Can Bitcoin Compete with Gold as a Safe Haven? (Uncut) 04-07-2025

Can Bitcoin Compete with Gold as a Safe Haven? Alan Hibbard & Laurent Lequeu

Clearly, as I have always mentioned, gold is the antifragile asset with no counterparty risk, while bitcoin is far from being an antifragile asset given its volatility and its correlation with risky assets. Hello GoldSilver family, Alan Hibbert here with another video and today I’m sitting down with Laurent Lequeu, the macro butler, for the second time and we are going to discuss the differences between bitcoin and gold and what they might do or not do in an investor portfolio. So Laurent, thank you so much for sitting down with me again today.

How are you? I’m fine, thank you. Thanks for having me again on your channel. Absolutely.

And you’re joining us from Singapore, right? So it’s pretty late at night your time. Yes, it’s evening here. Okay.

All right. Well, thank you. Really appreciate you taking the time.

So yeah, let’s get into it. We’re talking about bitcoin and gold and what they might do or not do in an investor portfolio. So at a high level, how do you see the difference between the two assets? Well, I think in terms of volatility and in terms of how the two assets correlate with other assets such as equities or bonds and cash, it impacts the way that you implement bitcoin or gold into a portfolio.

So clearly, as I have always mentioned, gold is the anti-fragile asset with no counterparty risk, while bitcoin is far from being an anti-fragile asset given its volatility and its correlation with risky assets. Okay, so gold is an anti-fragile asset, but bitcoin is not an anti-fragile asset yet. Maybe it might become one.

We’ll see. But it would have to become way less volatile and it would have to sort of break its correlation with riskier assets like stocks. Is that kind of a fair assessment? Well, you can summarize this in these two sentences.

I guess that if we study correlation of bitcoin with Nasdaq and tech stocks in particular, we can see that clearly there’s a high correlation between the two. And in this case, you cannot use bitcoin as an anti-fragile asset in a portfolio. Okay, well, that’s a perfect segue into our first chart.

You brought us four charts to take a look at today. So we have bitcoin and the Nasdaq, a high stakes dance of correlation. So we’re looking at basically the last 10 years and we can see that the correlation between the two assets is about 0.48, 0.49. And so how do you interpret this? That bitcoin is basically like a risk asset because it’s so highly correlated with the Nasdaq, which is definitely a risk asset.

Well, yeah, I put the triple QQQ, so it’s the Nasdaq on steroids. And you can see that there’s quite a very high correlation between bitcoin and the triple QQQ, especially since 2020. So I think that you can clearly see that investors who are looking to get beta through a triple Nasdaq are also trying to get beta in their portfolio via bitcoin.

And that’s why that’s the prime argument for me to tell that bitcoin cannot be seen as a diversification in a portfolio where most investors already own tech stocks or the Nasdaq. Interesting. So for an investor like me who doesn’t own any tech stocks, no stocks of any kind, is it possible that bitcoin could be a diversifier in my portfolio? Aside from bitcoin, the rest of my portfolio is precious metals.

It’s gold and silver. So would it be OK to think of bitcoin as a diversifier in that sort of a scenario? Well, I think that the issue that I have with bitcoin is the volatility and how it behaves during risk of time in financial markets. So I would say that if you only own bitcoin and gold, in fact, you would be better off to own the S&P 500 or the Nasdaq index rather than bitcoin, because during risk of a period, your portfolio will suffer a much bigger drawdown if you own bitcoin.

So I think that the prime goal of most investors is to reduce the volatility of their portfolio and to reduce the maximum drawdown. And that’s why I think that bitcoin is not clearly appealing for most investors. Yeah, that makes sense.

So you probably have a better grasp of this than I do, because you are a money manager, right, for clients. So you do manage their portfolios and you are intimately connected with what their goals are and their concerns. Right.

So basically reducing volatility is like primary concern for them. Well, I guess that my clients, what they are looking at when they add an asset to their portfolio is the diversification. It’s also how it behaves during risk of time, because most fund managers, portfolio managers always talk about risk on and potential upside returns.

But this is the biggest mistake that most of them make, is that the most important for a fund manager or a portfolio manager is to manage drawdown. That’s why the goal, the primary goal is to find assets that reduce the volatility and reduce the drawdown in risk of period. Hmm.

That makes sense. Yeah. So for me personally, I’m not a portfolio manager.

I don’t give financial advice. I don’t manage anyone else’s money besides my own. But I don’t consider volatility to be that much of a concern anymore.

