he gold and silver markets may be going through a period of consolidation, but according to precious metals expert Rob Kientz, the bigger story is taking place beneath the surface.
In recent talk, Kientz argued that investors need to look beyond short-term movements in precious metals prices and examine the increasingly important divide between physical gold and silver markets and the derivatives-driven pricing mechanisms of Western financial markets.
At the same time, he believes a profound shift is taking place in the global precious metals trade, with China, Hong Kong, Singapore, Russia, Dubai and other markets increasingly emphasizing physical settlement while Western markets remain heavily dependent on paper contracts and derivatives.
Kientz also raised concerns about the future of the U.S. dollar, the potential introduction of central bank digital currencies (CBDCs), the growing role of stablecoins, the possibility of governments transferring financial-system losses onto consumers, and emerging risks in commercial real estate and the U.S. life insurance industry.
His overarching message was clear: investors should not focus exclusively on whether gold or silver rise or fall over the next few months. Instead, they should ask what is happening to the monetary system itself.
“We’re past the point of no return on this fiat currency era. We don’t know the day it’s going to end, but we know that it is.”
Kientz began by making an important distinction between precious metals prices and the physical precious metals market.
In his view, investors often talk about “the gold market” or “the silver market” as if they are unified systems. They are not.
There is the physical market, where actual metal is bought, sold, transported, refined and stored. Then there are the financial markets where participants trade futures and other contracts based largely on expectations about future prices.
For Kientz, that distinction is essential to understanding the current market.
Gold and silver have historically experienced seasonal patterns. The summer months can be relatively quiet, while demand and prices have historically strengthened from late August and September through the winter and into February or March.
That seasonal pattern, combined with the significant correction following the previous surge in precious metals, helps explain some of the current weakness.
But Kientz argues that the correction should not be confused with a fundamental deterioration in the long-term case for precious metals.
The key question is not simply where the futures price is trading today.
The key question is what central banks, governments, industrial users, refiners, manufacturers and physical investors are doing with actual metal.
One of Kientz’s strongest arguments concerns the way gold and silver prices are determined in the United States.
He points out that U.S. spot prices are heavily influenced by COMEX futures markets. Futures contracts allow market participants to speculate on where prices will be several months into the future without necessarily owning or taking delivery of physical metal.
According to Kientz, only a very small percentage of futures contracts ultimately result in physical delivery.
That creates a fundamental disconnect, in his view, between the amount of metal represented by financial contracts and the amount of metal that actually changes hands.
This distinction becomes particularly important when physical inventories begin to decline.
If financial traders are overwhelmingly responsible for determining prices while physical buyers are simultaneously accumulating metal, the futures price can temporarily move in a direction that does not reflect the underlying physical market.
Kientz believes that can continue only until the physical market becomes sufficiently tight that the financial pricing mechanism is forced to respond.
His thesis is therefore less about predicting the next weekly move in gold or silver and more about watching the evolution of the underlying physical market.
One of the strongest pieces of evidence Kientz sees in support of gold is the behavior of central banks.
Central banks around the world have continued to accumulate gold, reinforcing the metal's role as a strategic monetary asset.
Kientz argues that central-bank behavior should carry more weight than short-term futures-market movements because governments and monetary authorities have fundamentally different objectives from speculative traders.
They are not necessarily trying to make a profit from a three-month price movement.
They are managing reserves, currencies and financial stability.
Turkey provides an interesting example.
Kientz noted that Turkey has experienced severe currency stress and has sold some gold. But he does not view this as evidence that gold has lost its monetary importance.
Quite the opposite.
In a currency crisis, gold can become one of the assets that a country uses to stabilize its finances.
Turkey has also imposed restrictions around gold exports, highlighting the strategic importance of physical metal within its domestic economy.
Kientz said that during a visit to Istanbul he observed firsthand how deeply embedded gold remains in Turkish culture and finance, with gold still viewed by many people as a form of money.
The lesson, in his view, is that temporary selling by a financially stressed country should not necessarily be interpreted as a rejection of gold.
It can instead demonstrate precisely why countries hold gold in the first place.
Perhaps the most important structural development discussed during the interview was the growing importance of Asian precious metals markets.
Kientz sees a major divergence developing between Western and Eastern approaches to gold and silver.
Western markets such as COMEX and the London Bullion Market Association are heavily dependent on paper trading, derivatives and financial contracts.
China, by contrast, is increasingly emphasizing physical markets.
