July 31, 2026 Whenever economic growth begins to weaken, many investors instinctively turn their attention to gold and silver as traditional safe-haven assets. Yet reality is more complex than the familiar "safe haven" narrative. While both precious metals tend to benefit from periods of economic uncertainty over the long term, they often follow very different patterns during recessions. Investors who understand these differences can position their portfolios more effectively. Paradoxically, the prices of both gold—and especially silver—often decline during the initial stages of a severe crisis. This is not because investors suddenly lose confidence in precious metals, but because individuals and institutions urgently need liquidity. In times of market stress, investors frequently sell their most liquid assets, including gold and silver, to meet margin calls or raise cash. History Shows That Liquidity Comes First During the Initial Phase of a Crisis The global financial crisis of 2008 provides a clear example. As the crisis intensified, the gold price fell from nearly US$1,000 to around US$700 per ounce before recovering by year-end and eventually reaching new all-time highs. Silver suffered a much sharper decline, dropping from approximately US$21 to below US$9 per ounce, a decline of more than 50%, while gold lost only about 12% during the same period. A similar pattern emerged during the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic in March 2020. Both precious metals initially declined sharply, but silver once again proved considerably more volatile, falling from around US$18 to US$12 per ounce within just a few weeks. Gold also weakened but experienced a much more moderate correction. History repeatedly demonstrates that the urgent need for liquidity can temporarily drive down the prices of both gold and silver. Yet it also shows that investors who panic and sell during these periods often miss the powerful recovery that typically follows. Once the Recovery Begins, Silver Historically Outperforms Gold This is where the second—and perhaps most important—historical pattern emerges. During the recovery phase following a recession, silver has historically outperformed gold by a considerable margin. Following the 2008 financial crisis, silver gained approximately 400% from its lows, while gold appreciated by roughly 170%. This outperformance generally begins once the urgent need for liquidity subsides and investors return to risk assets. The same phenomenon occurred after the initial COVID-19 market shock. During 2020, silver advanced by nearly 48%, while gold gained approximately 25%. One of the primary reasons for silver's stronger performance is its dual role. Gold functions primarily as a monetary asset and store of value. Silver, by contrast, combines monetary demand with substantial industrial demand. As economic conditions improve, both sources of demand recover simultaneously, providing additional support for silver prices. Why Gold Performs Well During Recessions Gold benefits from several supportive factors during economic downturns. Central banks typically lower interest rates in an effort to stimulate economic activity, reducing the opportunity cost of holding a non-yielding asset such as gold. At the same time, demand increases for assets without counterparty risk, particularly as confidence in equities, bonds, and sometimes even financial institutions begins to deteriorate. A review of six major U.S. recessions shows that gold prices increased during five of those downturns, declining only modestly during the 1990–1991 recession. There is, however, an important exception. If central banks aggressively raise interest rates to combat inflation—as they did in the early 1980s, when U.S. interest rates reached nearly 20%—gold can come under pressure even while the broader economy is contracting. The Great Depression: An Extreme Case A depression differs from a normal recession in both its severity and duration and is often accompanied by deflation. During the Great Depression of the 1930s, the official U.S. gold price remained fixed at US$20.67 per ounce under the gold standard. Gold's ability to preserve wealth therefore appeared not through price appreciation but through its purchasing power. As consumer prices fell by approximately 24%, gold maintained its nominal value, resulting in a significant increase in real purchasing power. In 1934, U.S. President Franklin D. Roosevelt raised the official gold price to US$35 per ounce, effectively increasing its value by approximately 69% overnight. This change resulted from government policy rather than market forces. At roughly the same time, the U.S. government issued Executive Order 6102, requiring private citizens to surrender much of their gold holdings. This historical episode illustrates that during severe depressions characterized by fixed exchange rates or a gold standard, government policy may exert greater influence over precious metals than normal market supply and demand. Similar developments occurred in Europe during the Napoleonic Wars, when Austria, following its defeat at the Battle of Austerlitz, devalued its currency by roughly 80% against gold. What This Means for Investors Several practical lessons emerge from history. First, short-term declines in gold—and particularly in silver—during the early stages of a crisis should not be interpreted as evidence that precious metals have failed. Rather, they reflect the market's temporary scramble for liquidity. Second, investors who maintain long-term holdings of physical gold and silver in the form of coins or bullion have historically benefited disproportionately from the subsequent recovery, with silver generally delivering the stronger rebound. Third, stagflationary environments—where weak economic growth coincides with persistent inflation, as experienced during the 1970s—have historically been particularly favorable for silver because both its monetary and industrial demand tend to strengthen simultaneously. For investors seeking to protect their wealth against the uncertainties of a recession—or even a full-scale depression—gold and silver should therefore be viewed not as short-term speculative trades, but as long-term components of a well-diversified investment portfolio. Source： https://goldinvest.de/en/gold-and-silver-during-a-recession-how-do-precious-metals-really-perform

