilizing their revolving credit facility to acquire a producing $50 million copper stream last year, Ecora successfully executed a rapid deleveraging plan. Assisted by the sale of a non-core development-stage gold royalty, the company ended the year with its net debt reduced to roughly zero.

• Massive 2026 Catalysts: Investors can expect continued volume growth at the Voisey’s Bay and Mimbula copper mines throughout the year. Beyond existing production, Ecora is anticipating major development milestones, including a Phase II study for the Mantos Blancos mine expansion (potentially taking it to 100,000 tons), a targeted Final Investment Decision (FID) for Santo Domingo in the second half of the year, and a Definitive Feasibility Study (DFS) for the Phalaborwa rare earth project.

Power Metallic (TSV:PNPN): The Polymetallic Powerplay | Terry Lynch, CEO

• The Bull Market “Start Line”: Despite recent commodity price surges across the board, Terry Lynch stresses that the sector has been underinvested for so long that we are only at the “start line” of this cycle, not the finish line. He notes that investors who feel they missed the rally should look at the cash flows of producing companies, which indicate that the sector is actually cheaper now than it has ever been. Furthermore, mining equities and “ounces in the ground” remain incredibly undervalued and have not even come close to catching up to physical metal prices.

• The “Duck Bill Platypus”: The company was blessed with an ultra-rare polymetallic discovery, noting there have only been about 20 similar deposits of this nature in the history of the world. Legendary mining investor Robert Friedland compared the asset to a “duck bill platypus” because its massive grades—such as a zone of 10 million tons at 7% copper equivalent—should not logically happen in nature, but they do.

• Heavy-Hitter Backing: Power Metallic has attracted an elite roster of mining billionaires and industry veterans. This includes Robert Friedland, who led their last two funding rounds, Rob McEwen, who has participated in their last three rounds, and Gina Rinehart. This “smart money” provides the company with vital capital at rates fair to shareholders and offers invaluable strategic guidance to sharpen management’s daily execution.

• Accelerated PEA Catalyst: Lynch highlighted a massive valuation disconnect, comparing his asset to peers like Foran Mining, which successfully sold a roughly 25 million ton deposit at 2.5% for $3.8 billion. To prove to the market that Power Metallic holds a highly viable mine and to force a valuation re-rate, the company plans to bring forward a Preliminary Economic Assessment (PEA) sooner than its original target. Lynch believes this PEA will establish a solid floor and demonstrate that the company is worth three to four times its current value relative to its peers.

• Incoming Results & New Messaging: With six drill rigs actively turning, the remaining results from the fall drill program are expected to drop in the next couple of weeks. Taking direct advice from Rob McEwen, the company plans to revamp its market messaging by utilizing PGE and gold equivalents to better highlight the extreme concentration of their high-grade intercepts. This new messaging will help investors easily compare Power Metallic’s 10% to 20% grades against the 1% copper average typically seen around the rest of the world.

Metallic Minerals (TSXV:MMG): A Diversified Critical Minerals Play | Greg Johnson, CEO

• The Multi-Metals Profile: Metallic Minerals operates as a multi-metal company with a diverse portfolio that includes copper, silver, gold, platinum, and rare earths. The company’s two primary assets are the La Plata project in Colorado and a high-grade silver project in the Yukon. The La Plata resource already boasts over one billion pounds of copper, 17 million ounces of silver, and nearly 300,000 ounces of combined platinum and gold.

• Exploration akin to the “Pharma” Business Model: CEO Greg Johnson compares the modern junior mining sector to the pharmaceutical industry, where smaller companies handle the initial research and discovery phases before larger corporations step in to buy them out or partner for production. This dynamic is already playing out for Metallic Minerals, as Newmont has made a strategic investment in the company related to the La Plata project. Newmont acts as a hands-on partner, holding quarterly technical committee meetings to provide Metallic with deep technical, geological, and engineering expertise.

• The “Next Door” Silver Advantage: The company’s second major asset is located in the Yukon’s Keno Hill silver district. This project sits directly next door to Hecla, Canada’s largest silver producer, effectively giving Metallic Minerals ownership of the other half of the district. This strategic positioning is exactly what attracted legendary silver bull Eric Sprott to invest in the company.

• The Cash-Flowing Ace in the Hole: Unlike most exploration-stage juniors, Metallic Minerals generates its own cash flow. The company is one of the largest holders of placer, or alluvial, claims in the Yukon’s historic Klondike region, an area that has historically produced 20 million ounces of gold. By securing permits and inviting high-quality, independent operators to mine the ground, Metallic collects a 10% to 15% royalty on the raw gold produced. This steady cash flow provides confidence in soft markets, helps cover corporate costs, and contributes to the exploration of their primary copper and silver assets without the immediate need for outside financing.

• 2026 Catalysts & Drill Programs: With gold, silver, and copper all breaking to new market highs, the company is launching drill campaigns at both the Keno Hill silver project and the La Plata copper-silver project. Investors can expect a steady stream of news and drill results throughout the year. These campaigns are designed not only to expand the existing resources at both projects but also to drill entirely new, untested targets, potentially adding new resources to the company’s books.

Stillwater Critical Minerals (TSXV:PGE) America’s Next Major Critical Metals Hub | Michael Rowley, CEO

• The Polymetallic Play: Stillwater offers a massive, diversified metal profile that gives investors flexibility based on their commodity outlook. The company’s current resource inventory boasts 1.6 billion pounds of nickel, copper, and cobalt, alongside 3.8 million ounces of PGMs (platinum, palladium, and rhodium) and gold, plus an additional 2.3 billion pounds of chromium. Crucially, ten of the metals found in their system are currently listed as critical by the U.S. government.

• U.S. Government Tailwinds: The current U.S. administration’s push to build a domestic critical minerals supply chain has been hugely beneficial for the company. Stillwater has garnered high-level political support, with their local Montana Congressman becoming a great champion for the project locally and in Washington D.C.. This shifting dynamic means the government is getting out of the way and acting as a facilitator, which has already made the drill permitting process noticeably easier.

• The Glencore Stamp of Approval: While juniors often receive premature project-level buyout offers, Stillwater strategically brought in Glencore strictly as an equity partner to validate the asset before completing feasibility studies. Glencore has written three checks over three years, investing $8.4 million for a 13% equity position. Beyond the financial backing, Glencore acts as a highly engaged partner on the technical committee, actively participating in decisions regarding geophysics and drilling.

