A rough week for metals—and a bigger story beneath it... -

Welcome to this week’s Market Wrap Podcast, I’m Mike Gleason.
Coming up in a moment, we have an exclusive interview with Nomi Prins, renowned market commentator, author and founder and CEO of Prinsight Global. Nomi chimes in the recent Federal Reserve rate increase, the first in roughly three years, and argues how rising rates don't directly lower the price of oil or other physical commodities like the Fed may expect or want, but it does make borrowing more expensive for consumers and businesses.
Nomi and Mike Maharrey also discuss how the ever-growing central bank demand for gold continues to show us just how much countries around the world are trying to de-risk themselves from the dollar and provide protection against future geopolitical turmoil. And then how assets like gold and silver are going to become increasingly important as a result of this dynamic.
So, stick around for that and a whole lot more during a fascinating conversation with the highly-respected and well-spoken Nomi Prins, coming up after this week’s market update.
And as a reminder we would be incredibly grateful if you would be willing to like, rate and comment on this podcast wherever you are consuming this content. And please subscribe to this podcast as well. We would be very appreciative, and it would help us grow this podcast even further. So, thank you for doing that!
Gold and silver are ending a choppy week with a reminder that the paper markets can change direction quickly. The larger story, though, is moving at a very different speed. While traders react to every shift in interest rates, the U.S. Treasury is trying to manage those rates, and China is taking delivery of an extraordinary amount of gold.
Let’s start with the price action. Gold finished last week at about $4,390 an ounce, and silver closed near $67. That was a gain for both metals, even after the Federal Reserve raised interest rates. But the strength didn’t carry straight through this week.
Gold slid on Monday and Tuesday, with New York futures finishing Tuesday around $4,339. Silver also lost ground after last week’s stronger showing. Both metals came under additional pressure Thursday as bond yields remained elevated and the dollar firmed. As of this Friday morning recording gold is now trading at $4,297 an ounce, down nearly $100 on the week or 2.1%.
As for silver. the white metal is off $2 or 3.0% to check in at $64.91. Platinum is down 1.4% to trade at $1,788, and finally palladium is off by 2.5% to come in at $1,292 an ounce.
These are moving prices, of course, but the broad picture is clear: last week’s rebound gave way to another bout of selling.
So, what’s weighing on metals? Well, higher interest rates offer investors more income from bonds and cash. That can make an asset like gold, which pays no interest, less appealing to short-term traders.
Silver usually takes an even bumpier ride because it trades as both a monetary metal and an industrial commodity.
Here’s the twist. The same rising bond yields that are pressuring gold have Washington scrambling to push those yields down.
This week, the Treasury announced another $6 billion buyback of older, long-term government bonds. It was the second expanded operation in two weeks.
The idea is simple enough: buying bonds can lift their prices and, in turn, bring their yields down.
But there’s a catch. Treasury pays for the buyback by selling other debt, generally with shorter maturities. In plain English, the government is borrowing to retire some of what it previously borrowed.
Nobody should mistake a $6 billion operation for a cure to America’s debt problem. The bond market is measured in the tens of trillions of dollars. Still, the signal matters.
Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent has stepped up these operations while the federal government faces more than a trillion dollars a year in interest expense. Last week’s buyback briefly pulled yields lower, but they started climbing again within an hour. Ahead of Thursday’s operation, the 30-year Treasury yield reached about 5.42 percent.
Think about what that means. Washington would like borrowing costs to come down. Bond investors, meanwhile, are demanding higher returns to lend for decades. And every increase in rates makes the government’s enormous debt more expensive to carry.
Does a Treasury buyback mean gold must go up tomorrow? Of course not. Higher yields can hurt gold in the near term, and we’ve seen that this week.
But if the government finds it increasingly difficult to finance its spending without trying to steer the bond market, that raises a deeper question: how much confidence should savers place in an ever-growing stack of government IOUs?
Now look at what’s happening on the other side of the world.