It was a bigger concern for me. So I’m looking at performance over 10 years instead of the performance over one year. And so I personally don’t mind having a larger allocation to Bitcoin, but I could totally understand why your clients or investors, more broadly speaking, would shy away from such immense volatility.

So perhaps… If I can add also, it depends of how old you are as an investor and what is your time horizon. If you have a longer time horizon, of course, and if you are younger, you can for sure stomach higher monthly or yearly volatility than if you are looking to generate a recurring income because you are in the late stage of your life and you need a recurring performance and a recurring income every year. You cannot allow of having one year of a minus 20 or minus 25 percent in your portfolio.

Yeah, that makes sense. That’s a great point. I’m still young.

I’m in my 30s. Hopefully I have a lot of years ahead of me. And I think of it as I can still afford to be wrong.

So if I’m wrong on Bitcoin and a big chunk of my portfolio goes to zero or something like it, I can still handle that. I can afford to work my way back, so to speak, through income or through other investments. So, yeah, I think we’re definitely coming at this from different angles with different objectives.

But for older clients, certainly you can’t afford a 20 percent drawdown in a year or anything like that. It makes total sense. It makes total sense.

I think if I may, I think that also and I’m quite surprised that we have seen a very high interest from institutional investors for Bitcoin because most of institutional investors, the pension funds also would not really allow their portfolio to have a major drawdown on a yearly basis. So that’s why I’m a bit skeptical to see this rising interest from institutional investors and pension funds for adding Bitcoin in their portfolio. I think it’s not really suitable in managing this kind of portfolio over the long term.

Yeah, that’s a good point. And it sort of brings up two questions in my mind. One is portfolio sizing.

So if these larger institutions only allocate one percent of their portfolio to Bitcoin or something very small, is the volatility then less of a concern? And number two is if there’s an overall movement like a wave of institutions, pension funds and so on, nation states that adopt Bitcoin, wouldn’t that necessarily reduce the volatility because it would add so much gravity to that asset and reduce the swings in price? Well, that’s possible. But but to be honest, I’m kind of the old school investment. So in fact, the base of all my investments are related around the brown portfolio, which is an equal allocation in cash, bonds, equities and physical gold.

And I mean, from there, you can adapt the portfolio over the business cycle. But I would say that as a professional investor, if you own one percent of your portfolio in Bitcoin, even if Bitcoin double over the over the one year period, I mean, the impact on your portfolio will be very minimum. While I also have the experience that the most painful for a portfolio manager is to explain the losses in a portfolio.

And again, if I have a 25 or 50 percent drawdown on this one percent, I most likely will spend most of my time justifying this one percent against the 99 percent of the rest of the portfolio. So that’s why from a professional investment point of view, I think that Bitcoin is an entertainment which is not necessary in terms of asset allocation. It’s much more important to allocate the portfolio rightly between bonds, cash, gold and equities rather than to spend too much time to allocate one or even two or three or even five percent to the portfolio.

Bitcoin won’t change much at the end of the day. And I would think that in the current environment, what I can notice is that institutional investors are still underweight physical gold. As I said, on a neutral basis, they should own at least 25 percent of the portfolio in physical gold.

And I have not seen any banking portfolio with a 25 percent allocation to physical gold so far. So I would think that, as I said, from a portfolio management point of view, it’s an entertainment rather than something that is needed. Yeah, that’s a really good point that you have to explain Bitcoin’s drawdowns to your clients.

And not only would you have to believe in the asset and the allocation and the portfolio, but you’d have to convince them to believe in it. And if they don’t already believe in it, that’s a that’s a really tough sell. So I’ve lived that the last 10 years.

I’ve been trying to convince people about the merits of Bitcoin and gold for that matter. And it can be quite challenging. So so I can totally relate to you.

Interesting. So, yeah, you mentioned the brown portfolio, four assets, 25 percent allocation to each stocks, bonds, gold and cash, and then then adjust based on the business cycle. Interesting.

Yeah, I like it. In fact, if I may, this brown portfolio, if you do nothing and you recalibrate at 25 percent allocation across the four asset class over the long term, it will give you a 4 percent real return, meaning on top of CPI, meaning that this is what I call the lazy portfolio and the rest is just to to deliver a performance above this 4 percent real return. And as I said, in the current environment, most investors are still too much underweight physical gold and too much overweight bonds.

And I think that this should be the primary focus of every investor today is to realize that the most risky asset class in the current environment is and remain bonds. Yeah, that’s a great point. I probably agree with you.