• The “Next Door” Advantage: The project is located merely half a kilometer from Sibanye-Stillwater, a major global miner. Because Sibanye recently struggled locally and laid off 700 people, Stillwater’s potential expansion has become “political gold” for local politicians looking to bring work back to the community. Additionally, Sibanye operates a smelter, refinery, and recycling complex just 40 miles away in Columbus, which presents massive potential for future infrastructure synergies.

• Major Near-Term Catalysts: In the very short term, investors can expect a steady flow of drill results from their expansion campaign, with two holes recently released and six more close behind, followed by specific rhodium results. The biggest upcoming catalyst is an updated Mineral Resource Estimate (MRE) targeted for the April timeframe, which is being handled by the same technical team that worked on Ivanhoe’s massive Platreef deposit. This MRE will lead directly into their largest, fully-funded summer drill program, setting the stage to begin metallurgy and PEA work

Hot Chili (TSX:HCH | ASX:HCH): Expanding the Costa Fuego Copper Hub | Andrea Aravena

• 15-Year Loyalty & Team Stability: Andrea Aravena, VP of Geology, has been with Hot Chili since September 2011, working her way up from initial field logging and reverse circulation (RC) drilling at the Productora project. The company boasts a highly stable technical team with very low turnover; before a recent hiring wave to support the new drill campaign, the newest geologists on staff already had six years of tenure with the company.

• A History of Tripling Down: The company has a proven track record of expanding its resource base, having successfully delineated three major deposits. After completing studies on the Productora deposit in 2016, management realized the project needed more tonnage, leading to the acquisition and 2019 drilling of Cortadera, which effectively doubled the project’s size. Most recently in 2024, they acquired the La Verde asset, located just 30 kilometers south of the main Costa Fuego hub.

• The La Verde High-Grade Discovery: Initial RC drilling at La Verde outlined a massive mineralized footprint measuring 1 kilometer long by 700 meters wide, with shallow mineralization extending to depths of 300 to 400 meters. Because the majority of those initial holes ended in mineralization, the company initiated a second phase of diamond drilling last year. Five core holes have already returned exceptional shallow, high-grade intercepts—such as 0.8% copper equivalent starting from just 70 meters depth—confirming a high-grade center measuring 400 meters by 400 meters.

• Aggressive Multi-Rig Drilling: Hot Chili is aggressively ramping up its exploration efforts, having just commenced a new campaign this week with an additional RC rig arriving on site. This rig will focus on both regional exploration and crucial infill drilling designed to convert existing resources into reserves. Concurrently, the company is deploying a smaller rig to conduct sampling and test three highly anticipated regional “look-alike” targets.

• Major 2026 Catalysts: The company has outlined three primary milestones for the year. First, they are pushing to establish a maiden resource estimate for the new La Verde discovery. Second, they are advancing feasibility studies and value engineering for the flagship Costa Fuego project. Finally, management aims to officially submit the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) for Costa Fuego by the end of 2026, while concurrently advancing their critical water assets

Galleon Gold: The Fast Track to Production and 3 Million Ounces (TSXV:GGO) | David Russell, CEO

• Path to 3 Million Ounces: Galleon Gold is officially transitioning from an exploration company to a developer. Following four years of extensive diamond core drilling and a Preliminary Economic Assessment (PEA), the company defined 1.56 million ounces of gold on their books in 2022. Aided by gold prices surging well past the $1,700 mark used in their initial studies, Galleon is now aggressively targeting 3 million ounces within the next 24 months. The project benefits from prime infrastructure, located just 13 kilometers outside of Timmins directly on Highway 101.

• The Pan American Silver Partnership: Pan American Silver currently holds a 19.9% equity stake in Galleon and provides a $46 million line of credit that can be drawn on at any time. Crucially, Pan American has agreed to custom mill Galleon’s ore at their nearby Bell Creek mill, which currently needs additional feed. This toll-milling arrangement saves Galleon approximately $150 million in upfront capital costs and bypasses years of complex environmental permitting required to build a new mill and tailings facility.

• Self-Funding Development: The company is fully financed for its upcoming development phase, boasting over $40 million in the bank alongside the Pan American credit line. Galleon is preparing to mine an underground bulk sample of 86,500 tons of ore at an impressive grade of 8 grams per ton. This program is projected to yield approximately 22,000 ounces of gold, generating around $130 million in sales over the next 18 months to help self-fund future feasibility work and mine development.

• Immediate Underground Catalysts: Site development is beginning immediately with a “box cutting” phase to strip away roughly eight meters of glacial sand, gravel, and muskeg left behind by Mother Nature. Once this surface clearing is completed by mid-April, underground contractors will hit the rock face to begin drilling and blasting. Within nine to ten months, the company expects to complete a 1,250-meter ramp system descending at a 10% grade to directly access the main ore body.

• Roadmap to Production: Over the next 24 to 30 months, Galleon will focus on gathering data from the bulk sample to complete a Bankable Feasibility Study (BFS), which will accurately define the final capital needed for the full mine build-out. Concurrently, they are working to finalize an Impact and Benefit Agreement (IBA) with their First Nations partners and secure their final operational footprint permit from the Ministry of Mines. Ultimately, CEO David Russell anticipates announcing the opening of a brand-new mine within 36 months.

Viva Gold (TSXV:VAU): Advancing Towards Bankable Reserves in Nevada | Jim Hesketh, CEO

• The $5,000 Gold Tailwind: With gold prices approaching the $5,000 per ounce mark, the resulting market excitement makes project funding much more readily available. This influx of capital allows management to significantly accelerate work on their development projects. From a technical standpoint, higher gold prices fundamentally improve project economics by reducing cutoff grades, which enables the company to bring more resources into the overall pit design.

• The Nevada Advantage: Operating in Nevada provides an unmatched supply chain for mine development. The project is situated just three and a half hours from the world’s largest heavy equipment dealers in Las Vegas and three hours from the only sodium cyanide producer in the Western United States. Furthermore, the state boasts highly experienced regulators at the Bureau of Land Management who deal with mining projects daily, ensuring a clear and efficient permitting process. The rural communities surrounding the project are also composed of miners who are highly supportive, eliminating the risk of “not in my backyard” pushback.

• Transitioning from Resource to Reserve: Viva Gold is actively transitioning from being an exploration-focused resource company to a reserve-based development company. The company’s current drill program is strictly focused on increasing drill density across the deposit. By establishing tighter drill spacing, the team will improve the confidence level of their gold resource, officially upgrading it from the inferred category into the measured and indicated categories.