China imported more than 1,100 tonnes of gold in the first eight months of this year, spending about $159 billion, according to Chinese customs data. That’s already more gold than the country imported in all of 2025. For the period covered by the available data, imports are at their highest level since at least 2017.
Why the appetite? Chinese investors have been looking for alternatives to stocks and property. Gold has also commanded a slight premium in China, creating an incentive for more metal to move into the country.
A relatively strong yuan and changes to import licenses helped, too. So, this is a real flow of metal, although the headline number doesn’t tell us that demand will keep rising every single month.
In fact, there are signs of a summer slowdown. Withdrawals from the Shanghai Gold Exchange fell in August, and jewelry demand has remained soft.
At the same time, Chinese gold exchange-traded funds added 11 tonnes during the month. Different parts of the market are sending different signals. The record import pace deserves attention, but it doesn’t make China a one-way bet.
And then there’s the People’s Bank of China. It reportedly adding roughly 20 tonnes of gold to its reserves in August, its 23rd consecutive month of reported purchases. Official gold holdings reached about 2,386 tonnes. That’s another buyer operating on a very different timetable from the trader watching this afternoon’s bond yield.
There’s a connection between these two stories. The United States is trying to keep its borrowing costs under control. China is drawing gold into its market, while its reported holdings of U.S. Treasury debt fell to their lowest level since 2008 in July.
That doesn’t prove every dollar leaving Treasuries is going straight into gold; these are different figures measuring different things. It does show why the global demand for physical metal can matter even when gold has a difficult week in New York.
For American investors, the lesson is to keep the time horizons straight. A rising yield can knock gold or silver down today. A Chinese import surge won’t prevent a sharp selloff next Thursday. But neither of those daily moves settles the longer question of what happens when debt keeps growing and governments become more anxious about the cost of carrying it.
Gold and silver are insurance against risks that don’t disappear because a chart turns red for a few sessions. That’s why the pullback deserves perspective, not panic. Watch whether bond yields continue to defy Treasury’s efforts, and watch whether physical gold demand in China holds up as the year moves into its busy final quarter. Those developments will tell us much more than a single day’s tick on the screen.
Well now, without further delay, and for more on the markets, the economy and the precious metals, let’s get right to our exclusive interview with well-known market commentator and author Nomi Prins.
<div class="pl-3">
Mike Maharrey: Greetings. I'm Mike Maharrey, and I'm joined today by Nomi Prins. Nomi has a PhD in international strategic studies with a specialization in an international political economy. To say her resume is impressive would be an understatement. I'm not going to even try to go through everything, but she has a long track record in both government and private sector, finance banking, and she's the author of multiple books, a great speaker and a really good analyst, and I'm excited to speak with her today. How are you doing today, Nomi?
Nomi Prins: I'm great, Mike, and it's always a pleasure to speak with you.
Mike Maharrey: Well, it's exciting to have you here, and there's so much, I guess, craziness. I don't want to use too much hyperbole, but I don't know that craziness is hyperbole in this age. I kind of wanted to start our discussion talking a little bit about the Federal Reserve. Recently had a rate hike last week. We've got a new Fed chair, and gold is really reacting to the mechanizations of the Fed and this anticipation of higher interest rates. I'd like to first just get your overall impression with the Fed, the rate hike, and is the proper response to sell your gold?
Nomi Prins: Well, I think those are excellent questions, Mike, as always. I want to start with the end of that. The proper response to what's going on is absolutely not to sell your gold, it's actually to add more gold. And going back to why and the other points of your question, the reality is a lot of things have been happening since the Iran war broke out. And as we know, right before that happened, gold was at all-time highs around $5,500 an ounce. It subsequently dropped in about two different beats, one beat when the war started, another beat when the reality sunk in that it wasn't going to end quickly. But since then, we've pretty much been in a range. I'll talk about that a bit, but the Fed component of that is that until last week, we did not have a Fed rate hike. We got a new chair in Kevin Warsh.