Yeah. The most the riskiest asset class today is bonds. Yeah, I think so, too.

You expect it will be in a rising interest rate environment for the foreseeable future next 10 or 20 years or so. Well, I think if you look back at history and I mean, study what happened when tariffs are implemented, usually the global economy is moving into a stagflation or an inflationary bus. So in this environment, you should not own bonds.

You should only own gold, in fact. So in fact, you should not own 25, but probably 40 to 50 percent of your portfolio in physical gold. And the balance should be in high quality stocks, meaning that not the stocks that are in the NASDAQ, but the stocks that are the blue chip companies in the dojo.

And that’s why, again, if we come back to Bitcoin, I mean, given that is highly correlated with the NASDAQ, in fact, by adding Bitcoin, in fact, you add more problem that you already have, because nowadays most investors are still mostly overweight NASDAQ compared to the dojo, for instance. Yeah, that makes sense. Yeah.

So interesting. Gold 40 to 50 percent in place of those bonds. Yeah, I like that.

I like that. Beautiful. OK, so the second chart you have here is the Bitcoin to gold ratio.

That’s the red line. And you point out how the peaks of that ratio align with the high in the NASDAQ. So in the end of 2021, we see one of those peaks and then basically present day, early 2025, we see another alignment of peaks.

So how do you interpret this chart? What significance does it have to you? Well, again, in fact, this Bitcoin to gold ratio, I use it as a leading indicator in terms of asset allocation, in terms of equities. And this ratio, I mean, of course, we don’t have a long time of history because also Bitcoin doesn’t have a long term history to trade back. But I guess this is kind of an indicator that should point that a lot of trouble are coming for investors who are still invested in NASDAQ stock and who have not yet understood that there’s a rotation coming in.

And so, in fact, I’m trying to implement trading strategies using this Bitcoin to gold ratio to allocate my client’s portfolio in terms of sector allocation in the equity space. OK, very nice. So, yeah, as that Bitcoin to gold ratio comes down, that basically means gold is outperforming Bitcoin.

And there’s some pretty significant drawdowns here that last more than a year, right? Like pretty much all of 2022, for example, much of 2024. Interesting. Do you notice any false positives in this chart? Like I’m looking at the red line and I see early 2021, we had a drawdown in that Bitcoin to gold ratio without an accompanying correction in the NASDAQ.

And then something similar in early 2024, that ratio came down without a decline in the NASDAQ. Does that hold any significance to you? Yeah, that’s right. I mean, it’s not a bulletproof indicator, but I would think that, as I said, it’s a warning sign that when gold significantly outperforms Bitcoin, meaning this Bitcoin to gold ratio is entering a downtrend.

In fact, it’s usually the canary in the coal mine for the performance of the NASDAQ. I guess the best example was in 2022, where in fact, the Bitcoin to gold ratio peak at the end of 2021. And we all know that 2022 was quite painful for investors in Bitcoin as well as investors in tech stocks.

Yeah, absolutely. And so the conclusion here is, well, so you’re basically expecting, I think from hearing you speak otherwise, you’re expecting the Bitcoin to gold ratio to continue falling this year throughout 2025. And does that mean you’re also expecting the NASDAQ to continue falling? Well, I think this is my conclusion.

In fact, I mean, we had a peak in late November, early December, and then it was kind of the start of the rotation in terms of equity allocation. So I mean, when I look at other indicators around the business cycle, I think that we are set for a massive underperformance of Bitcoin versus gold in 2025. And therefore, we will see a massive reallocation across equities.

And I mean, if you remember, in fact, the performance of gold against Bitcoin was one of my 10 predictions for the year. I think that, I mean, we are about three months in the year. I’m quite in a good shape on that one.

And I’m quite confident, in fact, that we will see further outperformance of gold versus Bitcoin in the next nine months. Yeah, I remember that prediction for sure. Yeah, I would just say careful because Bitcoin can surprise in both directions.

We know that it’s extremely volatile. And looking at 2024, you know, the first couple of months, the Bitcoin to gold ratio was down early. So gold was outperforming.

And then, you know, we can see what happened. Bitcoin had some fantastic months in there to sort of make up the difference. If I may say, it will all depend on the evolution of the business cycle.

And since the evolution of the business cycle is mostly related to the policies implemented by the disruptor in chief at the White House, I guess that we will see what, I mean, if he’s keeping his tariff policies in place and push even more pressure on the rest of the world. In fact, I guess that we will see even more outperformance of gold versus Bitcoin in the next nine months. Yeah, that’s funny.