• Bankable Economics: The company has officially announced the commencement of a Pre-Feasibility Study (PFS), with certain components being engineered to a full feasibility and design level. This critical study goes beyond just designing a pit; it provides higher-order cost estimates and significantly reduces project uncertainty. Most importantly, completing this work establishes a proven and probable mine reserve, which is the key metric required to make the project bankable for future financing.

• The Two-Year Permitting Roadmap: Viva Gold is currently conducting environmental baseline studies alongside their feasibility work to finalize a comprehensive “plan of operations”. This detailed plan will outline exactly how the mine will interact with the environment—including plant designs, leach pads, and waste dumps—and will be submitted to regulators to initiate the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). The company aims to move straight into the EIS study early next year, which serves as the formal pathway to obtaining mine permits. Management’s ultimate game plan over the next two years is to navigate this permitting process while simultaneously initiating discussions for project financing.

First Phosphate (TSXV:PHOS): North America’s LFP Battery Supply Chain | John Passalacqua, CEO

• The 60% Cathode: A frequently overlooked reality of the battery metals space: the cathode of a Lithium Iron Phosphate (LFP) battery consists of a significant 60% phosphate, compared to just 4% lithium and 30% to 35% iron. Establishing a localized North American supply chain for this material is critical, as LFP batteries are essential for broad end-uses, including energy storage systems, drones, military applications, and electric mobility.

• High-Tech, Not Fertilizer: The company mines a rare, ultra-pure igneous anorthosite phosphate rock in the Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean region of Quebec. Unlike the common sedimentary rock traditionally used for fertilizer - which contains heavy metal “nasties” like cadmium, uranium, and thorium - this igneous rock converts almost completely into battery-grade phosphoric acid. This pristine purity allows First Phosphate to operate exclusively as a high-technology battery materials supplier rather than a legacy fertilizer producer.

• 30% Capex Cut: In a highly favorable regulatory shift, the Canadian government recently passed a budget amendment adding phosphate to its “A-list” of clean-tech critical minerals. This crucial designation makes the company eligible for the Canadian Mineral Exploration Tax Credit (CMETC), providing an extra 30% tax credit for flow-through investors. More importantly, it triggers a 30% refundable tax credit that applies to building downstream facilities, including the mine, concentrator, phosphoric acid plant, and LFP-CAM production plant, effectively slashing future capital expenditures for the build-out by nearly a third.

• Prepaid Offtake: The company is fully funded for its upcoming phases with over $20 million in the bank and is executing a clear plan to achieve initial mine production by 2029.

• Immediate 2026 Catalysts: The company is wrapping up its second and final drilling program, which is slated for completion by the end of April, with assay results expected shortly after. Once those results are finalized, the board will make a formal decision to advance into a fully funded feasibility study, targeted for completion by the end of 2026. Concurrently, they are advancing their final metallurgical studies to upgrade their flow sheet from bench and pilot scales up to a full concentrator-grade process.

This writer is no energy expert.

But it is becoming increasingly apparent that energy could become the key factor in terms of determining not only the long-term winner in AI but also geopolitics in general. And this is not a reference to the current focus on Iran.

In this respect, there have been some interesting comments made on the AI thematic in recent months as it relates to energy. The first came from Nvidia chief executive officer Jensen Huang when he commented on the sidelines of a Financial Times conference last November that “China is going to win the AI race”.

The Nvidia boss, in particular, highlighted lower energy costs citing Chinese energy subsidies that made power more affordable for local tech companies allowing them to run Chinese alternatives to Nvidia’s AI chips. Huang actually said: “Power is free” (see Financial Times article: “Nvidia’s Jensen Huang says China ‘will win’ AI race with US”, 6 November 2025).

The second comment that caught attention came from Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella when he said in a podcast the same month that chip stockpiles were building up because Microsoft did not have enough power for some of their data centres.

In an interview on the YouTube channel Bg2 Pod on 1 November alongside OpenAI CEO Sam Altman, Nadella said: “The biggest issue we are now having is not a compute glut, but it’s power”.

These comments have caused concerns amongst tech investors about an inventory build for Nvidia and the rest of the AI “picks and shovels” plays as a result of this energy constraint.

These tactical concerns are understandable given the ever rising forecasts of AI capex. The four major hyperscalers’ aggregate capex is projected to be US$620bn this year.

What if China Will No Longer Need New Nuclear or LNG

But the real strategic issue is why America has a power constraint relative to China.

And the answer seems to be that the amazing progress made in battery storage technology means that solar has become cheaper than coal in China even before the recent Iran-triggered rise in the oil price.

Or to be more precise, battery storage technology and the associated rapid fall in storage, as well as solar photovoltaic prices, have made “intermittent” solar and wind power, paired with battery storage, a competitive alternative to coal-based power.

Or in other words, the problem of having a reliable source of baseload, or readily available power, is close to being solved. Baseload refers to the minimum amount of electricity required or delivered by an electric grid at any given period of time.

If this is indeed the case then it must be asked why LNG or indeed nuclear will be required at all as energy sources going forward.

American related energy stocks have rallied in recent months on the perceived urgent need to build up energy sources to power all these data centres with some utilities turning into growth stocks.

See, for example, the chart below of Constellation Energy

But the quickest and cheapest way to address this problem for the US is surely to import the Chinese technology.

But that requires a realisation that technological disruption has arrived in the energy space.

In this respect, the narrative as regards solar and renewables has definitely been damaged in the West in recent years by the self-serving virtue signaling symbolised by the ESG movement and the related association of renewables with climate change obsessions and green politics in general.

The Trump administration has had no time for these woke obsessions and clearly the arrival of Donald Trump at the White House has triggered a full-scale retreat from such virtue signaling, with the only remaining proponents of these positions the true believers.

But the point to understand for the Trump administration, or indeed investors, is that the Chinese have been focused on improving battery storage technology not because of a green agenda but because it has the potential to remove China’s dependence on imported fossil fuels in a cost effective manner.

It is also, importantly, a huge advantage when it comes to AI.

Two key inputs are required for the development of AI.

That is power and compute. And the evidence increasingly suggests that China is far further ahead in energy than the US is ahead in compute.

On the latter point, Huang’s comments about China winning the AI race came after the Nvidia boss failed in his efforts to persuade Donald Trump to discuss in his meeting with President Xi Jinping last October a deal whereby America would allow the export of Nvidia’s Blackwell chips to China.