This insight follows panel discussions at SMM’s London H1 2026 seminar, where one theme stood out clearly: funds are trumping fundamentals in today’s copper market. At first glance, the setup looks contradictory. There is no clear physical shortage of copper: near-term time spreads are in contango, signalling adequate supply; SMM forecasts a small global refined surplus in 2026; global exchange stocks are rising. On traditional metrics, prices should be softer. Yet LME copper remains elevated at around $13,000/t. This leads us to believe that copper is no longer trading purely on market fundamentals. So What Is Driving Copper Higher? Financial flows dominate price formation Speculative inflows since the middle of last year have played a key role in pushing copper higher. The recent rally following the initial shock of the US-Iran war is no exception. While some capital has rotated into energy markets recently, inflows into copper and broader commodities have remained resilient, supported by macro funds and systematic positioning. Momentum-driven strategies (CTAs, macro funds) have reinforced upside moves, especially during periods of positive price signals and cross-asset risk appetite. This can be seen from the bottom right hand-side chart which shows speculative positions from the LME’s Commitment of Traders Report (COTR). There has also been selective physical support, particularly from China, where downstream buying and restocking have contributed to declining local inventories at times. However, this physical demand has been opportunistic rather than structural, and insufficient on its own to explain the persistence of elevated prices. Overall, barring the initial geopolitical shock, copper price strength has been largely investor-led rather than consumer-led, with financial capital remaining the dominant marginal driver of price formation. A persistent geopolitical premium Supply risks remain elevated across key producing regions; energy and input cost volatility (e.g. sulphuric acid and diesel) adds uncertainty to production; trade fragmentation and resource nationalism are reshaping supply chains; copper is increasingly priced as a strategic resource, not just a commodity. Policy distortions — particularly from the US Tariff expectations and US government policy aimed at securing domestic supply chains — including potential import tariffs on copper, incentives for local processing, and broader reshoring of manufacturing — have triggered regional stockpiling. This has tightened availability ex-US and distorted global trade flows, as material is increasingly drawn into the US market. In effect, policy is creating artificial tightness in specific regions, even as the global market remains broadly balanced. Structural narrative outweighs current balance Electrification, grid expansion, and AI infrastructure continue to anchor long-term demand; supply constraints (declining ore grades, permitting delays) remain unresolved. As such, the market is pricing future deficits today, not current surplus. Why Surplus Does Not Equal Lower Prices The key misunderstanding in today’s market is treating copper like a static balance sheet. The surplus is marginal and unevenly distributed. Inventories are not necessarily located where demand is strongest. The market reacts to marginal tightness and risk, not annual average. Most importantly, copper is a forward-looking asset — it prices sentiment and expectations, not just spot fundamentals. How Traders Think About Copper Now Copper price formation has evolved into a multi‑layered system according to our panellists: Price = Fundamentals + Financial Flows + Macro + Narrative By this, we mean that copper prices are driven by four interacting components — Fundamentals, Financial Flows, Macro, and Narrative — and traders now analyse each layer in more depth to anticipate price direction. They: Watch financial conditions — positioning, flows, momentum, correlations Traders look at who holds risk, how strong the flows are, and whether momentum is building or fading. Cross‑asset signals — especially from US equities and major commodity indices — show whether copper is trading as part of a broader risk‑on move or reacting to something more specific. Track macro drivers — interest rates, policy, USD, liquidity Copper reacts quickly to shifts in US real yields, Fed expectations, and the strength of the dollar. Easier financial conditions or a weaker USD can lift prices even when demand is soft. Global liquidity trends, including China’s credit cycle, influence how much speculative capital enters the market. Monitor policy and geopolitics — tariffs, sanctions, trade flows, disruptions Policy decisions now move copper as much as fundamentals. Tariffs, sanctions, and export controls reshape trade flows and create regional imbalances. Geopolitical tensions and supply disruptions — from strikes to permitting delays — reinforce the market’s focus on future scarcity. Stay grounded in physical stress points — inventories, premiums, scrap Headline stocks matter less than where the metal sits. Traders watch regional inventory tightness, premiums, treatment charges, and scrap availability to understand real physical stress. These signals reveal whether the market is genuinely tight or simply trading a narrative. The consensus is that as long as capital flows remain strong, geopolitical risks persist, and the market prices future scarcity, copper can stay elevated — even in surplus. Where Next for Copper? As for immediate near-term dynamics, the copper market is treading water, increasingly driven by headline risk. Recent price action has been closely tied to developments around the Iran crisis, highlighting just how far copper has shifted into the macro arena. The closure of the Strait of Hormuz presents a two-sided risk for copper: On the bullish side , the Gulf is a major exporter of sulphur, a critical input for sulphuric acid used in leaching processes. With solvent extraction and electrowinning accounting for roughly a quarter of global refined output, continued disruptions to acid supply could tighten production, particularly in the DRC, and support prices. On the bearish side , higher energy prices risk triggering a broader slowdown in global manufacturing, weakening copper demand. The longer the disruptions persist, the greater the downside risk to consumption. With investors firmly in control of price formation, copper has effectively become part of a multi-asset macro trade on the trajectory of the Iran conflict. In this environment, both bulls and bears are less anchored to supply-demand balances and more dependent on the next geopolitical headline. Author: Shairaz Ahmed, Principal Market Analyst For more information or to discuss market dynamics, you can contact me on shairazahmed@smm.cn