The development of closer links between Hong Kong's gold infrastructure and mainland Chinese manufacturing and vaulting is one example.
Hong Kong has historically served as an important gateway for precious metals into China. It is also a major center for jewelry production and precious metals trading.
Kientz believes that the integration of Hong Kong's gold infrastructure with mainland China's manufacturing and physical markets could strengthen China's influence over regional precious metals pricing.
The implications extend beyond gold.
China is also a dominant player in silver refining and industrial consumption.
According to Kientz, China refines approximately two-thirds of the world's silver and has become a net importer of the metal.
If China continues absorbing large quantities of silver for domestic industrial use rather than exporting those supplies, the consequences could become significant for the rest of the world.
Kientz believes this could contribute to an acute global silver shortage.
Kientz argues that China's approach to precious metals differs fundamentally from that of the United States and London.
Rather than allowing financial speculation to completely determine physical-market prices, China has increasingly separated paper futures trading from its physical gold market.
He pointed to changes involving the Shanghai market, including restrictions designed to ensure that physical participants play a more significant role.
The result, according to Kientz, is a market where miners, manufacturers, users and other participants have greater influence than purely speculative traders.
This could eventually become important for global price discovery.
If the physical market becomes increasingly concentrated in Asia while Western markets remain dominated by derivatives, global investors may begin to question which market provides the more meaningful price signal.
Kientz believes the answer could increasingly shift toward the East.
Kientz sees the possibility of a regionalized precious metals market emerging.
Rather than having one universally dominant global price dictated by London and New York, different regions could increasingly develop their own physical trading centers.
China, Hong Kong, Singapore, Dubai, Russia and other markets could become increasingly important in determining physical prices.
The more these markets emphasize physical settlement, the greater their credibility could become among actual participants in the gold and silver trade.
Kientz believes this could ultimately undermine the dominance of COMEX and LBMA if physical inventories continue to migrate eastward.
His argument is straightforward:
If the largest buyers increasingly obtain their metal outside Western markets, while Western exchanges continue to trade enormous quantities of paper claims against relatively limited physical inventories, eventually the two markets may become difficult to reconcile.
Silver may be particularly vulnerable to this dynamic.
Unlike gold, silver is not simply a monetary metal.
It is also an industrial commodity with applications across electronics, solar technology, manufacturing and numerous other industries.
That creates a potentially powerful combination.
Investment demand can increase while industrial demand remains strong.
At the same time, supply cannot simply be increased overnight.
Kientz argues that China's dominance of silver refining adds another layer to the problem.
If China is refining a very large percentage of global silver and simultaneously consuming increasing quantities internally, less material may be available to the rest of the world.
The United States has classified silver as a critical mineral, but Kientz questions whether sufficient new production capacity is being developed.
From his perspective, simply declaring a commodity strategically important does not solve a supply problem.
New mines, new refining capacity and new infrastructure are required.
And those projects can take years to develop.
Kientz believes the depletion of registered and eligible inventories at COMEX deserves close attention.
He pointed to declining inventories of gold and silver following previous periods of accumulation.
The concern is not necessarily that COMEX suddenly becomes unable to function.
Rather, the issue is what happens if physical demand continues to increase while available inventories decline.
In such an environment, a derivatives market can potentially continue creating paper exposure, but the credibility of that system becomes increasingly dependent on confidence that physical delivery can ultimately occur.
Kientz believes that if Eastern buyers continue absorbing available physical supplies, Western exchanges could eventually face a structural challenge.
His most extreme scenario is that COMEX could be forced to change the way it operates if physical inventories decline to emergency levels.
That is not a prediction of an imminent collapse of the exchange, but it illustrates the fundamental question he is raising:
What happens when the financial claims on a commodity become increasingly disconnected from the physical commodity itself?
Another important question is whether governments under financial pressure could become significant sellers of gold.
Countries facing currency crises, wars, fiscal problems or infrastructure damage may be forced to liquidate reserve assets.
Turkey has already demonstrated that gold can be sold during periods of currency stress.
Kientz believes other countries could eventually face similar circumstances.
Russia is one example he highlighted.
The war in Ukraine has created significant pressure on Russia's energy infrastructure, while restrictions on exports, transportation constraints and damage to refineries have created additional challenges.
Kientz believes that if Russia's fiscal position deteriorates sufficiently, it could eventually be forced to sell some of its gold reserves.
The same logic could apply to other countries.