The idea appears to have been that this would be offered in exchange for Beijing relaxing restrictions on exports of rare earth materials.

Such hopes also drove a 15% rise in Nvidia’s share price in the five days prior to the meeting on 30 October in Korea.

A recommended article in the Wall Street Journal at that time reported that Trump backed off the proposed deal, as he “prepared to meet Xi”, because of comments from the likes of Secretary of State Marco Rubio that allowing the export of the Nvidia Blackwell chips would threaten US national security.

As a result, faced with “with nearly unified opposition from his top advisers”, according to the article, Trump decided not to discuss the advanced Nvidia chips during the meeting (see WSJ article: “Trump Aides Sank Nvidia Push To Export AI Chips to China”, 4 November 2025).

The above account reads very true to this writer.

Rare Earth’s Give China Far More Leverage Than America’s AI Chips

It is another example of how the conceptual vacuum symbolised by the 47^th American president means he is vulnerable to making sudden changes in policy.

Instinctively, his views are contrary to the national security lobby, be it on Ukraine or the export of advanced semiconductors to China, but he still succumbs to their concerns.

The reality, of course, is what Nvidia’s Huang has doubtless been telling him.

That is that the semiconductor controls introduced by the Biden administration in October 2022 have backfired badly and are contrary to the US national interest as long argued here.

This is not only because they have deprived America’s tech companies, such as Nvidia, of their largest customer.

But also because they have massively incentivised China to develop its own semiconductor supply chain.

And it is clearly now the all-consuming focus of President Xi to end China’s dependence on Nvidia chips as soon as possible.

On this point, Reuters reported late last year that Beijing has issued guidance requiring all new data centre projects that have received any state funds to use only domestically developed AI chips (see Reuters article: “China bans foreign AI chips from state-funded data centres, source say”, 5 November 2025).

In this respect, it would have been interesting to see how the Chinese leader would have reacted if Trump had suggested the Blackwell deal advocated by Huang.

But for now it seems increasingly to be the case that China’s leverage on rare earths is much greater than America’s on semiconductors.

Meanwhile, if there is growing recognition in America of the energy deficit, there is much less focus on why America is behind which is obviously because it is committed to yesterday’s technology.

On that point OpenAI wrote an open letter to the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) last October highlighting how the PRC is way ahead of the US and stated that the OSTP should prioritise closing the “electron gap” by setting up an ambitious national target of building 100GW a year of new energy capacity to “fuel American AI dominance”.

If this is a seemingly ambitious target, it is still minimal compared with China’s progress in this area.

The OpenAI letter noted that China added 429GW of new power capacity in 2024, which was more than one-third of the entire US grid and more than half of all global electricity growth.

While China added a further 542GW of power generation capacity last year, compared with a net addition of 50GW in the US where total capacity was only 1,281GW at the end of 2025.

Perhaps even more importantly, China also added 378GW of solar generation capacity in 2025 - greater than the entire installed solar capacity in the US of about 274GW.

While China’s total power demand increased by 505TWh (Terawatt hours) in 2025, power generation from solar (336TWh) and wind (138TWh) sources increased by 474TWh in the same period.

Meanwhile the dramatic growth in Chinese electricity generation capacity, in terms of both flow and stock, are shown in the two charts above.

The development of a solar based generation system augmented by battery storage, and the key word is system, raises the real possibility that the US is at risk of losing energy dominance to China.

This is a very big deal in the context of which recent tactical victories for America, such as getting the Europeans to buy more expensive LNG by stopping them buying cheap Russian energy, are not very important at all.

The Strait of Hormuz is effectively closed, and roughly 16 million barrels per day of oil supply has been removed from the global market. The WTI futures curve tells the story better than any headline. A month ago it was flat and mundane. Tonight it’s a 5-alarm blaze, a steep backwardation across the term structure. The market has zero faith there’s an endgame in sight.

This is a dual-commodity shock. It’s not just crude; 20% of global LNG (mostly from Qatar) is also trapped behind the same blockade, threatening power grids across Europe and Asia in a way no prior oil disruption has.

We took a methodical, quantitative approach to scour for alpha: we analyzed every major oil supply disruption since 1973 - the cap-weighted market returns, the CPI impact, Strategic Petroleum Reserve levels, and sector-by-sector performance across all sub-industry groups. We then scored each historical event for its similarity to today and let the data show which subsectors consistently survive the fire.

The Historical Playbook

Six oil supply disruptions. Six very different outcomes. The table below is the starting point - US market cap weighted returns.

The range of outcomes at the market level is wide: from -41% to +19% in the year following each disruption. But at the sub-industry level, a clear pattern emerges: a handful of sectors provided consistent, significant outperformance vs. the market regardless of the macro outcome.

Read more

Donald Trump’s agenda may be all about attacking globalization.

But China has continued to take the opposite line.

Xi Jinping’s public comments continue to emphasise the case for multilateralism and for the need to enhance the authority and effectiveness of the multilateral trading system with the World Trade Organization at its core.

The contrast with the American president’s continuing penchant for bilateral trade deals could not be more stark.

In this respect, the meeting between Xi and Trump in South Korea last October on the sidelines of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) Forum also saw the first-ever leaders’ meeting of the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP), a grouping which has ASEAN at its core but also includes China, Japan, South Korea, Australia and New Zealand.

This is the world’s largest free trade agreement but the US is not part of it.

Indeed, reflecting Trump’s lack of interest in multilateral affairs, the American president left Korea following his meeting with Xi before other leaders of the 21-member APEC forum began discussions on the core issue of the meeting, namely trade and investment across the Asia Pacific.

If Xi continues to emphasise the case for multilateralism and globalisation, Trump’s “America First” agenda is all about unilateralism.

Indeed the American president ordered in February last year a comprehensive review of US engagement in all multilateral organisations, the findings of which were meant to be delivered in August but nothing has been announced until of late.

Thus, Trump signed a presidential memorandum on 7 January ordering the withdrawal of the US from 66 international organisations that “no longer serve American interests” based on findings from the review, including 31 United Nations (UN) entities and 35 non-UN organisations. While a review of additional international organizations remains ongoing.

How the US is Dealing with Transshipments From China

Meanwhile, tariff discussions also remain ongoing with many Asian countries, including the issue of how the US is going to address “transshipments”, namely Chinese goods shipped via third-party countries.

Washington has previously threatened a 40% tariff on “transshipped” goods.

But so far nothing has happened on this point with most of Asia hoping the American president has forgotten about it.

