u/SDBcop

I was watching this unfold this morning. Bessent announced the Treasury is doubling its buybacks, explicitly to keep the 10- and 30-year from running. The 10y dropped to 4.64% then bounced back to 4.67% while I was looking. The 30y sat around 5.21%. Gold went through $4,550 on the futures, spot near $4,544.

The thing that bugs me is how many people are calling this money printing. It is not. The Fed is not even involved. A buyback is the Treasury buying its own bonds back, and it funds that by issuing new debt. Mostly short bills, because issuing new long bonds to buy back old long bonds would accomplish nothing.

So it is a maturity swap, not a debt reduction. Fixed long debt becomes short bills you roll forever. Total debt does not shrink. And the interest bill can actually go up, because if the short paper you are issuing costs more than the long debt you are retiring, every rollover costs more, not less.

What matters for gold is even simpler. The government is now saying out loud it cannot let the 10y rise. That is suppressing the symptom, not treating the cause. Suppress nominal yields while inflation is still sticky and real yields fall. Gold trades inverse to real yields. And this is also a signal about the dollar itself, which is where gold, with no issuer and no counterparty, wins.

I am not pretending it is a straight line. Japan ran yield control for years without the yen breaking. One day above $4,500 proves nothing. If inflation dies or the dollar strengthens for other reasons, this reverses.

But the reason I think today is a preview and not a top: they chose to suppress the symptom instead of doing anything about the deficit. Every step further down that road, more short issuance, a bigger interest bill, then the pressure to actually monetize it, is good for gold. Today is pricing step one, not the whole chain.

I hold gold, so I am biased. Check it yourself. The number that would make me reconsider fastest is the actual size of the buyback relative to the market, or how much of the funding is short versus long. What are you watching?

The US Treasury reportedly doubled its bond buyback program to hold down the 10- and 30-year yield. Long yields fell, and gold pushed toward $4,550 on the December futures while spot traded near $4,544.

For Canadian investors this is not just a US story. The TSX is one of the most gold-heavy developed markets in the world, and our miners sell their product in USD while paying most of their costs in CAD. So the transmission matters twice.

The mechanism, briefly — a Treasury buyback is not money printing (that is the Fed). It is the government buying back its own bonds using newly issued short-term debt. So it is a maturity swap: fixed long debt becomes short bills that must roll over constantly. Total debt does not shrink.

Why it points at gold — it suppresses the symptom, not the cause (the deficit), and it can raise the interest bill if short funding costs more than the retired long debt. More importantly, it signals the government cannot tolerate higher long yields. Suppress nominal yields while inflation is sticky, and real yields fall. That is the wind at gold's back.

Why Canadian miners specifically — a higher gold price in USD is the clearest revenue tailwind a Canadian gold producer can get. If the same forces also weaken the USD versus the CAD, the effect on the CAD is a mixed bag, but for gold miners the USD revenue against CAD costs is the sweet spot. The macro helps the sector; each company still has to execute.

The honest objection — Japan. Yield control can last for years without breaking a currency. One day of gold above $4,500 proves nothing; one session is a hook, not a verdict.

Why I still read today as a preview — the Treasury chose to suppress the symptom instead of restoring fiscal discipline. Each step down that path, more short issuance, a rising interest bill, dollar pressure, then the temptation to monetize, is gold-positive. Today prices the first step, not the whole chain.

Educational analysis, not investment advice. I hold a personal gold position, so assume bias and check the numbers.

What data would make you change your mind: the size of the actual buyback, the short versus long funding split, or the real-yield trend?

**US indexes fell (**S&P 500 -0.69%, Nasdaq -1.33%, TSX -0.82%) and gold dipped on the day a Strait of Hormuz attack pushed Brent back above $90. The front-month GC=F contract closed at $4,393.50, down 0.55%. Miners fell more than the metal (GDXJ -4.12%), which is their higher beta, not a separate signal.

Our scanner flagged 127 volume anomalies: 58 up, 58 down, 11 flat. The top was two M&A situations (a capped all-cash deal and a takeover bid), not organic moves.

One name survived the red tape and earned a full review: K2 Gold (KTO.V). Fresh high-grade results at Mojave, 2 km north of Newmont, funded and permitted, led by the ex-Kaminak chairman who sold to Goldcorp. Strong setup. We still put it at Watch.

The reason is the lesson of the day: California has not permitted a major gold mine in decades. We would rather avoid binary pre-resource bets and protect capital, even if it means buying later and paying up after the risk is gone. Capital protection is the value we sell.

Educational, not advice.

TL;DR: On Saturday we ran a full Level 2 on $RAK.V (Rackla Metals) and put it on our watchlist at 0% sizing. The thesis: the "no news" move had a real catalyst underneath - a 2026 drill program to verify a historical tungsten resource. This morning the company confirmed the first drilling at Lentung since 1982: about 10,000 metres, NI 43-101 targeted Q1 2027. The stock is up 18.6% today on 15.6 times volume. Nothing else changes: still a watch, still 0%, risks intact.