The disruptor in chief. It’s funny. It’s like, I think of him as like Mr. Volatility.

You know, it’s like, at all costs, he doesn’t want people to know what he’s going to do. You know, shake it up. You know, the business cycle, stock markets, tariffs.

I mean, is he going to go to war? Or is he going to sue for peace? Is he going to cancel a deal? Is he going to enforce it? I mean, tough. I would say that. I mean, that’s true.

There’s a lot of volatility, but I would say the lesson that we can draw from the first three months of the year, since it’s almost the end of the first quarter, is that, I mean, since the start of the year, we have seen this underperformance of Bitcoin against gold. We have seen this underperformance of the Nasdaq against the dojo. So I guess that a lot of investors have already kind of positioned or have started to be positioned for this move in the business cycle from the current inflationary boom into the inflationary burst that is coming.

And unfortunately, I would think that if the policies stay in place as they are, in fact, the Trump stagflation looks inevitable and could last, in fact, for the rest of his mandate, meaning that we could be in a cycle of four years in this trend. Wow. OK, that’s a bold claim.

I think that’s absolutely plausible. So you’re thinking that we could enter a stagflationary period, so massive inflation with recessionary bust, and that could last throughout Trump’s entire administration, four years. I think that’s plausible for sure.

How much do you think politics is entering the equation? Because Trump has hinted or maybe even quite strongly that if a recession comes now pretty promptly, that it’s the previous administration’s fault. So do you think he’s actually trying to speed up a recession and get to it sooner? That way he can say, you know, it’s not my fault. Well, I’m not talking politics.

I know that the U.S. is highly partisan nowadays. But I would think that the major issue for the U.S. will be related around its trade policies. And again, what he doesn’t understand, I’m sorry for him, he doesn’t understand that by imposing tariffs, he will penalize the U.S. consumer one way or the other because someone has to pay the bill of the tariff.

So it’s the company or it’s the consumer. Most likely it will be the consumer who will have to pay the bill of the tariff. And unfortunately for the U.S., the U.S. has been de-industrialized over the past 30 years.

So you cannot change this trend by imposing tariffs. It will take a long time for the U.S. to re-industrialize. He can brag about all the investments that are announced in the manufacturing sector in the U.S., but the issue that to build a manufacturing plant, it lasts at least 12 to 18 months if everything goes well.

If everything doesn’t go well, it’s 24 months or more. So meaning that all this amount of new investment announced in the U.S. will only be seen in the real economy, I would say, by mid-2026 or even later. I guess that, I mean, I hope for him that everything goes well and he can show some results before the midterm election.

But otherwise, I would think that it will take much longer. And the issue, in fact, in the U.S. is still that the U.S. government spends too much. It’s not a revenue issue, it’s a spending issue from the U.S. government side.

So I hope for him that DOJ is successful, but I guess it will be very difficult to have a meaningful impact on the U.S. deficit. Yes, I totally agree with you. And I’ve been thinking lately in the context of everything you just said with tariffs and inflation and all the different policies that are intended to help, whether or not they do, or if they take one year, two years, who knows.

But there’s the old adage, it’s easier to make a mess than to clean it up. It’s like an order of magnitude more effort to clean up a mess than it is to make it in the first place. And that’s one of the downsides, I think, to having an election cycle that’s every four years, which is relatively short compared to other regimes, is every time you get this turnover, you get someone who comes in that tries to clean up the mess of whoever was in there before.

And it’s just it’s simply way easier to make a mess the first few months, first year or so. And then it takes a long time to clean it up. And by the time that cleanup is bearing fruit, there’s a new election and there’s someone else coming in who says, no, that’s not the right way to do it.

Let’s make a mess of everything again. So it’s like this feedback loop where things just get worse and worse for decades and everyone’s perpetually cleaning up. I think that what needs to be addressed is the spending issue.

So as I said, Doge is a positive sign, but it’s for now a drop in the bucket in terms of the U.S. deficit. And the other issue is to settle a global peace, which will be also much more difficult than four years ago or even eight years ago, because a lot of damage has been done in terms of trust that other countries can have in terms of signing a peace agreement with the U.S. and its allies. And so I think that, I mean, to sign a peace agreement, you need to be true.

And sometimes the second side is not really keen to trust anymore the U.S. administration, because as you said, nobody knows in four years or even in two years when the midterm election is coming, if there’s no change in terms of the foreign policy of the U.S. So I don’t think a lot of leaders in the global south, in Asia and in Eastern Europe are ready to take the risk again. They took the same risk almost 10 years ago and it was not really a good bet from their side. So, I mean, clearly there are a lot of challenges ahead for President Trump.