If this is the negative backdrop in terms of the Washington retreat from globalisation in the context of the highest tariffs imposed since 1934, the reality is also that intra-emerging markets trade continues to rise while China’s exports to the Global South also continue to grow relative to its exports to the G7.

Meanwhile, in an Asian context, China has been Asean’s largest trading partner since 2009.

In this sense, globalisation is far from over. The numbers are worth spelling out.

Emerging markets’ exports to other emerging markets rose to an annualised US$4.96tn in the 12 months to October 2025, accounting for 46.2% of emerging markets’ total exports, up from US$292bn or 23.2% of total exports in 1999.

While China’s annualised exports to the Global South have increased from US$772bn in June 2020 to US$1.514tn in December 2025.

By contrast, China’s annualised exports to the G7 have declined from US$1.161tn in August 2022 to US$928bn in December 2025.

As a result, China’s exports to the Global South now amount to 40.1% of its annualised total exports, up from 21% at the beginning of 2008, while the share of exports to the G7 has declined from 39% to 24.6% over the same period.

Similarly, Asean’s trade with China has risen from US$179bn or 11.6% of Asean’s total trade in 2009 to US$845bn or 20.5% of its total trade in the 12 months to October 2025.

In this respect, China could be said to be filling the vacuum left by Trump’s bilateral focus.

Meanwhile, from an Asean perspective, there continues to be remarkably little pushback in terms of the negative impact on domestic businesses of the continuing flood of Chinese imports into these countries.

Asean’s imports from China have risen from US$97bn or 13.3% of total imports in 2009 to US$545bn or 27.1% of total imports in the 12 months to October.

In the Stablecoin Game the Dollar Now Has some Competition

Changing subject but on a related theme, Stablecoins have clearly been identified by the Trump administration as one way of creating short-term demand for Treasury bills to fund America’s fiscal deficit, as previously discussed here (see An Exploration of Trump’s View on Crypto, Short Term Treasuries and Yield Curve Control, 11 September 2025).

But there is nothing that says stablecoins have to be US dollar based.

On that point, Hong Kong passed stablecoin legislation in May 2025 with the Stablecoins Ordinance taking effect on 1 August. The idea from a mainland perspective is that Hong Kong should be used as a pilot scheme, or “sandbox”, to experiment with stablecoins, with the plan to allow a small number of issuers to issue digital tokens pegged most likely to the Hong Kong dollar.

Hong Kong is a perfect environment for such an experiment since it is outside the mainland’s capital controls.

Indeed this is one of Hong Kong’s core “raison d’etre” as has also been demonstrated by the success of the Hong Kong Stock and Bond Connects which have now been in operation for 11 and eight years, respectively.

Still if the idea to experiment with a new financial technology makes sense, it is also a reality that stablecoins are a potential threat to the mainland’s ability to control its closed capital account.

This is why stablecoins remain banned in mainland China.

For similar reasons there is also a ban on trading cryptocurrencies in China which has been in place since 2021.

In June last year PBOC Governor Pan Gongsheng noted in a speech that digital tokens “posed great challenges to financial regulation” (see “Keynote Speech by PBOC Governor Pan Gongsheng at the 2025 Lujiazui Forum: A Few Observations on Global Financial Governance”, 18 June 2025); though he also acknowledged that “central bank digital currencies and stablecoins are thriving, making possible the simultaneous processing of payment and settlement”.

If the risks are clear, given that loss of control of the capital account is the ultimate nightmare for the PRC, it is also the case that the mainland authorities understand that it is unwise to shun outright a developing technology which has the potential at least to transform finance, not least in terms of the way international payments are handled.

There is also the point that currently about 99% of stablecoins are US dollar backed which further supports the US dollar’s global dominance.

For such reasons, it is both risky and unwise for Beijing to ignore the technology altogether, just as Beijing has experimented with internationalization of the renminbi in recent years even as it has maintained control of the capital account.

Still the practical problems represented by stablecoins, and the mainland authorities’ extreme cautions as regards this area, are reflected in a recent decision to delay the implementation of Chinese tech giants’ stablecoin issuance plans in Hong Kong.

Thus, the PBOC reportedly summoned in October a number of mainland firms under its jurisdiction, including banks and non-bank payment service providers, asking them to wait for its instructions before moving forward with their stablecoin initiatives in Hong Kong (see South China Morning Post article: “China’s pause on stablecoin projects will not dampen Hong Kong’s crypto push, experts say”, 25 October 2025).

The Chinese government also announced on 6 February rules barring individuals and businesses from issuing stablecoins linked to the renminbi overseas without regulatory approval (see Nikkei Asia article: “China bans unapproved issuance of yuan-linked stablecoins overseas”, 7 February 2026).

Meanwhile, it is interesting to note that the biggest issuer of stablecoins globally, Tether, has been a major buyer of gold in recent months.

Indeed Tether is the largest non-sovereign buyer of physical gold globally.

Its physical gold holdings rose to 142 tonnes worth US$19.7bn at the end of last year and an estimated 148 tonnes valued at US$23.3bn at the end of January, after purchasing 26 tonnes in 4Q25 and a further 6 tonnes in January.

Interestingly, these purchases exceeded the quarterly additions of most central banks ranking only third behind Poland and Brazil last quarter.

It is also the case that tether’s gold purchases of 26 tonnes in 4Q25 were equivalent to 11.4% of total central bank gold demand of 230 tonnes last quarter.

So, Tether has seemingly been one of the main drivers of gold’s rally in recent months.

The base case remains that the US reached an all-time peak of world stock market capitalisation on 24 December 2024. America’s share of MSCI AC World Index l peaked at 67.2% and is now 62.9%.

Meanwhile the MSCI AC World ex-US Index broke out of a 18-year trading range last year supporting such a view.

The index has risen by 46% from the recent low reached in early April 2025 to 445.7, after reaching a record high of 452.6 on 28 January.

Still, while it is the case that the US underperformed MSCI AC World ex-US last year, rising by 16.3% compared with a 29.2% gain in the MSCI AC World ex-US, it is only fair to point out that the US has continued to report better earnings growth than other markets.

Thus, the 2025 and 2026 consensus earnings growth forecasts for MSCI USA are now 14.1% and 15.4% respectively, compared with 6.7% and 15.0% for MSCI AC World ex-US.

On a longer term basis, MSCI USA 12-month forward EPS has outperformed MSCI AC World ex-US 12-month forward EPS by 146% since the start of 2011.