Quick recap for the new readers. Rackla is a Vancouver junior built on a gold thesis that failed in 2025 (about -90%). The pivot is real: Lentung (100%), a 1977-1982 Union Carbide historical resource of 2.82 Mt at 1.27% WO3, in a market where APT exploded to about US$3,200/MTU (+350% y/y, Chinese export controls). An 18% holder bought 800,000 shares at C$0.152 on August 6 (SEDI, public). The risks: historical grades never verified by Rackla, a disclosed C$80k paid marketing program, thin liquidity, dilution history.

What changed today. The event we said we were waiting for - within 48h of our write-up. Primary source (08-17): drilling has begun at Lentung, ~10,000m planned (4,000m core + 6,000m RC), modern reporting targeted Q1 2027. The 27 twinning holes meant to confirm Union Carbide are now in the ground - binary catalyst engaged.

What does not change. +18.6% today does not de-risk any of the risks we listed Saturday: unverified resource, paid promotion, thin liquidity, the -90% 2025 precedent. Still a watch at 0% sizing. We raise conviction only if first twinning results confirm >1% WO3 and the NI 43-101 moves forward. We cut, not chase, if the twin fails to reproduce grades.

The lesson: a stock that "moves with no news" almost always has news - you have to read filings, not the chart. That is why our scanner now has a dedicated setup for "resurrection": every long-dead name waking up gets a forensic pass before it touches our watchlist.

Educational content and our personal process, not investment advice. Do your own DD. We hold no position in RAK.V.

TL;DR: Monday was a slow tape with real corporate action on two names we follow. Our scanner ran 132 volume anomalies (80 up, 43 down, 9 flat). Gold rose while US indexes fell. Two of our tracked names delivered verified primary catalysts: $RAK.V confirmed this morning that drilling has started at its tungsten project for the first time since 1982, and $WPG.V bought back the 2% royalty on its second target for US$960,000 cash, taking 100% ownership before its maiden resource. No new call from us: same ratings, same sizes, no Level 2 candidate today.

How we work (the process behind this post, so you can grade us). One scan, end of day, four lanes of volume anomalies across Canada and the US. Only qualified rows are read - 132 today. The top 50 is then checked against our own registry: repeat names, existing passes, our watchlist. Every followed name with a fresh headline goes to the primary source (company press release) before we repeat a number or a claim. Any Level 2 deep dive happens only with explicit approval. We are a small independent educational shop, not a newsletter machine: 5 to 15 candidates a day max, and we say "nothing to see" when there is nothing.

Today's numbers. S&P 500 -0.52% at 7,745.06; Nasdaq -0.32% at 26,644.91; TSX -0.17% at 36,667.92. Gold went the other way: spot at US$4,423.90 (Kitco bid) and the front-month contract at US$4,473.10. We always quote the two instruments separately. Breadth in our filtered queue: 80 up, 43 down, 9 flat. A bigger and more negative queue than Friday's.

RAK.V - the Watch from our weekend DD fired its first catalyst this morning. We published the full write-up on Saturday after a redditor asked about the "move with no news". The no-news story was wrong then: there is a 2026 drill program on the tungsten project (Lentung, 100%, historical Union Carbide resource), a declared insider buy (800k shares at C$0.152 on Aug 6), and a disclosed C$80k paid marketing program. Today the company announced the first drilling at Lentung since 1982: about 10,000 metres planned (4,000 diamond + 6,000 reverse circulation), targeting a raw NI 43-101 in Q1 2027. The stock is up 18.6% on 15.6 times volume - the catalyst fired. Nothing changes: historical resource is unverified, promotion is paid, liquidity is thin, 2025 precedent was -90%. Watch, 0% sizing, we do not chase.

WPG.V - a quiet management signal we think is under-appreciated (covered in our free report, so we can name it). West Point Gold bought back the 2% net smelter royalty and future bonus payments on 107 claims covering Black Dyke and Bull 8: US$960,000 in cash, 100% ownership. The timing is the tell: they removed the royalty BEFORE the expected maiden resource at Gold Chain. Management rarely spend cash to buy back a royalty when the disclosed numbers are the whole story. That is a signal, not a guarantee - the resource is still to come, and gold projects fail. Rating stays Strong Buy, same size, same discipline.

What we did NOT do today. No new call, no new Level 2, no rank change. A Watch name moved +22.6% with no corporate release: we logged it as an open question, not a catalyst. That discipline is the whole point.

Educational content and our personal process. Not investment advice. Do your own due diligence. We hold no position in RAK.V (0% sizing) and a personal position in WPG.V, disclosed in full.

TL;DR: $RAK.V (Rackla Metals) showed up on our Friday scan as an oversold bounce after being dead for about a year. A redditor asked "no news, worth a small speculation?" We ran a full Level 2. The "no news" was wrong: there is a real catalyst (a 2026 drill program on a different metal with a NI 43-101 resource targeted), a public insider buy (a large holder bought 800,000 shares the day of the volume spike, declared and legal), and a paid marketing program. We added it to our watchlist at 0% sizing. Not a buy: unverified historical resource, active promotion, thin liquidity.