There was a lot of headlines and conversations as to whether he was really a dove or a hawk based on old things that he did in different positions in the Fed. The reality is he pretty much was neutral if you kind of bounce out his. He did vote for QE and then he said it wasn't a good. There was a lot of things that happened and we've written about the specifics of that, but moving towards today and now, the Fed did vote to raise rates and did last week 25 basis points. Three of the Fed governors had already voted to do that at the prior meeting. And so, this was basically a substantiation of that for I think two reasons. One is that oil prices were above 100. That's literally what I went on record as saying last week. I was in New York doing the rounds on different media and such.
And why is 100 on oil important? Well, of course we saw inflation rise in the beginning of the war, come down as oil prices came down around 80, which is where I think the band will ultimately wind up, and then pop back up as it went to 100 because whether or not those figures or any of the permutations of them strip out energy costs, they're a thing. And so when the Fed looks at inflation, it has to recognize that there are external factors such as oil prices being above 100 psychologically and actually that affect those numbers. Can the Fed impact the price of oil? Absolutely not. Can it impact the price of any physical thing? Absolutely not. But Kevin Warsh in that position can flex its sort of independent muscle and use the fact, say it one more time, that oil prices were above 100 as a reason for the whole committee to effectively agree to raise rates by 25 basis points.
If something positive happens in terms of any form of resolution in the with respect to the US or however that might break down and oil comes back down around 80 / 90, we're going to see inflation prices different. We're going to see the Fed back off and we're going to see the market stop talking about it for a minute. But it's highly contingent on what's going on there. Meanwhile, going back to the end of your question, beginning of my answer, gold has settled I think in a range. I mean yes, it dipped a little bit last week, but effectively it's in a 43, $4,400 range where it's been for much of this period after those initial drops down. And I think that's very healthy because what it shows people coming in, and we just saw second record months, second highest record in gold ETFs in August when there looked like there would be some resolution and oil prices had come back down before they popped back up.
We saw more gold buying in the West through those ETFs, but we also see continued gold buying by central banks. They had their largest quarter on record in the second quarter of this year because they are using gold as a geopolitical, as a trade, as a reserve, as a diversification play and as a sovereignty play. And that's going to continue to happen. So regardless of where treasury yields are, what happens with the Fed, that buying is going to continue. I think the retail buyers that have come back in around 43, 4,400 in August are going to feel good about the levels that they got in at. I think they'll accumulate from those levels. Again, it's a question of what happens with oil inflation in the near term, but gold is very undervalued right now with respect to the demand it has and the reality of its physical scarcity in terms of real high quality, good jurisdiction gold coming into the market and into the hands of active users of gold such as central banks.
Mike Maharrey: It's interesting. Speaking of the war, we saw just recently that the US is planning on using the dollar as kind of a billy club to keep people in line and not support Iranian airlines. It was kind of the specific thing that Bessent was talking about. I'm curious how significant do you think this weaponization of the dollar is having, what kind of effect do you think is it having on these other central bankers who might not be on friendly terms with the US when they look at the way. Is this part of the debasement trade or is that weaponization of the dollar overstated?
Nomi Prins: Well, I think it's stated as the US wants to state it in that they're trying to use the dollar as a club. But that said, the actual reaction to that, and we've seen that in multiple cases, and the most recent, but the sort of new catalyst for the current trend upward in gold prices was what happened after Russia invaded Ukraine and there was a freeze and a sanction on their assets and so forth, and a lot of central banks started buying gold. And then it became more of a common place activity to continue to buy gold, whether or not there was a direct threat or even a potential threat with respect to reserves being held in different countries in the United States or Western governments somehow getting involved in that. It just became more of a reason for central banks to really speed up gold buying programs.
And we, again, continue to see that happen with last quarter's record high gold buying. But also what's interesting is that every time there is this sort of weaponization of the US dollar relative to other countries and US policy, other central banks buy gold. So the direct reaction is for them to buy more gold or to continue with the current buying plans that they have, again, on an individual central bank basis, this differs. But if you look, for example, at one of the largest gold buyers and largest central banks, People's Bank of China, right now they're sitting at all-time lows of treasury bonds. Now, the headline math about treasury yields is you should buy them because they're at 5% and that's really, really high and that's better than gold because gold doesn't return anything. But in actuality, gold prices have doubled in the last two years, even to where we are at today.