This is another way of saying that the outperformance of Europe, Japan and emerging markets last year was driven by multiple expansion.

The MSCI Europe, Japan and Emerging Markets 12-month forward PE ratios have increased by 16%, 18% and 13% respectively since the beginning of 2025 to 15.6x, 17.3x and 13.5x, up from 13.4x, 14.7x and 12x at the end of 2024.

By contrast, MSCI USA 12-month forward PE is up “only” 2% from 21.9x to 22.3x over the same period.

Also, as a result of this multiple expansion in the stock markets outside the US as well as the 10% decline in the US dollar index since the start of last year, it remains the case that America’s share of MSCI AC World Index peaked on 24 December 2024.

Still, for this view to be correct on a long-term basis, the earnings growth in other markets will have to pick up relative to the US.

Consensus 2026 earnings growth forecasts for MSCI Japan, Europe and Emerging Markets are now 9.4%, 11.7% and 23.2%, respectively, up from 0.9%, 8.1% and 14.1% for 2025.

Meanwhile, US earnings are very dependent on the continuation of the AI capex arms race.

The base case of this writer has been that this year will see investors starting to question the returns, or rather the lack of them, from the now three-year old AI capex arms race.

That process has now started to happen even if there is as yet no sign of the capex slowing.

Thus, the share prices of Microsoft, Amazon and Meta have already declined by 28%, 19% and 17% from last year’s peak, while Alphabet is down 7% from its peak on 3 February.

Yet, the hyperscalers in the most recent earnings seasons have continued to increase their capex.

Thus, Alphabet has doubled its capex guidance for 2026 to US$175-185bn, up from US$91bn in 2025, while Meta expects capex to total US$115-135bn in 2026, up from US$72bn in 2025.

Amazon also plans to invest US$200bn in capex this year, up from US$131bn in 2025.

AI Compute is Ramping, But is Demand There to Meet it?

This writer’s base case remains that the AI capex arms race will culminate in massive over-investment in data centers and the like as the Big Tech players feel compelled to participate for fear of being disrupted.

Still, if the focus up till now has primarily been on supply, in terms of the surging amounts being spent on AI capex, there is also the issue of demand.

And it is belief in the S-curve nature of demand for AI, particularly consumer demand, which has driven a lot of the investment in AI and indeed the growing tie-ups in recent months with OpenAI, be it Nvidia, Broadcom or Oracle.

This is, of course, to assume that OpenAI keeps growing, in terms of users, and, perhaps more importantly, starts monetising them.

On this point, the hope had been that OpenAI would become as dominant in consumer-orientated chatbots as Google has been in search.

But this is now increasingly questioned with the success Google has had incorporating its Gemini AI function into search.

The widely trumpeted S-curve dynamic, which was driving the frenzy to do deals with OpenAI, is easily illustrated.

OpenAI’s ChatGPT had 350m weekly active users two years after its public launch at the end of November 2022.

In OpenAI’s annual DevDay conference on 6 October, CEO Sam Altman said the number had risen to over 800m users.

In this respect, it remains the largest large language model in terms of users, though only about 5% of these users are paying the monthly fee of at least US$20. The monetization case is, therefore, far from proven.

Still, the latest data shows Gemini taking market share from Open AI’s ChatGPT. Gemini’s web traffic share in the Generative AI market has increased from 5.3% to 22% over the past 12 months as of 16 January, while ChatGPT’s market share has declined from 86.6% to 64.6% over the same period, according to SimilarWeb.

Meanwhile, in the corporate market, Open AI has been losing out to Anthropic.

Thus, Anthropic’s Claude is primarily used for professional purposes with coding accounting for 34% of prompts, according to a recent study published by Anthropic (see Anthropic report: “Anthropic Economic Index report: Economic primitives”, 15 January 2026).

This compared with only 4.2% for ChatGPT, according to an OpenAI study published in September as a National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) working paper (see NBER Working Paper No. 34255: “How People Use ChatGPT”, 15 September 2025).

Meanwhile, Anthropic’s AI coding tool Claude Code was only publicly launched in May last year and reached US$1bn in annualised recurring revenue in November.

The different usage is reflected in a starkly different revenue split.

At OpenAI, about 75% of revenues come from consumers paying the US$20 a month ChatGPT Plus plan, which is designed for casual users with more access and a faster response time than the free version, while companies make up the rest paying a higher monthly fee for full access to ChatGPT.

By contrast, 80% of Anthropic’s revenues come from enterprises.

To return to Goggle’s Gemini, as already noted, it is steadily gaining market share.

In this respect, Google has one big advantage.

It is already integrated into the lives of 90% of global internet users and AI functions, via Gemini, are now being integrated into the tools people use daily, be it as basic a function as drafting emails in Gmail.

It also means, if privacy is any concern at all, that people do not need to give up the data to another provider.

On this point, Google said in October that it processed more than 1.3 quadrillion tokens every month with its AI models, up from 9.7 trillion in April 2024.

There has been no update since so far as this writer is aware.

By contrast, OpenAI is processing around 260 trillion tokens per month from ChatGPT and Application Programming Interface (API) usage.

So, Google is roughly five times OpenAI’s monthly token volume as a result of embedding AI across many high-traffic surfaces. Meanwhile, the Alphabet valuation is far from insane if search is not disrupted.

Alphabet is now trading at 27x 2026 consensus forecast earnings and 9.7x sales. Compare this with Nvidia which is currently trading at 24x sales, or OpenAI which is now talking about an IPO valuing the company at up to US$1tn even though it is only generating annualised revenues of US$20bn.

All of the above is to highlight that it is far from clear who is going to be the winner in terms of the race to build large language models.

While, so far as this writer can tell, no killer app has yet been developed for the masses in terms of the practical application of AI.

But the upside of the seemingly inevitable over-investment bust when it happens, in terms of the amount being spent on chips and AI data centers, is that the costs of so-called “inference” should collapse and demand should surge.

This is, of course, what happened in the Dotcom bust when fiber optic capacity caused a big decline in the cost of broadband and the resulting explosion in e-commerce demand.

The difference this time, of course, is that the AI chips have a much shorter shelf life (apparently 3-4 years) than fiber optic cables (around 25 years).

*For standardized performance click HERE

Our year-end letter breaks down the AI infrastructure thesis, commodity supercycle positioning, and 2026 outlook.