The setup. Our Friday scan flagged Rackla Metals (TSX-V: RAK) as an oversold bounce. The name had been dead for about a year: it lost most of its value over 12 months and was still near its 52-week floor, but it had started waking up with real volume over a few weeks.

A redditor did not scroll past. They asked: this thing is up with "no news", is it worth a small speculation? That is a fair question, and it is exactly the kind of setup where the answer matters. So we ran our full Level 2: deck, filings, capital structure, insiders, promotion, comparables, red team.

What we found. The "no news" was wrong on three counts.

First, the original thesis failed. RAK was built on a Yukon gold thesis (RIRGS). In 2025 the company drilled 4,500m and the results fell well short of expectations; the stock lost about 90%. That history is the reason to stay humble here.

Second, the pivot is real. The company moved to tungsten: Lentung (100%), a 1980 Union Carbide historical resource of 2.82 Mt at 1.27% WO3 with zones up to 10% WO3, 60 km from the old Cantung mine and 127 km from Fireweed's Mactung. A 2026 program (10,000m) is running with a NI 43-101 targeted for Q4 2026/Q1 2027, in a market where APT has exploded to about US$3,200/MTU (+350% y/y, Chinese export controls). Note the word "historical": this resource was drilled in 1977-1982 and has never been verified by Rackla. The company is now twinning 27 historical holes to try to confirm it. That is the whole bet.

Third, the tape has both sides. An 18% holder bought 800,000 shares at C$0.152 on August 6, the day of the big volume, in a public SEDI filing. That is real, declared, legal. At the same time, Rackla signed a paid marketing program (CanaCom, C$80k over 12 months) in July, plus paid or semi-paid coverage. So part of the August volume is bought flow. The move is a catalyst plus promotion, not pure signal.

The lesson became a feature. A long-dead name waking up is the most interesting and the most dangerous pattern in small caps. So we added it to our scanner as a distinct setup: "resurrection". Every name that triggers it now gets a mandatory forensic pass: insiders, fully-diluted structure, paid promotion, management track record.

Where it landed. Watchlist addition, 0% sizing. We do not chase. What would change our mind: twinning results confirming the historical grades (above 1% WO3) with a NI 43-101 underway. Until then, the risks dominate: unverified resource, active promotion, thin liquidity (about C$25-60k of dollar volume on a quiet day), a dilution history, and the 2025 precedent of a -90% drawdown.

Educational content and our personal process, not investment advice. Do your own DD.

Five official scans produced 784 qualifying volume rows this week.

That does not mean 784 unique stocks, and it definitely does not mean 784 ideas. A company can repeat across several days. Unusual volume can be accumulation, distribution, a forced rebound or a one-day reaction to news.

Friday’s top 50 was mostly oversold bounces, weak follow-through, thin dollar volume, extended moves or companies without a current primary catalyst.

Two names earned a proposal for deeper research. Neither became a call.

That zero matters more to me than the raw scan count.

The dated record currently has 10 calls since June 16: +19.2% weighted by predefined conviction tiers, +13.6% equal-weighted, eight positive and one visible -17.2% loss.

Encouraging start, tiny sample.

A winning list can make almost any process look smart for a few weeks. A rejection log shows whether the process can also say no when the screen is noisy.

What would you rather see from someone posting small-cap research: only the final picks, or the rejected setups and the reason each one failed?

Positions: none in the two rejected candidates discussed here. I personally hold some names in the broader dated record. Not financial advice. Do your own DD.

I added a screenshot of a part of what the scanner saw on Friday to give an idea at the kind of stuff that pops out. I also added the screenshot of my ledger as "proof".

https://preview.redd.it/1d0nzb0uzqjh1.png?width=1348&format=png&auto=webp&s=61008cfa915082227faf633ccccb0a97c0fd988f

https://preview.redd.it/1ba8cvcvzqjh1.png?width=1758&format=png&auto=webp&s=98b1d0a34882abecde4c65cf601c1fdbeebea74a

784 volume flags, +19.2% weighted on 10 dated calls

784 flags is a count of attention, not a list of ideas. The same company can appear on more than one day, and unusual volume can mark accumulation, distribution, a forced rebound or a one-day reaction. A flag opens the work. It does not settle it.

TL;DR: Five scanner runs produced 784 qualifying rows this week, but Friday's top 50 narrowed to three names worth deeper research and all three ended the week at Watch with zero positions. Our ten dated tool calls closed the week at +19.2% weighted by our ratings and +13.6% equal-weighted, with eight positive and six of ten beating their own benchmark. Encouraging, tiny sample, losses included.

784 flags is a count of attention, not a list of ideas. The same company can appear on more than one day, and unusual volume can mark accumulation, distribution, a forced rebound or a one-day reaction. A flag opens the work. It does not settle it.

Friday made that concrete. The scanner printed 124 qualified rows, 87 up, 28 down, nine flat. Most of the top 50 were oversold bounces, no-follow-through structures, thin dollar-volume names, or moves too extended for the chart to carry a thesis.