They don't pay an interest payment yield, but they pay appreciation, wealth preservation, purchasing poverty, and they're also prices that hold and rise in the wake of scarcity of physical supply. So all of these things are present in gold. And so I think any use of the US government or the US dollar or US treasuries for these purposes has to be examined in light of the counter use of gold.
Mike Maharrey: Yeah, absolutely. There's a couple of directions I want to go. I'm trying to think of what the best way to take this, because I want to talk a little bit more about bonds and bond yields, but I guess before that, let's kind of pivot back to the Fed for a moment. It's interesting that everybody has kind of this foregone conclusion that with oil prices spiking, we're going to see an uptick in inflation, and that's reasonable if you're measuring inflation by the CPI. And yet I don't feel like people are paying as much attention to the other side of this equation, and that's the huge massive debt black hole that's floating out there in the economy. How constrained do you think that the Fed really is in terms of their ability to fight inflation right now, given the levels of debt? They'll never admit it publicly, but are there private conversations that are concerned about this debt level?
Nomi Prins: Yeah, I mean, there's conversations that have to be going on between the Treasury Department and the Federal Reserve. That's one of the reasons that Scott Bessent running the Treasury decided to finally take the first step of something he'd been talking about since he became Treasury Secretary, which is a kind of effective treasury buyback program or quantitative easing program. It's tiny, tiny, tiny. It doesn't make a debt whatsoever at all right now in terms of the debt, but the announcement of it allows for that potential number, the treasury buying back, some of its own debt to happen. Now that said, it's buying back its own debt with its own debt. So it's very circular, but that's exactly what the Fed had been doing with quantitative easing in the wake of the financial crisis, the wake COVID is effectively creating future money and using it to buy current debt.
So basically, the same thing. And so with rates at 5% or so in the 10-year part of the curve, you're talking about higher interest payments that the US government has to make on all the new debt that it's raising. So now that we're over $40 trillion worth of public debt, not all of that's at 5%, but as we've been adding and we have been accelerating the addition of debt to our public till while rates have actually been at higher levels and rising, that means that the United States government is stuck paying more interest on its debt. So, in order to reduce the debt, you have to buy the debt, but in order to buy the debt, you have to basically create debt. So it's a very odd circular way of working, but that's exactly what the treasury I think wants to do more of and what the Fed knows, is it in that quandary?
Yes, because raising rates at 25-basis points a clip, even if that happens, doesn't literally make a dent in the cost of servicing debt, which they know because they're actually at a negative as well in their balance sheet. They have to repatriate funds to the treasury department and they're actually on a negative on that. So their own balance sheet's a complete mess and it's been for several years now. So it's doing a couple different things. It's talking to the market about being these inflation fighters. And for some reason, which we could go into in greater depth, the news continues or the main news companies continue to run with the story that when the Fed says it can control inflation, that it actually can. I don't know why this continues to happen except for the fact that it's what passes for headlines and it's an easy conversation to have.
The Fed says it can control inflation. We're going to say that if the Fed raises rates, it's controlling inflation. So therefore those two things are equivalents and they're not. The Fed can't create oil, it can't open a strait, it can't create gold, it can't create silver, it can't create literally any hard asset that we use to work our world. As a result, any prices that increase on any of those assets, the production of, the use of, the movement of, is a cost and can or cannot inflate regardless of what the Fed is doing. So it's really two ways of looking at inflation, that they can change the cost of money and try to reduce the leverage in the market, less borrowing because it's harder to borrow because it's an extra 25 basis points this month or what have you, but they can't really change inflation.
That's a factor of so many other things. Now it could be that there's a resolution in the strait tomorrow and after we have this conversation, I don't think so, but let's say that happens and oil goes back down to 70 or 80, which was when the Fed only had three governors who wanted a rate hike and everybody else didn't. That could happen. When it does happen, that will reduce inflation. That will have zero to do with the fact that the Fed raised rates last week.