Read our full 2025 Year-End Review ➡️ LINK

5-Star Morningstar Rating*, 1st Percentile Performance

Since inception on December 16, 2021, DARP has delivered a cumulative return of 92.85% vs 55.54% for the S&P 500—outperformance of 37+ percentage points in just four years.

This performance earned us a 5-star Morningstar rating and places the fund in the top 1% of US Large Cap Growth funds for 2025.

*Morningstar Star Rating based on risk adjusted return in the US Fund Lg Growth category out of 1,002 funds. Returns are on a 3-year basis as of 1/31/2026. Morningstar Rankings represent a fund’s total-return percentile rank relative to all funds that have the same Morningstar Category. The highest percentile rank is 1 and the lowest is 100. It is based on Morningstar total return, which includes both income and capital gains or losses and is not adjusted for sales charges or redemption fees. For 2022, the fund ranked in the 10th Percentile out of 1,235 funds; in 2023 the fund ranked in the 64th percentile out of 1,200 funds; and in 2024 the fund ranked in the 74th percentile out of 1,088 funds in the US Fund Large Growth Category. Past performance does not guarantee future results.

All-Weather Performance: Bear Markets & Bull Markets

DARP's strategic allocation to commodity equities—often viewed as contrarian in a "disruptive growth" fund—has proven its value across divergent market environments:

2022 Bear Market: While the Nasdaq 100 fell -31% DARP’s drawdown was limited to -20% (matching the S&P 500). Our commodity allocation delivered a +10% contribution when technology stocks cratered.

2025 Bull Market: In a year favoring disruptive growth, DARP captured the full upside with a 40% return, outperforming the Nasdaq 100 (20%) and peers. Commodities remained a meaningful contributor (+5%), demonstrating that energy and materials aren’t just defensive ballast—they’re critical to the AI infrastructure build-out.

Growth at a Discount: The PEG Ratio Advantage

After rigorous bottom-up analysis of our portfolio, we’re pleased to confirm that DARP continues to offer exponential growth at a structural discount to the market.

Our forward PEG ratio is 0.25x vs 0.72x for the S&P 500. This means we’re buying 106% projected earnings growth (vs 35% for the benchmark) at valuations that don’t fully price in that growth potential. The gap has actually widened in 2025 despite our strong performance.

In our view, our PEG ratio demonstrates the fund’s avoidance of growth at any price in favor of disruption at a reasonable price.

What’s Ahead for 2026

Our year-end letter outlines three high-conviction themes for 2026:

1. The Industrialization of AI – Value capture shifts from GPU (graphics processing units) to data center infrastructure (power, networking, thermal management)

2. The Commodity Supercycle – Natural gas, uranium, and copper underpin the AI build-out

3. The Hard Money Pivot – Rotating from Bitcoin to Gold/Silver miners as risk premiums shift*

*The Fund does not invest directly in Bitcoin, gold/gold bullion, or silver/silver bullion.

We also address our primary risk monitor: the shift toward debt financing in AI infrastructure and what it means for 2026.

Read our full 2025 Year-End Review here ➡️ LINK

Thank you for your continued confidence in DARP.

Thomas George, CFA and Scott Willis, CFA
Portfolio Managers, Grizzle Growth ETF

DISCLOSURES

Shares of the Grizzle Growth ETF may be bought or sold throughout the day at their market price on the exchange on which they are listed. The market price of the Grizzle Growth ETF shares may be at, above or below the fund’s net asset value (“NAV”) and will fluctuate with changes in the NAV as well as supply and demand in the market for the shares. The market price of the fund’s shares may differ significantly from their NAV during periods of market volatility. Investors cannot invest directly in indices or averages, and their performance does not reflect fees and expenses or represent the performance of the Grizzle Growth ETF.

Price/Earnings: The trailing price/earnings ratio measures value by dividing a stock’s most recent price by the previous year’s earnings per share.

EPS Growth: The forecast growth rate of earnings per shares

The price/book (P/B) ratio measures a company’s stock price compared with its book value. The ratio is calculated by taking the market price per share of an investment and dividing it by the book value per share.

Price/Cashflow: The price/cash flow ratio calculates value by dividing a stock’s current price by the company’s free cash flow over the trailing 12 months.

Long Term Earnings Growth (%): The long-term projected earnings growth rate for a stock is the average of the available third-party analysts estimates for three- to five-year EPS growth.

PEG Ratio: is a stock valuation metric that relates a company’s stock price to its expected earnings per share growth rate. P/E divided by expected growth rate. Cashflow: Cashflow from operations. Comes from the statement of cashflow.

NAV: Net Asset Value (NAV) represents the per-share market value of a fund—such as a mutual fund or ETF—calculated by subtracting total liabilities from total assets and dividing by outstanding shares. Updated daily, it helps investors determine the fair value of their holdings.

Market Price: Market price is the price of an asset that a willing buyer pays to acquire the asset from a willing seller, when a buyer and seller are independent.

Investing involves risk. Principal loss is possible.

Growth Investing Risk. Growth stocks can be volatile for several reasons. Since those companies usually invest a high portion of earnings in their businesses, they may lack the dividends of value stocks that can cushion stock prices in a falling market.

Foreign Securities Risk. Investments in securities or other instruments of non-U.S. issuers involve certain risks not involved in domestic investments and may experience more rapid and extreme changes in value than investments in securities of U.S. companies.

Derivatives Risk. Derivatives are financial instruments that derive value from the underlying reference asset or assets, such as stocks, bonds, commodities, currencies, funds (including ETFs), interest rates or indexes.

Options Risk. The prices of options may change rapidly over time and do not necessarily move in tandem with the price of the underlying securities. Selling call options reduces the Fund’s ability to profit from increases in the value of the Fund’s equity portfolio, and purchasing put options may result in the Fund’s loss of premiums paid in the event that the put options expire unexercised.

Emerging Markets Risk. The Fund may invest indirectly, via ADRs, in securities issued by companies domiciled or headquartered in emerging market nations.

High Portfolio Turnover Risk. The Fund may actively and frequently trade all or a significant portion of the securities in its portfolio. A high portfolio turnover rate increases transaction costs, which may increase the Fund’s expenses.

Models and Data Risk. When Models and Data prove to be incorrect or incomplete, any decisions made in reliance thereon expose the Fund to potential risks.

