Jeremy Saffron interviews Jeff Whitaker of WisdomTree about why gold, silver, and copper can still work even after their sharp pullback, arguing that most portfolios remain near-zero allocated to metals and that prior Fed easing still supports risk assets and precious metals with a lag.
Watch on YouTube ›Get the market thesis, key claims, assets, contradictions, and follow-up questions from any financial video — then unlock a version personalized to your portfolio, watchlist, and favorite speakers.
The segment opens with Jeremy Saffron framing the recent violent repricing in precious metals: gold has pulled back from a parabolic move above $5,300 and is consolidating near $4,700, while silver has fallen from around $80 to the mid-$70s but remains up year to date. He positions the discussion as a challenge to institutional portfolio assumptions and introduces Jeff Whitaker, head of equity strategy at WisdomTree, whose team argues that zero allocation to physical metals is no longer neutral because gold represents a meaningful share of the global investable universe. Whitaker’s core argument is that most investors still own no gold or silver, even after the rally, and that this underownership is the real bull case. He says financial advisors and their clients generally remain concentrated in S&P 500 tracker funds and have not meaningfully added bullion or miners, despite the move. …
Tactically, the setup is a consolidation after a sharp metals run, so near-term risk is a volatility shakeout if rates or the dollar spike; the constructive trigger is continued strength in copper and stability in real yields.
Over the next few months, the base case is that delayed Fed easing and a non-recessionary growth backdrop keep metals supported, with the next leg depending on whether institutions start adding small allocations rather than sitting at zero.
Structurally, the interview argues that precious metals are re-entering the strategic portfolio conversation because 60/40 diversification has weakened and zero allocation is increasingly hard to defend in a world of policy uncertainty and persistent macro shocks.
Most financial advisors and institutional portfolios still have 0% exposure to gold and gold miners.
Weniger repeatedly says advisors still do not own any gold or silver and that he sees many portfolios with zero gold and zero gold miners.
Zero allocation to precious metals is no longer a neutral portfolio position.
He frames zero gold as a structural underweight rather than a neutral stance because gold is a meaningful share of the global investable market.
The market is overly focused on current Fed leadership and not enough on the lagged effects of prior rate cuts.
He argues that cuts from late 2024 and late 2025 still support risk assets and metals with a long lag.
What is happening with silver, and what is the market missing given the pullback and the surge in Chinese silver imports?
Weniger says investors were spoiled by the recent rally, that most Western portfolios own little or no silver, and that Chinese demand may reflect a broader rethink of portfolios as property no longer looks like a guaranteed path to wealth.
What are investors actually doing right now: are they adding gold and silver, or still sitting on the sidelines?
Weniger says ETF flows remain dominated by S&P 500 products, while gold bullion and gold miners still show surprisingly low creation activity and portfolio exposure.
Why should investors still care about the liquidity effects of past easing when the curve is now pricing out rate cuts for 2026?
Weniger says the real issue is the cumulative effect of cuts already delivered, especially the late-2024 and late-2025 moves, which he believes still support risk assets and reduce opportunity cost for metals.
Unlock the full claims, asset map, scores, related transcripts, follow-up questions, and AI chat — shaped around your portfolio, watchlist, favorite speakers, and risks.