Mike Maharrey: Yeah. Now, one thing the Fed can do is create inflation with its money creation and its mechanizations. I think people forget that sometimes as well, and they seem to like to do that. Yeah, I'm with you on the war. I'm not particularly sanguine that we'll have peace, but Lord, I hope we can get to that point, not only for the economic aspect of it, but just so that people can quit dying. But yeah, it's interesting. It almost feels like the war is a lid on the price of gold. It wants to come up, but we've got this kind of war lid. Do you think if the war does continue to drag on at some point that lid will come off by itself even if we're not getting a resolution just because this seemed to be this pent-up demand for gold under the surface?
Nomi Prins: Yeah, I think we started to see some of that really before the latest skirmish in Iran or the latest lack of resolution as well as the headlines around the Fed rate hike. We saw gold back off a bit, but before that it had started to creep up to 46, $4,700. It started to be, as you said, move past the volatility that's happening in that region, and I think it will continue to do that. I mean, we've seen that and we saw a little backing off there is volatility, but again, it's at a very solid lower level in terms of where it can appreciate from and where we've seen it appreciate from just in recent weeks. So I do think there will be more of a calming down in terms of the expectations of gold to have to follow what's there. I just think it's hard when oil is so high, which is related to going there, for there to be enough breathing room for new buyers to come into gold.
Again, we saw that in August and that is because we saw those prices back off. I think any month where that happens, the people that have now gotten into those gold ETFs, we had a second record month in August, for example, the ones that are playing gold, not physically, but sort of through the ETF markets so they can move in and out of those positions very quickly, which is what we saw in the beginning of the year when the war started. Yeah, they're in a great levels. And what happens psychologically as new gold buyers, on the one hand when gold sinks quite a lot quickly, they get afraid and they come out. But on the other hand, when they start to toe back in and they're at good levels, even there's a little volatility at some of the lower levels, they feel more comfortable about staying in and adding to those positions.
I think that's where we are, and I think adding will continue to move the price to gold up. And of course, as we just talked about, central banks will be buying it anyway, sovereign wealth funds will be buying it anyway. There's definitely been more buying of gold relative to treasury issuance coming out. So that trend continues anyway in terms of the long-term holders of gold, and those holders need physical gold. And that goes back to the scarcity value of new mines, new supply, and what's happening to feed that demand.
Mike Maharrey: Yeah. Do you think it's fair to say that these rate hikes are far more likely to have an impact on your average person on Main Street who has a credit card with a high interest rate and somebody who's wanting to buy a house that's looking at mortgage rates, that that's going to have more impact there than it is actually on the macro inflation picture?
Nomi Prins: Yeah, absolutely. Especially for people with high debt, high credit card debt. And of course, that's at historic highs now because it just means that they're going to get letters from their credit card providers and they're going to say Fed raised rates, we're going to have to raise rates. Same thing with any floating rate mortgage or home equity loan. There's less of them, but some of them do adjust and you're going to get letters saying that they've adjusted rate upward and that's going to pinch wallets even more than inflation already does. We're already in a very constrained economy. I could throw out some fancy economic stats on that from a high towery way, but also anyone just needs to go into a supermarket at any point in time and recognize that the checkout line has a bunch of really strained people in it with the reality of things just costing more whatever it is they're buying.
And so you add that to people having to pay more for need goods, whether that's utilities or food or shelter or medicine with credit cards and that price going up, it does definitely create more of a burden on the average person than again, dense actual inflation of those prices. Yeah,
Mike Maharrey: And people are struggling. I think you make a really good point. I don't have to tout out a bunch of data. People know they're going to the grocery store, they're going to the gas station, they see their own bank accounts. I have people tell me often, they'll get these kind of rosy, "Oh, GDP grew by X or inflation is down or jobs, there's lots of jobs out there." And people tell me they don't see that reality in their own lives. And I think there's a little bit of a disconnect between the financial stuff up here and the reality of life and Main Street. I hate using that term Main Street because it's so cliche, but it's the only thing I can think of.
