Gold, Silver, Copper. The Zombies Are Coming

Finance-focused summary (with instruments/tickers)

• Bitcoin (BTC) The speaker is bearish and expects a drawdown into the “mid-30s” (~30–40) range, framed as the bear case target. They also mention previously selling around $100K after entering around ~$28K.

• Silver Generally described as bearish/uncertain near term. The speaker points to a flag-like consolidation (compression), implying a likely breakdown is more probable than a sustained “zoom/rocket” upside move—unless a clear catalyst appears.

• Gold Also bearish. Key caution: if gold breaks below a previous low, it “comes down quite a bit,” with lower target zones referenced (the exact price levels are not legible in the subtitle text).

• Gold vs. Copper (relative setup) The speaker highlights recent divergence:

  • Gold has stopped/ran and now looks bearish.
  • Copper looks “pretty bullish indeed.”

Thesis: copper and gold may re-link, but direction is uncertain—either copper rises and gold falls, or both adjust. The speaker emphasizes there’s “headroom” in copper and downside for gold.

Fundamental rationale:

- There is **no lasting copper supply glut**.  
- There is **no shortage of copper demand “forever.”**

• “Buy some more copper mines” The speaker suggests an action bias toward copper exposure, but no specific copper miner/ETF ticker is named.

• Engineering/industrial supply-chain as an equity catalyst (value idea) The speaker introduces a supply-chain disruption concept: if a company in the UK/Europe/US becomes the only local supplier because customers can’t source from China anymore, the firm can become “strategic” and valuable with a deeper moat (supply-chain barrier).

As a concrete example, a UK engineering company that sprays tungsten (for industrial/gas turbine blade applications) is cited as having surged ~10x (described as “up 10 times now,” after being “worthless yesterday”). The company name is withheld.

The end-markets implied are gas turbine blades, and possibly fighter jet components.

---

Methodology / framework mentioned

1) “Predict the past” / chart-based regime approach

• Use charts to assess what the market has already done (e.g., “up like a rocket, down like a rock”).
• Infer the likely next stage from patterns (e.g., flag/compression → more likely breakdown in bearish setups).
• Follow the call:
  • If price action confirms the thesis, stick with it.
  • If it diverges, admit “I’m wrong” and adjust.

2) Relative value via divergence

• Compare related commodities (notably gold vs. copper).
• If the two are temporarily unlinked, infer catch-up/re-link dynamics (e.g., copper up / gold down or vice versa), using the “gap” as an expectation framework.

3) Moat via supply-chain disruption (equity value hunting)

• Identify companies whose viability depended on cheap/accessible offshore supply chains.
• Determine whether regulatory/geopolitical/operational changes have broken the prior supply route.
• The “value” catalyst occurs when the firm becomes the only game in town, increasing strategic importance and pricing power.

---

Key numbers / metrics / timelines / explicit cautions

• Bitcoin

  • Entry: ~$28K
  • Sold: ~$100K
  • Bear target: ~30–40 (framed as “mid-30s,” numeric range/level context)

• Performance / personal track record

  • Claims to be ~40–50% in (portfolio performance; timeframe not specified).
  • States channel/trading accuracy: “55% of the time”.
  • Adds a caution that success has been “fluke / luck and good fortune” (no hard verification provided).
  • Notes timing risk: often ~9 months early; some investments may take ~2 years to move.

• Industrial/tungsten example

  • The cited company is said to be up ~10x over ~6 months.

• General caution

  • “Don’t believe your own book” (avoid overconfidence).
  • Markets can change quickly: “you can’t predict the unpredictable.”

---

Disclosures / disclaimers

• The speaker emphasizes they are not tipping specific securities as guaranteed outcomes, and that the intent is to share thought processes so viewers can build their own models.
• No explicit “not financial advice” wording appears in the provided subtitle text.
• The speaker repeatedly discourages treating statements as guaranteed recommendations and withholds the company name in the tungsten example.

---

Assets/instruments mentioned

• Bitcoin (BTC)
• Gold
• Silver
• Copper
• Tungsten (discussed as an industrial material/coating application; not presented as an investable ticker)
• Copper mines (sector exposure; no specific miners/ETFs named)

---

Presenters/sources

• No other presenters are named; the content appears to come from a single channel host/speaker (name not provided).