I wish him good luck. But I think that he’s on the wrong path in terms of the tariff. What is needed is first cut government spending.

They need to cut the tax rate. And by cutting the tax rate and cutting regulation, easing regulation, cutting government spending, in fact, they will bring back U.S. corporate in the U.S. The tariff will not change much. It will just bring some money back in terms of investment.

But, I mean, most U.S. corporates move outside of the U.S. because of the cost of production and because the tight regulation and because also the high level of taxation. Yeah, I agree with you. Tariffs aren’t going to help much.

The path forward is reduce government spending, reduce regulation, reduce the tariffs and incentivize all that business to come back. So I agree. All right.

Let’s turn to our third chart here. We’ve got during market turmoil, Bitcoin lags gold. OK, so gold outperforming Bitcoin during market turmoil.

And as market turmoil, you’re using the VIX here as a proxy, the red line. So, yeah, tell me a bit about this chart. So, yeah, I mean, clearly, when we we see a rising in terms of volatility, we see Bitcoin underperforming gold.

So, again, you are not using Bitcoin as, I would say, an antifragile asset. What I like with gold, in fact, is its antifragile nature, meaning that as I said, is the only asset with no counterparty risk and is the asset that has traditionally been antifragile in terms of market turmoil or in terms of war. I mean, I don’t see Bitcoin doing very well during wartime.

And I also don’t see Bitcoin being this kind of antifragile asset. Yeah, I agree. It certainly hasn’t been for sure.

And yeah, gold gold obviously has a 5000 year history and it’s owned by most of the central banks of the world and many large institutional investors. So, yeah, it makes sense. It makes sense that gold provides that role in a portfolio and especially when volatility is maybe the Achilles heel of so many portfolios.

You can’t have those drawdowns, certainly not on an annual basis. It makes so much sense to be over allocated gold, no question. And it’s my hope and it’s sort of my bet and my thesis that Bitcoin will one day perform a role like that in a portfolio.

But of course, it’s not there yet. Of course. So no, no argument, no argument for me.

All right. Should we turn to chart four or do you want to you want to say anything else on this? OK, so let’s go to the next chart in economic downturns. Bitcoin falls behind gold.

And for economic downturns, we’re looking at the S&P and crude oil WTI. So why? First of all, why did you pick this ratio to sort of represent as a proxy for economic downturns? And then how do you interpret the relationship here on the chart? Well, in fact, I use this S&P to oil ratio as the way to see if the U.S. economy is in an economic boom or economic bust. The rationale behind that is just that the economy is just energy transformed.

So if the S&P to perform the WTI and is above the seven year moving average. In fact, it means that the U.S. companies are able to be profitable. Whatever is the input price of oil.

On the other side, if this S&P to oil ratio is in a downturn and break below its seven year moving average. In fact, it means that the U.S. economy is not able to deliver profit based on the input price of oil. And so, in fact, here I focus on the last time we had an economic burst, which was around 2022, early 2023.

And in fact, at that time, it was also the time that we had the Bitcoin to gold ratio. So once again, I think that what it shows here is just that in times of uncertainty, investors are going back to the asset they know will protect them. And if we are, as we were in 2022, in an inflationary bust, in fact, gold is this asset that they should hold.

I like what you said there. The economy is just energy transformed. I really like that.

I’ve been thinking in terms of like everything is energy. Nikola Tesla said, if you want to understand the secrets of the universe, think in terms of energy, frequency and vibration. So, yeah, I like that.

The economy is just energy transformed. And yeah. OK, so basically when the S&P oil ratio drops below its seven year moving average, OK, then that implies we’re in an economic bust.

OK, why seven year? Where does that come from? Well, I would say I take a proxy of a seven year cycle. I mean, if you look back at history, I mean, seven years is usually around the time period of a traditional cycle. I mean, it’s a number that is arbitrary.

I mean, from my side, you can take eight years, you can take six years. But seven years is usually, I would say, the good time for an economic cycle. I would just add here is that since everything that we consume and we produce is using oil, that’s why I choose oil rather than another commodity to compare versus the S&P 500, because everything we wear, everything we use in our daily life are made of oil at the end of the day.

And so that’s why I think that the most important input is oil. In fact, this week I’m writing a newsletter which is about DOGE, debt, oil, gold and equity. And it’s a good summary.