Over the past 3 decades, China’s new energy vehicle (NEV) industry has expanded rapidly under strong policy support, adopting a multi-track electrification strategy that advances both battery electric vehicles (BEVs) and diverse hybrid technologies. As hybrid powertrains such as HEVs, PHEVs, and REEVs gain prominence amid tightening global environmental regulations, regional electrification pathways are increasingly diverging, with Asia favoring pragmatic hybrid-led transitions and Europe moving toward a more flexible electrification framework rather than a single BEV-centric model.

Ireland has reached a significant renewable energy milestone, with the national trade association, Solar Ireland, announcing that installed rooftop solar capacity has surpassed 1 GW. This capacity is distributed across more than 170,000 rooftops nationwide, a figure that is growing by approximately 50,000 installations annually according to distribution operator ESB Networks. To celebrate the achievement, stakeholders gathered at Fingallians GAA Club in Dublin to unveil a new 120-panel system that exemplifies the sector's value, offering a payback period of just three to five years. The rapid growth is attributed to a successful alignment of industry capability and government policy, notably the Sustainable Energy Authority of Ireland's (SEAI) decision to maintain residential grants at €1,800 through 2026. With Ireland's total solar capacity across all types now reaching 2.1 GW, officials view this progress as proof that consistent support and targeted investment are effectively driving the country’s climate solutions.

Indian renewable energy company NavPrakriti Green Energies has announced that its lithium-ion battery recycling plant near Kolkata has officially started operations. The facility is set to become an important hub for battery recycling and critical mineral recovery in Eastern India, addressing a gap in local battery waste management. Company founder Akhilesh Bagaria stated that Prime Minister Modi’s focus on the circular economy and sustainable technology has spurred a wave of innovation in the country. NavPrakriti’s facility demonstrates the potential of indigenous technology and local entrepreneurship, making it the first enterprise in Eastern India to support government policy while tackling the urgent issue of battery waste.

Malaysia is positioning itself as Southeast Asia’s next hub for EV battery recycling, with government policy, private investment, and global demand converging to drive growth. From early pilots to large-scale projects and new regulations, Malaysia’s black mass industry is moving rapidly toward commercialization, aiming to build capacity, strengthen ESG standards, and compete with China in the regional supply chain.