NASDAQ-100 Index: A globally recognized index of 100 of the most innovative large cap companies listed on the Nasdaq Stock Market

The Morningstar RatingTM (“star rating”) is calculated for funds with at least a three-year history. Exchange-traded and open-end mutual funds are combined into a single population for comparative purposes. It is calculated based on a Morningstar Risk-Adjusted Return measure that accounts for variation in a fund’s monthly excess performance, placing more emphasis on downward variations and rewarding consistent performance. The top 10% of funds in each fund category receive 5 stars, the next 22.5% receive 4 stars, the next 35% receive 3 stars, the next 22.5% receive 2 stars, and the bottom 10% receive 1 star. The Overall Morningstar RatingTM is a weighted average of the performance figures associated with a fund’s 3-, 5-, and 10-year (if applicable) Morningstar RatingTM metrics. Morningstar rankings are based on a fund’s average annual total return relative to all funds in the same Morningstar category. Fund performance used within the rankings, reflects certain fee waivers, without which, returns and Morningstar rankings would have been lower. The highest (or most favorable) percentile rank is 1 and the lowest (or least favorable) percentile rank is 100.

Overall Morningstar Rating based on risk adjusted return in the US Fund Lg Growth category out of 1,002 funds as of 1/31/2026

Investors should consider the investment objectives, risks, charges, and expenses carefully before investing. For a prospectus or summary prospectus with this and other information about the Fund, please call (267) 419-7469 or visit our website at www.etf.grizzle.com. Read the prospectus or summary prospectus carefully before investing.

Distributed by Foreside Fund Services LLC.

The Trumpian driven news cycle continues to dominate, as reflected in the recent headlines concerning Greenland.

Still the all-important issue is US-China relations.

The ultimate deal between Washington and Beijing would be complete abolition of American export controls on semiconductors in return for China’s complete relaxation of restrictions on exports of rare earths.

This makes sense logically since Beijing has explicitly linked these two issues since last year, after showing remarkable restraint previously, as it has become ever clearer that the US does not have the leverage over China it once thought it had on the trade and tariff issue.

Indeed on the rare earth issue the leverage is seemingly all on the China side.

China, for example, has a 92% market share of the global production of rare earth magnets which remain key components in many US weapons systems.

This lack of leverage is something the Washington national security establishment is having a hard time adjusting to.

And in the case of rare earths it increasingly looks like the US needs the rare earths far more than China needs the semiconductors.

In that respect, while the Chinese government has said it no longer wants its tech companies buying Nvidia’s AI chips, this writer has been skeptical about whether this was really the case in practice.

Yet it has been reported of late that Chinese customs officers are now on the lookout for smuggled banned Nvidia chips whereas previously there were estimates that 10% of the banned Nvidia chips ended up in the mainland presumably with the central government’s tacit blessing (see, for example, Financial Times article: “China launches customs crackdown on Nvidia AI chips”, 10 October 2025).

In the same article it was also reported that at least US$1bn worth of Nvidia’s top AI chips were smuggled and sold in China in the three months from May.

Will China Every Agree to Set up US Based Production Capacity?

Beyond the above issue of the two countries’ regimes of export controls, both of which are designed to prevent the leakage of technology, another issue is whether China could offer Donald Trump a “win” by agreeing to set up production in America.

The two leaders are due to meet again in April in Beijing.

Two obvious candidates for such production are CATL and BYD.

In this respect it should be recalled that Trump’s stated reason for advocating tariffs, aside from boosting fiscal revenues, is to create an incentive for foreign companies to move production to America for those wanting to access the American consumer market.

Naturally, such policies will be anathema to Washington’s national security establishment which is for now belatedly and manically focused on securing rare earths from the likes of Pakistan, ironically a long-term China ally.

See, for example, the Financial Times article: “Pakistan courts US with pitch for new Arabian Sea port”, 4 October 2025. Still as the saga over TikTok has demonstrated yet again, Trump is not a national security zealot nor indeed a hawk on China.

It is also the case that he is increasingly sympathetic to this writer’s longstanding view, doubtless also argued by Nivida boss Jensen Huang in private conversations with the American president, namely that the export controls on semiconductors introduced by the Biden administration in October 2022 have proved to be a massive “own goal” for the US to employ a soccer analogy.

This is because they have triggered an overwhelming incentive for China to set up its own semiconductor value chain while depriving US tech companies of a major customer.

Nvidia’s sales to China (including Hong Kong) declined by 24% YoY to US$2.77bn in 2QFY26 ended 27 July and were down 63% YoY to US$2.97bn in 3QFY26 ended 26 October 2025.

As a result, China/HK’s share of Nvidia sales has fallen from 26.4% in FY22 ended 30 January 2022 to 13.1% in FY25 ended 26 January 2025 and only 5.2% in 3QFY26.

All this suggests that the potential for such a deal is not impossible even though it will involve Trump acting specifically against the agenda of the national security lobby, something he has conspicuously failed to do in the case of Ukraine where he has ended up following the exact opposite of the policy he campaigned on.

As a result, what he used to call “Biden’s war” has now become his war in political terms.

Indeed the Wall Street Journal reported at the time that Trump was on the point of telling President Xi Jinping he would allow China to buy the most advanced Nvidia chips when he met with Xi in Korea in late October only to be talked out of it at the last minute by Secretary of State Marco Rubio (see WSJ article: “Trump Aides Sank Nvidia Push To Export AI Chips to China”, 4 November 2025).

Americans are Increasingly Tired of Tariffs

Meanwhile, it is surely the case that the more tariffs impact prices in America, the more they risk becoming unpopular.

There is growing evidence of this.

An Economist/YouGov poll conducted on 20-22 December shows that 56% of respondents disapprove of the way Trump is handling the tariff issue, with only 36% approving.

An earlier Economist/YouGov poll conducted on 15-17 November also shows that 73% of Americans say that Trump’s tariffs have increased the prices they have paid by either a lot (40%) or slightly (33%).

If there is a deal it will likely mean, in investment terms, that Chinese stocks will no longer be viewed as uninvestable by managers of America-based global equity funds.

It would also mark a reprieve, if likely only a temporary one from a longer term historical standpoint, in the growing rivalry between the world’s two major economic powers.

On this point, Beijing must surely be aware that other American presidents could be much more ideologically hostile, and also perhaps less easy to manipulate than the Donald.

Still it is also the case that President Xi Jinping is surely not going to sign any deal endorsing the current tariff rate on US goods imported from China which is 47.5%, according to the Peterson Institute for International Economics.

The 15% level agreed by Europe would surely be much more acceptable, though Trump has threatened last weekend to impose an additional 10% tariffs on imports from several European countries over the Greenland issue.