European governments with heavy debt burdens could potentially face financial pressure. Countries in the Middle East could also experience fiscal stress if geopolitical conflicts cause major infrastructure damage.
Would that cause gold to collapse?
Kientz does not think so.
He believes the physical market could absorb additional supply if the underlying global appetite for gold remains strong.
There could certainly be short-term price corrections.
But in his view, the long-term direction depends on whether the underlying crisis environment is getting better or worse.
And he argues that the global crisis environment is getting worse.
Kientz's philosophy can be summarized in one concept:
Gold's long-term bull markets do not truly end until the underlying crisis has been resolved.
A recession, geopolitical conflict or currency crisis can produce temporary volatility, but if the underlying financial risks continue to increase, he believes the long-term monetary case for gold remains intact.
That is why a $500 decline in gold would not necessarily change his outlook.
Short-term price movements are determined by traders and financial positioning.
Long-term monetary demand is determined by confidence in the financial system.
And Kientz believes confidence in the existing system is deteriorating.
He also points to the growing participation of countries representing a significant share of global economic output in physical gold markets.
For him, that is more important than a temporary decline in the futures price.
The conversation then shifted from precious metals to one of the most controversial issues in modern finance: central bank digital currencies.
Kientz expressed strong concerns about the potential introduction of a U.S. CBDC.
His concern is not simply that money becomes digital.
Money is already largely digital.
The difference, he argues, is who controls the digital monetary infrastructure.
A centrally controlled digital currency could theoretically provide governments with far greater visibility into financial transactions than physical cash.
Every transaction could potentially be recorded and monitored.
That creates an entirely different relationship between citizens and the state.
Kientz believes this could have profound implications for financial privacy.
He argues that the debate surrounding CBDCs is therefore not simply about technology.
It is about power.
Who creates money?
Who controls it?
Who can restrict its use?
Who can monitor transactions?
And what happens when citizens no longer have access to an anonymous physical form of money?
Kientz also raised an intriguing argument concerning stablecoins.
Stablecoins are often presented as privately issued digital currencies backed by assets such as U.S. Treasury securities.
But Kientz believes they could potentially become a mechanism for absorbing large amounts of government debt into the digital financial system.
His analogy is to the mortgage crisis of 2008.
During the housing bubble, financial institutions packaged questionable mortgages into securities and created financial products that appeared safer than the underlying assets.
Kientz argues that stablecoins could potentially perform a similar function with government debt.
Treasuries could be placed inside a digital wrapper, which would then be marketed as a stable digital asset.
If successful, stablecoins could absorb significant amounts of capital while simultaneously creating demand for government debt.
The risk, according to Kientz, is that losses could eventually be transferred from governments and financial institutions to consumers.
In his view, younger generations could be particularly vulnerable because they are more comfortable with digital financial products.
His warning is essentially:
If something is convenient, digital and offers an attractive yield, investors still need to understand what is underneath it.
The deeper issue is government debt.
Modern governments have accumulated enormous amounts of debt, and refinancing that debt becomes increasingly difficult as interest costs rise.
Kientz argues that digital currencies could theoretically provide governments with tools that were unavailable during previous debt crises.
A digital monetary system could allow governments to restructure, replace or modify the monetary system more easily.
If one version of a digital currency failed, another could theoretically be introduced.
That raises a fundamental question about monetary discipline.
With physical money, governments face certain limitations.
With a fully digital monetary system, those limitations could potentially become much weaker.
Kientz fears this could eventually lead to almost complete government control over money creation and circulation.
Whether that scenario actually materializes remains uncertain.
But the technological possibility alone makes the debate around CBDCs important.
Paradoxically, Kientz believes that the introduction of a CBDC could be extremely bullish for physical precious metals.
The reasoning is straightforward.
If citizens become uncomfortable with a financial system where every transaction can potentially be monitored or restricted, they may seek assets that exist outside that system.
Gold would fit that role particularly well.
Unlike a bank deposit or digital currency, physical gold does not require permission from a centralized financial institution.
It can be held directly by individuals.
Kientz therefore believes that a CBDC could transform gold from simply an investment asset into something closer to private money.
He expects demand for fractional gold and silver products to increase significantly in such an environment.
In his view, the more centralized the monetary system becomes, the more attractive decentralized physical assets could become.
Kientz also raised a constitutional argument concerning gold and silver in the United States.
He referenced Article I, Section 10 of the U.S. Constitution and the historical role of gold and silver as money.