Nomi Prins: But it's true. Yesterday, just as a really clear example, I went to CVS with my husband and we were just buying items, and dental floss was like $5.99. I don't remember. These are kinds of items that you don't buy all the time. I just note it because this happened and I was thinking as he was like, "When did that happen? When did a tiny little thing? When did that happen?" So whether it's a regular thing you're buying or whether it's a thing you buy periodically, I mean, everything has really been inflating in terms of price for the average consumer. Yeah.
Mike Maharrey: When you say dental floss, I think like 99 cents, right? I don't think $5 for dental floss. That's crazy.
Nomi Prins: Nobody does!
Mike Maharrey: You mentioned Secretary of the Treasury Bessent and the bond buybacks. So we did $6 trillion, or not trillion, $6 billion in long-term treasury buybacks last week, and he announced yesterday they're going to do another six billion today. That sounds like a lot, but when you look at the totality of the treasury market, it's really a drop in the bucket. What is he doing? Because I don't see how he's doing enough to really tip the scale in terms of treasury demand, but there's obviously a reason that he's doing this now. What do you think is going on here?
Nomi Prins: I look at this whole thing like beta testing a bigger treasury buyback. He was talking about some sort of plan of this nature from the beginning of having gotten the seat as the head of the Treasury Department, and this is the actualizing of that plan. And you're right, six billion out of a $40 trillion debt is really just not anything, but it's a statement that we have worked out the systems, we've worked out the language, we've had the back channel conversations, all the things that need to happen over a long period of time in general for anything that happens in the government. I think the first six billion, the second six billion, the sort of toe in the water beta testing. We've shaken out language of the idea. We've announced it to the market before there are possibilities of bigger treasury buybacks because it means absolutely nothing in the scheme of the value that six billion is relative to say just a trillion dollars’ worth of interest on the $40 trillion worth of debt per year.
It's literally nothing and the billions, it's just literally nothing. But at the same time, it sort of opens potentially a portal to be able to do more in the future independently of the Fed. Whether that's a regular future, whether that's a crisis future, whether that's war related, we need more for the Defense Department future, whatever it is. But while that six billion was happening, the debt increased by more than that. So the debts increasing by more than that buyback is actually remotely able to touch it. I just mean in physical time, like in a week or in a day, but I think it's testing the ground for something additional to the Fed. The first buybacks, the first quantitative easing were actually done by the Treasury Department back in 1907, $25 million for the panic of 1907, which went directly to JP Morgan's coffers and he gave it to his friends, but it came from the Treasury Department and we didn't have a Fed.
So now we kind of have these two bodies and I think there's a lot of other factors to the Treasury Department asserting itself in this way.
Mike Maharrey: Yeah. I need better friends. I need friends that are going to hand me some billions of dollars. Isn't it crazy though? We're sitting here talking about $6 billion in treasuries being literally nothing. When you said that in my head, I'm like, that's kind of crazy when you really think about it. Are you surprised that yields didn't react more? When he announced the buyback the first time and initially they said it was going to be between two and $4 billion, there was a little bit of a dip in treasury yields, but it came back up within a day. And then when they actually did it, it was more than they said and it moved for maybe 20 minutes. And then when he announced it yesterday, they just kept going up. Are you surprised by that, that there hasn't really been any impact at all?
Nomi Prins: No, because as you said, the only impact was in the beginning, I think possibly with the expectation that more could come or the door was going to open sooner or just something that would be more meaningful. I think that's where we saw the rally, some minor rally in treasury yields go down, gold prices go up. But the actual amounts were tiny. The latest amount was equally tiny. And unless there's something substantive, and again, this all could be part of a test program in some way, whether that's next month, another six billion or 60 billion, or it's in a year from now when something else happens, it's a hundred billion. I mean, we don't know. This is a process, but I think the market at the second buy was pretty much jaded by the fact that these numbers were in fact tiny and sort of like, show me something real, which is not unequivalent to quantitative easing movements.