So if the listener wants to take a read this week, they will understand what is behind this S&P to oil ratio and why the price of oil, the price of gold matter the most for the economy and all they should allocate around the business cycle. I like that. All right, DOGE, debt, oil, gold, equities.

OK, so hopefully we can, depending when this video airs, hopefully we can link to that letter in the description. That’s awesome. I can’t wait to read that.

OK, so zooming out, just looking at the charts you’ve presented here and sort of the conversation we’ve had to sum up, basically in a portfolio, most investors want to avoid volatility, which means you don’t want to have something as volatile as Bitcoin in your portfolio. Also, as a money manager, you don’t want to have to explain why one of the investments has a terrible year, for example, a massive drawdown in one year. That’s not a fun conversation.

And the correlation with Bitcoin and some riskier assets like the Nasdaq or the triple QQQ, that’s basically not performing any kind of diversification. That’s like amplifying volatility rather than diversifying. So it doesn’t have that doesn’t have that stability quality yet.

Is that sort of a general summary of how you feel about Bitcoin? Yes, I think it’s a good summary. Again, I’m coming back to this brown permanent portfolio. I mean, it’s made of gold, equity, debt and cash.

And any investor, in fact, should allocate their portfolio around these four asset class. The rest is an entertainment from my point of view. Okay.

You know, my thought is it just so happens, I went back and looked, I was pretty sure, but it just so happens that I’ve been an investor in gold and Bitcoin for almost exactly 10 years each. The first time I bought gold was July of 2015. So I bought them both in the same month.

And if we look at the Bitcoin gold ratio, for example, the green line in the last chart, we can see increasing minimums, right? I don’t think anyone is surprised by this. There’s increasing minimums, which basically means that over a 10 year period, Bitcoin has outperformed gold, of course. And, you know, I did the math recently and Bitcoin has outperformed gold by over a factor of 100.

So two orders of magnitude. So I think for someone like me or investors who have a decade long view, who don’t mind one year where you lose 30, 40, 50 percent, you know, it sucks. I’m not going to lie.

It sucks. But you can keep going if you believe in what you’re owning and, you know, you’re not going to give up on yourself. Unlike you might give up on your portfolio manager, your money manager.

So, yeah. So for a decade long viewpoint, I feel like you got to have at least a little Bitcoin. You know, even if you put one percent into Bitcoin and 99 percent into gold, after 10 years, you’d have more Bitcoin than gold.

So, you know, based on the last 10 years. So I’m a believer in Bitcoin. I think people should continue to learn about it and choose the right portfolio size.

And for a lot of portfolios, the right size is zero percent, for sure. For some, it’s one percent. For some, it might be more.

So anyways, that’s my thesis. Any reaction to that? Well, I mean, if some listeners have the risk appetite and the stomach of owning Bitcoin, I mean, it’s up to them. But as I said, if you want to come back to a more professional way of managing assets, I would think that you better own today 50 percent of your portfolio in gold rather than 2 percent in Bitcoin.

And again, I think that as of today, there are probably more people owning 2 percent of Bitcoin in their portfolio than 50 percent in physical gold. So I guess that investors should think twice and look back and on a longer time horizon. And if they want to sleep well at night, they should focus more on physical gold rather than on this 1 or 2 percent in Bitcoin.

I agree. I do think just about every investor is under allocated gold. And there’s more investors who are under allocated gold than who are under allocated Bitcoin.

I think that that’s probably true. And I mean, if you look at institutional investors, even if they move out of their allocation, they have currently in bonds into the physical gold market. I mean, gold can still easily double or even triple from here.

So when people tell me gold at $3,000 is expensive, but in a sovereign debt crisis scenario, and if investors are forced to move even 50 percent of their bond allocation into physical gold, I would think that gold can easily double or triple from current price. Yes, I agree. $3,000 gold is cheap.

It could easily double or triple. And yeah, and we are seeing a capital rotation event out of equities and probably out of bonds as well. I just am not as familiar with the numbers into gold.

So I do expect the price of gold to double or triple in the near future. Absolutely. Well, Laurent, thank you so much for sitting down with me today.

This has been an awesome discussion. Folks can get your article on Substack, right, at The Macro Butler. Anywhere else they can find you? Yeah, that’s right.

I’m on Substack at The Macro Butler. And if they are interested to contact me, they can send me an email at info at TheMacroButler.com. Info at TheMacroButler.com. Awesome. Thank you, Laurent, so much.

Appreciate it. Thank you.