Three names cleared the bar for deeper work. A gold producer, a vaccine developer and a seafood processor. Three sectors, three different stories, one verdict: Watch, zero positions. Members have the full files and the names.

The macro week rewarded the same restraint. Headline CPI rose 0.1% in July, headline PPI was flat and advance retail sales fell 0.6%. That reads like a clean slowdown until the details arrive: core CPI rose 0.2%, the PPI measure excluding food, energy and trade services rose 0.4%, and retail sales were still 5.0% above a year earlier, before price adjustment and revision.

One week adds evidence. It does not prove a new inflation, growth or Fed regime.

The call ledger gets the same caveat. Ten dated calls. +19.2% weighted by our sizing tiers, 70% to our convictions, 20% to Strong Buy and Buy, 10% to every speculative name combined. The equal-weighted read is +13.6%, published right beside it. Eight of ten were positive and six of ten beat their own sector benchmark over the matched window. Losses included, the worst call down 17%. Holdings that predate the tool excluded. The sample starts June 16.

That is a good start, not proof of a durable edge. The book is gold-heavy and the tape has helped. Some names we rejected have also risen sharply, which is the pass ledger doing its job as a warning rather than a trophy.

The next test is a less forgiving sector. If you were grading a young process, which would matter most: absolute return, benchmark-relative return, the rejection log, or how the calls behave in a bad month?

Sources:
US BLS CPI and PPI: https://www.bls.gov/news.release/cpi.nr0.htm and https://www.bls.gov/news.release/ppi.nr0.htm
US Census retail sales: https://www.census.gov/retail/sales.html

Educational content and personal assessment only. Not investment advice. Data through August 14, 2026.

TL;DR: July US advance retail sales fell 0.6% from June, while the S&P 500, Nasdaq and S&P/TSX Composite all finished slightly lower. Our filtered volume scan still leaned positive at 87 up, 28 down and nine flat, but only two names earned a proposal for deeper research. No new call.

The US Census Bureau reported July retail and food-services sales of US$763.6 billion. That was down 0.6% from June and up 5.0% from July 2025.

Three limits matter. The estimate is advanced and will be revised. It is seasonally adjusted, but not adjusted for price changes. One weak month does not establish a consumer trend.

This completes the week's CPI, PPI and retail-sales sequence. Headline CPI rose 0.1% in July, headline PPI was unchanged and retail sales fell 0.6%. The details were less uniformly soft: core CPI rose 0.2%, while the PPI measure excluding food, energy and trade services rose 0.4%.

That is evidence, not a regime call.

The S&P 500 slipped 0.17%, the Nasdaq lost 0.28% and the S&P/TSX Composite edged down 0.08%. These moves happened on the same day as the retail report. That does not prove the report caused them.

Our scanner produced 124 qualified volume anomalies: 93 in Canada and 31 in the US. Within that filtered research queue, 87 rose, 28 fell and nine were unchanged. This is scanner breadth, not the breadth of the entire market.

Most of the top 50 failed the next check. Some were oversold bounces. Others had no follow-through, weak dollar volume, no current primary catalyst or a price move that was already too extended to treat the chart as the thesis.

Two companies remain possible deeper-research candidates, but members must authorize that work before we open the filings and build an assessment. Until then, they are names in a queue, not picks.

The useful Friday conclusion is narrow: the advance retail estimate weakened, the broad indexes barely moved, and positive scanner breadth still produced only a tiny research shortlist.

What would change your view more from here: a retail-sales revision, the August 19 FOMC minutes, or another month of demand data?

Sources:
US Census Bureau, July 2026 retail sales: https://www.census.gov/retail/sales.html
US Bureau of Labor Statistics, July 2026 PPI: https://www.bls.gov/news.release/ppi.nr0.htm

Educational content and our personal assessment only. Not investment advice. Do your own due diligence.

TL;DR: NWST.V printed 31.6 times its normal-volume reference on August 13 and closed at C$0.27, below the C$0.35 hard-dollar financing completed in May. The geology is good enough to deserve real DD, but the old PEA had only a 12.7% after-tax IRR, the replacement study is late, and 34.1 million financing shares become tradable September 15. For me this is a Watch, not a Buy.

Position disclosure: No position in NWST.V or NWCCF.

THE SETUP

NorthWest Copper owns 100% of Kwanika-Stardust in British Columbia. On August 13, the stock closed at C$0.27, up 3.85%, with about C$573,000 traded. The volume ratio was 31.63x against its 50-day median reference.

I could not tie that spike to a fresh corporate release. So I treated the tape as a research trigger, not a catalyst.

WHY THIS IS NOT JUST ANOTHER EMPTY VENTURE STORY

The 2025 drilling produced genuinely strong copper-gold intersections. Hole K-25-280 included 36 metres at 0.80% Cu and 3.21 g/t Au, or 3.67% CuEq. Hole K-25-273 returned 123 metres at 1.31% Cu and 0.83 g/t Au from 28 metres.