When we were back post-financial crisis, the market would move when there were significant quantitative easing movements, and then it would get all sort of stubborn when they didn't, and it would pre-move before the Fed to try to get the Fed or think it was getting the Fed to psychologically do more. There's some of that going on. There's just a lot of other noise in terms of what the market's grappling with that this latest move just. And the fact that Treasury yields moved up probably had nothing to do with it, but if it did, it was just an assessment that, okay, that's not enough. Next thing. Yeah,
Mike Maharrey: Next. Yeah, makes sense. So I understand that you're working on a new book, and are you pretty close to being done? Is that what I understand?
Nomi Prins: Yes, I actually have a new book I'm just about to complete the manuscript for. It's very thick, and it'll be out, I think at the end of 2027 or beginning of 2028, mostly because of the publishing process. It'll be in a lot of places and languages and all that kind of thing. So these things have a life of their own, but my part of the main part, yes, I'm about finished with the manuscript for my book, Commodity Wars, and it will hopefully explain a lot of both the historical and the present and the future path of where we're at from the standpoint of commodities, physical, gold, silver, uranium, copper, things we kind of know more about as well as things that are more esoteric from antimony to tungsten to other things, and just how countries really do weaponize hard assets or use them as defense, and how we really have, and how the private sector and governments have basically done this since our age of financialization started with the Barrons becoming the bankers, which I've written about and all the president's bankers.
So it's interesting. Anyway, long answer, but I'm an author, so hopefully that's effective.
Mike Maharrey: That's exciting because you tie together the historical context, which kind of helps you understand. They say that you can't really understand the present or the future without understanding the past, and I really appreciate the way you can put those things into context in a way that readers can understand. I would encourage the audience to go and check out Nomi's books. She's got a lot of good stuff out there and you can expand your mind, which is always a good thing. I think with that, I'm going to let you go and wrap this up, but before I do, I definitely want to let you give you an opportunity to tell folks where they can follow your work, find your books, and follow your daily activities as well.
Nomi Prins: Sure. So on our Substack, which is princiites.substack.com, we have a lot of material and different tiers for both complimentary and model portfolio, really deep research. I go out to the mines, I get the hard hats on, I'm underneath the ground when we recommend analysis or potential companies for consideration for people. And we're also just about to launch on my own site, which is princiitesglobal.com, a separate portfolio product, which will go really to the first stages of the supply chain for different prospect generators and other companies, which is launching on October 1st. So look out for that.
Mike Maharrey: Yeah, I really do appreciate just the opportunity to talk to you. I appreciate the fact that you're one of the people out there that really seems to understand that. I like to use the word malfeasance when I talk about central banking, this kind of monetary malfeasance. It seems like so many people just accept what the central bankers do is that these are wise, benevolent, above the fray, data-driven, no politics, and you seem to see through all of that. And so I think that really kind of gives you an edge in terms of your analysis in terms of contrasting that with some of the more mainstream stuff. So I appreciate that and appreciate all you do. And thank you so much for taking a little bit of time out of your day and hanging out with me and putting up with my scatterbrained afternoon that I'm having today.
So thank you so much for that.
Nomi Prins: Thank you, Mike. It's always a pleasure. All right.
Mike Maharrey: Well, we'll talk to you again soon.
</div>
Another wonderful interview with Nomi Prins there and we’re certainly thrilled to have been able to have her back on the podcast and I trust you enjoyed that one.
Well, that will do it for this week. Be sure to check back next Friday for our next Weekly Market Wrap Podcast. And don’t miss our second weekly podcast, the Money Metals Midweek Memo, which airs each Wednesday. To check out any of our audio programs just visit <a href="https://www.moneymetals.com/podcasts">MoneyMetals.com/podcasts</a> or find them on Spotify, Apple Podcasts, Google Podcasts or wherever you listen to your favorite podcasts. And as a big help to us we would ask you to please like, subscribe, download and rate our podcasts. Doing so helps us extend the reach of this material.
Until next time, this has been Mike Gleason with <a href="https://www.moneymetals.com/">Money Metals Exchange</a>, thanks for listening and have a wonderful weekend everybody.

Read The Original Article