His argument is that the introduction of a CBDC could create a broader legal and political debate if it were designed to exclude other forms of money.
Such a development, he believes, could bring renewed attention to the monetary role of precious metals.
Instead of eliminating gold's relevance, a CBDC could therefore produce the opposite result.
It could force the public to ask fundamental questions about what constitutes money and whether citizens should retain the right to hold and transact in alternative forms of value.
Perhaps the most provocative part of Kientz's discussion was his thought experiment about what a fully centralized monetary system could look like.
He described it as a potential “financial prison.”
The idea is not necessarily that governments are currently planning such a system.
Rather, Kientz said he was applying his cybersecurity background and using an “attacker's mindset.”
In cybersecurity, professionals are often trained to think like an attacker: if someone wanted to compromise a system, how would they do it?
Applying that framework to money, Kientz argues that an attacker seeking maximum control would want to:
From this perspective, the danger is not necessarily that citizens are forced into the system immediately.
The greater risk, according to Kientz, is that people voluntarily enter it because it is easier, faster and more convenient.
That is why he believes physical gold and silver remain important.
They provide an alternative monetary asset outside the digital infrastructure.
Kientz also offered a more speculative interpretation of the massive central-bank gold accumulation seen in recent years.
One explanation is well established: gold is a high-quality reserve asset and receives favorable treatment within the international banking system.
But Kientz asks whether there could be another motivation.
He suggested a hypothetical scenario in which governments accumulate large amounts of gold while reducing the amount available to ordinary citizens.
If governments control a disproportionate share of the world's monetary gold, they could theoretically gain greater influence over the future monetary system.
Kientz summarized the concept with the old expression:
“He who has the gold makes the rules.”
He explicitly described this as his “conspiracy theory” and emphasized that he was not claiming this is necessarily the intention of governments.
Instead, he was illustrating how the system could theoretically be attacked or centralized.
The distinction is important.
It is a scenario analysis rather than evidence of a coordinated policy.
The conversation then turned to another major concern: real estate.
Is the United States heading toward another 2008-style financial crisis?
Kientz's answer was nuanced.
He does not believe the current environment is simply a repeat of 2008.
The structure of the risk has changed.
During the global financial crisis, mortgage-backed securities were at the center of the problem.
Today, Kientz believes the biggest vulnerabilities could instead emerge from commercial real estate, apartment buildings and collateralized loan obligations (CLOs).
Private equity has become deeply involved in the apartment market, while commercial real estate faces higher interest rates, refinancing pressures and changing demand.
The amount of leverage in the system is difficult to measure because some risks have moved away from traditional bank balance sheets and into private and offshore structures.
That lack of transparency makes the potential size of the problem difficult to determine.
Kientz believes commercial real estate could become the starting point for a new financial crisis.
Apartment buildings are particularly important because many properties were purchased using substantial leverage.
If rents weaken, vacancies increase or financing costs rise, property cash flows can deteriorate rapidly.
That can create problems for lenders and investors.
A property may still be worth hundreds of millions of dollars on paper, but if it cannot generate enough cash flow to service its debt, the underlying financial structure can become unstable.
Kientz believes the resulting failures could spread from property owners to private-equity firms and eventually to banks.
That would create a feedback loop similar to previous financial crises, although through a different financial architecture.
Another vulnerability Kientz highlighted involves loans made against rental properties.
Traditionally, lenders evaluate the borrower as well as the property.
The borrower must demonstrate the ability to service the debt.
But Kientz warned that some newer lending structures may place greater emphasis on the income generated by the property itself.
That creates a potential vulnerability.
If the tenant stops paying rent, the property loses its income stream.
If the owner does not have sufficient capital to cover the shortfall, the loan can become distressed.
The danger becomes particularly significant when such loans are pooled into larger portfolios.
A problem that begins with a small number of properties can potentially become a much larger financial problem when those loans are securitized or held by leveraged financial institutions.
Perhaps the most surprising warning from the interview came near the end.
Kientz said he is researching what he believes could be as much as $10 trillion of potential risk within the U.S. life insurance industry.
He emphasized that his research was still ongoing and that he planned to present the findings separately.
Therefore, this figure should be viewed as an area of investigation rather than an established estimate.
Nevertheless, Kientz believes the potential risk could be larger than many investors realize.
His concern is that the insurance system may contain significant financial leverage and exposure to assets whose risks are not immediately visible to the public.
If those vulnerabilities were to materialize simultaneously with problems in commercial real estate and credit markets, the result could be another major systemic event.