The company also closed a fully subscribed C$13.8 million brokered placement led by Stifel Canada and Canaccord. The deal included 10.61 million hard-dollar units at C$0.35, 19.00 million flow-through units at C$0.41 and 4.51 million charity flow-through units at C$0.515. Each unit carried half a C$0.45 warrant.

That capital funds the updated PEA and up to 10,000 metres of 2026 drilling. Insiders participated for 461,000 hard-dollar units. Those are legitimate positives.

THE PART THE PROMO VERSION LEAVES OUT

The 2023 PEA did not clear a strong economic hurdle. The base case showed:

C$215 million after-tax NPV7

12.7% after-tax IRR

C$567.9 million initial capital

11.9-year mine life

The issue is not whether the NPV was positive. The issue is whether a junior can finance a project with that return profile, capital requirement and execution risk.

The company believes a smaller, higher-grade and more selective design can improve the economics. It has also reported better metallurgical recoveries. Fine. The new PEA is where that claim either becomes an investable plan or stays a presentation.

Timing is now part of the thesis. The May financing targeted the PEA for mid-2026. On July 8 it was described as near term. It remained unpublished as of August 13.

THE CANADIAN PAPER PROBLEM

The May placement created roughly 34.1 million new shares and about 17.1 million underlying half-warrants, plus agent warrants. The financing securities come off hold September 15.

The stock trading below the C$0.35 hard-dollar price looks attractive at first glance. But flow-through buyers have different tax economics, and even hard-dollar participants may sell when the paper becomes free trading. “Below the financing” is context, not a floor.

NorthWest also disclosed a C$12,000-per-quarter mandate with Atrium Research for company-sponsored coverage. I found no proof connecting that mandate to the August 13 spike. Still, I would separate sponsored research from independent validation when judging sentiment.

MY READ

NWST has a real project, a funded near-term program and enough grade to make the next study matter. It also has an old PEA that did not prove financeability, a delayed replacement study and a visible paper overhang.

I would reconsider the thesis if the new PEA delivers a meaningfully higher after-tax IRR, shorter payback, lower credible capex and reasonable sensitivity at conservative copper and gold prices. A strategic partner or genuine open-market insider buying would improve the signal further.

I would walk away if the new PEA remains marginal, if capex simply migrates into complicated metallurgy or underground development, or if promotion increases while the economics stay weak.

The copper sector may be setting up for another acquisition cycle as seniors look for long-life assets in stable jurisdictions. That makes advanced Canadian projects worth monitoring. It does not make NWST a takeover target by default.

So, Bay Street: does the sub-C$0.35 price compensate for the PEA and September paper risk, or would you wait for the study even if that means paying more later?

Primary sources:

2023 PEA: https://northwestcopper.ca/news/northwest-copper-announces-positive-pea-for-the-kw-4886/

May financing and September 15 hold expiry: https://northwestcopper.ca/news/northwest-copper-announces-closing-of-fully-subscr-15149/

2026 drilling: https://northwestcopper.ca/news/northwest-announces-2026-drilling-underway-at-kwan-15334/

Drill results: https://northwestcopper.ca/news/northwest-reports-results-from-two-holes-at-its-kw-13280/

Atrium mandate: https://northwestcopper.ca/news/northwest-copper-provides-update-on-10-million-best-efforts-financing/

Educational content and personal assessment only, not investment advice. Do your own due diligence.

TL;DR: NorthWest Copper showed up on my August 13 screen with 31.6 times its 50-day median-volume reference. The company has a real copper-gold asset, strong drill results and a funded 2026 program, but its old project economics were weak, the replacement PEA is late, and a large block of financing shares becomes tradable September 15. My current assessment is Watch, not Buy.

Disclosure: No position in NWST.V or NWCCF. This is my personal research, not investment advice.

WHY IT HIT MY SCREEN

NWST.V closed August 13 at C$0.27, up 3.85%, on roughly C$573,000 of dollar volume. That was 31.63 times its 50-day median-volume reference.

There was no same-day corporate release that explained the move. That matters because unusual volume is a reason to investigate, not evidence that someone knows something.

WHAT IS REAL

NorthWest owns 100% of the Kwanika-Stardust copper-gold project in British Columbia. This is not a grassroots land package with nothing but geophysics. It has a defined resource, a prior PEA and several strong 2025 drill holes.

Two examples:

K-25-280 returned 36 metres grading 0.80% copper and 3.21 g/t gold, or 3.67% CuEq. The company estimated 31.2 metres of true width.

K-25-273 returned 123 metres grading 1.31% copper and 0.83 g/t gold from 28 metres, including a near-surface zone the company wants to incorporate into a more capital-efficient plan.

The balance-sheet story also improved. NorthWest closed a fully subscribed C$13.8 million brokered financing in May. The hard-dollar units were priced at C$0.35, versus the August 13 close of C$0.27. The financing is intended to fund the updated PEA and up to 10,000 metres of 2026 drilling.

WHY I AM NOT CALLING IT A BUY

The 2023 PEA is the central problem. At its base-case metal assumptions, it reported a C$215 million after-tax NPV7, but only a 12.7% after-tax IRR, C$567.9 million of initial capital and a long payback. That is not an obviously financeable junior-mining project.

Management says the new plan will use higher-grade zones, better recoveries and a more selective mine design to improve the economics. That is plausible. It is not proven until the updated PEA is published.

The timing deserves scrutiny. The financing release targeted the new PEA for mid-2026. On July 8, the company called it near term. As of August 13, it still had not been published.

There is also a paper overhang. The May financing issued about 34.1 million shares plus half-warrants exercisable at C$0.45. Those securities become freely tradable September 15. Paying C$0.27 today does not eliminate the risk that financing participants sell when the hold expires.

Finally, NorthWest disclosed that it pays Atrium Research C$12,000 per quarter for company-sponsored research. I have no evidence that Atrium caused the August 13 volume. But any bullish research distributed under that mandate should be identified as sponsored, not treated as independent confirmation.

WHAT WOULD CHANGE MY VIEW

The bull case needs an updated PEA with a materially higher after-tax IRR, a shorter payback, lower or more credible initial capital, and economics that still work under conservative long-term metal prices. Continued high-grade drill results would then need to demonstrate continuity rather than isolated intervals.

The bear case is simpler: another marginal PEA, heavier-than-expected capex, weak follow-through from the 2026 drilling, or selling pressure after September 15.

There may be another acquisition cycle coming in copper as senior miners search for long-life projects in stable jurisdictions. That is a sector scenario, not evidence that NorthWest itself will be acquired. A senior would still need to believe Kwanika-Stardust can become an economic and permit-ready mine.

My conclusion: NWST is interesting enough to monitor, but the next PEA must repair the exact weakness that kept the 2023 project from clearing a higher investment hurdle. A 31.6x volume spike got my attention. It did not answer that question.

What would you require from the new PEA before moving a project like this from watchlist to investment candidate?

Primary sources:

2023 PEA: https://northwestcopper.ca/news/northwest-copper-announces-positive-pea-for-the-kw-4886/

May 2026 financing: https://northwestcopper.ca/news/northwest-copper-announces-closing-of-fully-subscr-15149/

2026 drilling program: https://northwestcopper.ca/news/northwest-announces-2026-drilling-underway-at-kwan-15334/

K-25-280 drill result: https://northwestcopper.ca/news/northwest-announces-significant-intercept-of-36-0-11652/

K-25-273 and K-25-283 results: https://northwestcopper.ca/news/northwest-reports-results-from-two-holes-at-its-kw-13280/

Atrium disclosure: https://northwestcopper.ca/news/northwest-copper-provides-update-on-10-million-best-efforts-financing/

Educational content and personal assessment only, not investment advice. Do your own due diligence.

TL;DR: US and Canadian equity benchmarks rose, but gold-miner ETFs fell roughly 2.6% to 3.0%. July producer prices were flat at the headline level while the underlying measure excluding food, energy and trade services rose 0.4% for the month, so the details were less comforting than the headline.

The US Producer Price Index for final demand was unchanged in July and up 4.7% over 12 months. That sounds soft until you look underneath it.

Final-demand services rose 0.2%. Construction rose 2.2%. Goods fell 0.7%, helped by a 3.1% drop in energy prices. The measure excluding food, energy and trade services rose 0.4% in July and 4.7% year over year. The BLS also revised several March-through-June readings.

That is why we are not calling this a clean disinflation signal. The report had a flat headline and a firmer underlying measure at the same time.

The tape was just as mixed. The S&P 500 gained 0.65%, the Nasdaq gained 0.81% and the S&P/TSX Composite added 0.27%. Yet GDX fell 2.96%, GDXJ fell 3.01% and Canada's XGD.TO fell 2.63%, while the December gold contract closed near US$4,405. Those moves happened together; one day does not prove that the PPI caused any of them.

Our scanner found 168 qualified volume anomalies: 100 up, 64 down and four flat. That breadth belongs only to the filtered research queue, not the entire market. We made no new call.

Only one junior advanced to deeper research. The review found enough asset and funding optionality to keep monitoring it, but also a delayed economic study, sponsored research and dilution overhang. That leaves the thesis weak today, even if future technical evidence or strategic interest could improve it. A second candidate failed our risk/reward threshold because of financial strain, while a Venezuela-exposed name was excluded because its geopolitical and legal complexity falls outside our risk appetite. More on this coming later tonight in a standalone post!

We also saw two plausible same-day company headlines in secondary coverage whose underlying corporate releases were not accessible on the relevant news pages at review time. We label them unvalidated pending primary confirmation. Plausible is not the same as verified, and neither headline produced a rating or thesis change.

Friday's advance US retail-sales release completes this week's CPI-PPI-retail sequence. Until then, the honest read is mixed inflation detail, strong broad indexes, weak miners and a research queue that still needs primary evidence.