That is why Kientz sees multiple potential “black swans” developing at the same time.
The most important takeaway from the discussion is not any single forecast.
It is the possibility that several different financial risks could interact.
Consider the combination:
High government debt + currency instability + commercial real estate stress + private credit exposure + potential insurance-sector problems + geopolitical conflict + declining trust in fiat currencies + increasing central-bank gold purchases.
Each individual risk may be manageable.
The danger arises when several occur simultaneously.
Financial systems are interconnected.
A commercial real estate failure can damage banks.
Bank problems can tighten credit.
Tighter credit can hurt businesses.
Business failures can increase unemployment.
Governments may respond with monetary and fiscal stimulus.
That can increase concerns about currency debasement.
Those concerns can increase demand for gold.
And higher gold demand can further accelerate the movement of capital away from traditional financial assets.
This is the type of feedback loop Kientz believes investors need to understand.
Kientz's final message was less about predicting a specific market crash and more about preparation.
He believes the current fiat currency system is approaching a fundamental transition.
That does not necessarily mean that the U.S. dollar suddenly becomes worthless or that the financial system collapses tomorrow.
Rather, he believes the monetary architecture that has dominated the global economy for decades is becoming increasingly unstable.
The exact timing remains unknowable.
But, in his view, the direction is becoming increasingly clear.
For investors, that means diversification may need to extend beyond traditional portfolios.
Physical precious metals, productive assets, real assets and an understanding of monetary policy could become increasingly important.
The goal is not necessarily to predict the precise date of the next crisis.
It is to make sure that a portfolio and a household are not completely dependent on one financial system continuing to function exactly as it has in the past.
That brings the conversation back to precious metals.
For Kientz, the strongest argument for gold and silver is not that they will rise next month.
It is that they exist outside the liabilities of the financial system.
A bank deposit represents a claim on a bank.
A bond represents a claim on an issuer.
A digital currency represents a claim within a digital monetary infrastructure.
Physical gold is different.
It is an asset that does not depend on a counterparty's promise to pay.
Silver provides a similar characteristic while also having substantial industrial demand.
That combination makes precious metals particularly interesting during periods of monetary and geopolitical uncertainty.
The most important question may therefore not be:
“Where will gold be six months from now?”
Instead, investors should ask:
“What happens to my wealth if the monetary system changes?”
If the existing system remains stable, gold and silver may simply function as portfolio diversifiers.
If inflation remains elevated, they can potentially act as stores of value.
If currencies experience severe stress, their monetary role could become more important.
And if the financial system moves toward increasingly centralized digital money, physical precious metals could become even more attractive to investors seeking assets outside that system.
That is the broader thesis behind Kientz's outlook.
Kientz does not claim to know exactly when the next major financial crisis will occur.
Nor does the interview establish that a CBDC will inevitably replace physical cash, that COMEX will collapse, or that a $10 trillion insurance-sector crisis is certain to happen.
Those are scenarios and risks that he believes deserve attention.
But his broader argument is more straightforward.
The global financial system is changing.
The physical precious metals trade is increasingly moving toward Asia.
Central banks continue to accumulate gold.
China is becoming increasingly important to global silver supply and demand.
Western financial markets remain heavily dependent on derivatives.
Government debt continues to create pressure on monetary systems.
Digital currencies could fundamentally change the relationship between individuals and money.
And new vulnerabilities may be developing in commercial real estate, private credit and insurance.
For Kientz, waiting until the crisis becomes obvious is the wrong strategy.
By then, the most attractive forms of protection may already be expensive or difficult to obtain.
His message is therefore one of preparation rather than prediction.
“We need to start preparing for what's already going to happen.”
Whether one agrees with Kientz's more bearish or speculative scenarios or not, the questions he raises are increasingly relevant for investors.
The world is entering a period in which the traditional assumptions surrounding money, banking, debt and financial markets are being challenged.
Gold and silver may ultimately prove important not simply because their prices rise, but because they offer investors something that modern financial systems increasingly struggle to provide:
an asset that exists outside the promises, liabilities and digital infrastructure of the monetary system.
And that may be the most important reason to keep watching the physical precious metals market as the next phase of the global financial system begins to take shape.
Sign up to our free monthly newsletter to recieve the latest on our interviews and articles.
By subscribing you agree to receive our newest articles and interviews and agree with our Privacy Policy.
You may unsubscribe at any time.