Sources:
US Bureau of Labor Statistics, July 2026 PPI: https://www.bls.gov/news.release/ppi.nr0.htm
US Census Bureau retail release calendar: https://www.census.gov/retail/release_schedule.html

Educational content and our personal assessment only, not investment advice. Do your own due diligence.

TL;DR: July CPI landed broadly in line with expectations, removing the immediate risk of a hotter inflation surprise. Gold futures gained 1.92%, but major mining ETFs rose only 0.75% to 0.95%. Constructive for gold, yes. Full confirmation from miners, not yet.

Headline CPI rose 0.1% in July and 3.4% from a year earlier. Core CPI increased 0.2% on the month and 2.5% year over year. Energy fell 1.5%.

The result matters partly because of what did not happen: markets did not receive a fresh upside inflation shock. But CPI remains elevated, and the Federal Reserve's 2% longer-run objective uses the separate PCE price index. One CPI report is breathing room, not an all-clear.

For gold, the mechanism runs mainly through opportunity cost. Gold pays no yield, so it tends to become more competitive when expected real rates ease. An in-line CPI does not guarantee lower real rates; it simply avoids adding pressure in the opposite direction.

The tape was more complicated. Gold futures rose 1.92% to US$4,467.20 even though the US 10-year yield was nearly unchanged at 4.682% and the Dollar Index gained 0.18%. Those moves occurred together, but they do not prove that CPI caused gold's move. They also show why a one-variable story about lower yields or a weaker dollar is insufficient.

Mining equities were positive but lagged the metal: GDX gained 0.93%, GDXJ 0.75% and Canada's XGD.TO 0.95%. Gold translated into Canadian dollars rose about 2.09%, helped slightly by a weaker Canadian dollar.

That hierarchy matters. Producers and streamers receive the clearest economic benefit if higher gold persists because realized prices can widen margins while many costs move more slowly. Defined-resource developers gain through project economics and financing optionality. Pre-resource explorers receive mostly sentiment until drilling proves scale, grade, metallurgy and continuity. A favorable macro backdrop cannot turn a weak deposit into a good one.

Our four scanner lanes also produced 149 qualified volume rows: 87 up, 41 down and 21 flat. The quality screen narrowed that list sharply, and two operating companies entered our Watch list after full earnings reviews. We are not chasing either after roughly 20% one-day moves.

Next checks: Thursday's PPI, Friday's retail sales, whether gold holds the move and whether miners begin outperforming the metal.

Full bilingual Daily Read and the reviewed names: https://thebullishedge.com

Educational content and our personal assessment only. Not investment advice. Do your own due diligence.

TITLE

Daily Read - 2026-08-11: The TSX barely moved. Our volume scanner found 112 anomalies.

TL;DR: The TSX closed almost flat at +0.05%, but our Canadian scanner produced 112 unusual-volume rows: 66 up, 39 down and 7 flat. A quiet index did not mean a quiet market underneath.

The broad tape looked uneventful. The S&P 500 lost 0.32%, the Nasdaq fell 0.6%, and the TSX added only 0.05%. Gold futures were firmer at US$4,426.30 per ounce, up 1.48% from Monday's daily close. Brent crude rose 1.62% to US$89.14.

Our scanner told a different story about participation.

Canada produced 112 qualifying volume anomalies: 65 on the TSX Venture and 47 on the TSX. Add four US miners and 47 names from the US movers lane, and the four lanes produced 163 unique flags. Of those, 104 closed higher, 52 lower and 7 flat.

That is useful, but it is not automatically bullish.

Elevated volume can represent accumulation, distribution, financing-related activity, promotion or traders arriving late to a move. Several of today's highest quantitative scores had already risen sharply over the preceding month. Without a fresh primary filing or company release, a large volume multiple is a research prompt, not a conclusion.

One followed company fell more than 12% on over four times its normal-volume reference after quarterly materials appeared in the news feed.

Another followed name gained more than 8% on over thirteen times normal volume. Those opposite reactions are exactly why the index alone, and the volume spike alone, are both incomplete.

Our review produced three different responses. Repeat strategic backing strengthened one research file but did not remove its pre-assay binary risk. A weak quarter pushed another low-conviction file toward removal from our active research queue. A third drilling headline was confirmed by the company's verified X account even though its corporate news page had not indexed it yet.

That last case changed our process. For frequent junior-mining drill updates, an official corporate social post can authenticate a soft release and its exact headline. It still does not replace the full release for a resource estimate, financing, economics or a rating decision. Source hierarchy should create discipline, not blind spots.

The full Daily Read and individual company files are in the member section. The public takeaway is simpler: when the index is flat, look underneath it, then match the strength of each conclusion to the strength of its source.

Educational only. This is our research process and personal assessment, not investment advice. Do your own due diligence.

Today's divergence is what pushed me to run this test: gold futures gained about 2.5% while Bitcoin fell about 1.5% on August 10 closing data.

But one day is not evidence. So I tested the broader claim.

Disclosure first: I have significant personal exposure to gold and own no Bitcoin. (I have in owned it in the past) That gives me an obvious potential bias. I tried to deal with it by using a fixed rule, checking the numbers against independent data and including the strongest counterexamples to my own thesis.

Method : I used daily closes from August 10, 2016 through August 10, 2026.

1. Identify every S&P 500 price-index drawdown of at least 10%, from the previous closing high to the eventual closing low.
2. Measure continuous COMEX gold futures and BTC/USD over those exact dates.
3. Cross-check the S&P 500 with FRED, gold with the official GLD archive and Bitcoin with Coinbase data published through FRED.

This is an ex-post stress test, not a timing strategy. The trough is only known after it happens.

(This was meant to be a graph and is available as such on my blog but reddit dosen't allow me to post a graph here)

Episode S&P 500 | Gold futures | Bitcoin |

Feb. 2018 correction -10.2% | -2.6% | -26.0% |

Q4 2018 -19.8% | +5.1% | -37.4% |

COVID crash -33.9% | -2.5% | -33.4% |

2022 bear market -25.4% | -7.2% | -58.8% |

2025 drawdown -18.9% | +1.7% | -21.1% |

Bitcoin was negative in all five. Its median return was -33.4%. Gold was positive in only two of five, so this is not a claim that gold always rises in a crisis. Its median return was -2.5%, and it lost less than Bitcoin in every episode.

Independent checks

The FRED S&P 500 series reproduced the same five peak dates, trough dates and drawdown percentages.

The official GLD archive returned -2.4%, +5.0%, -3.6%, -7.3% and +1.6% over the same windows. That is almost identical to the gold-futures result.

Coinbase Bitcoin data through FRED returned -25.9%, -37.9%, -31.4%, -58.8% and -16.0%. Exact BTC returns differ from Yahoo because a 24/7 market needs an arbitrary daily cutoff. The robust result is unchanged: negative in all five, with a median of -31.4% on Coinbase versus -33.4% on Yahoo.

What happens if the threshold is only 5%?

That expands the sample to 13 S&P 500 drawdowns.

- Gold was non-negative in 6 of 13, with a median around -2.3%.

- Bitcoin was non-negative in 2 of 13, with a median between -16.9% and -21.1% depending on the closing source.

The best counterexample for Bitcoin was the April-to-June 2019 correction. The S&P 500 fell 6.8% while BTC gained roughly 52% on Coinbase data. Bitcoin does not fail in every risk-off period.

Gold also failed badly during the January-to-March 2026 correction. The S&P 500 fell 9.1% and GLD fell 12.9%. BTC fell 25.3%, but gold did not protect capital in that episode.

Iran is a warning against cherry-picking

The first week of the 2026 Iran war actually favored Bitcoin: from February 27 to March 6, gold futures fell 1.6% while BTC gained 3.4%.

The July re-escalation also favored BTC over the next five S&P sessions: gold fell 2.0% and BTC gained 2.6%.

The latest seven-day snapshot favored gold: from August 3 to August 10, gold gained 10.3% while BTC gained less than 1%.

These Iran windows were selected retrospectively from the AP chronology. They are context, not a preregistered event study. Depending on the week, either side can cherry-pick a win.

My conclusion

If "safe haven" means an asset that always rises in a crisis, neither gold nor Bitcoin qualifies.

If it means an asset that has reduced the damage during major equity drawdowns, gold has the stronger record in this ten-year sample. Bitcoin may have other valuable characteristics, but it has not yet demonstrated gold-like downside protection.

What definition would you use for a safe haven, and what result would make you change your view on gold or Bitcoin?

This is educational analysis, not investment advice.

Sources:

- S&P 500 methodology and independent data: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/SP500/downloaddataand

- Official GLD description and historical archive: https://www.spdrgoldshares.com/usa/gld/

- Coinbase Bitcoin through FRED: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CBBTCUSD

- Iran chronology: https://apnews.com/article/iran-us-timeline-trump-hormuz-war-ceasefire-04da58cbae991183f8b52ef5bf615963

- Academic safe-haven definition: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=952289

Today's divergence is what pushed me to run this test: gold futures gained about 2.5% while Bitcoin fell about 1.5% on August 10 closing data.

But one day is not evidence. So I tested the broader claim.

Disclosure first: I have significant personal exposure to gold and own no Bitcoin. (I have in owned it in the past) That gives me an obvious potential bias. I tried to deal with it by using a fixed rule, checking the numbers against independent data and including the strongest counterexamples to my own thesis.

Method : I used daily closes from August 10, 2016 through August 10, 2026.

1. Identify every S&P 500 price-index drawdown of at least 10%, from the previous closing high to the eventual closing low.

2. Measure continuous COMEX gold futures and BTC/USD over those exact dates.

3. Cross-check the S&P 500 with FRED, gold with the official GLD archive and Bitcoin with Coinbase data published through FRED.

This is an ex-post stress test, not a timing strategy. The trough is only known after it happens.

(This was meant to be a graph and is available as such on my blog but reddit dosen't allow me to post a graph here)

Episode S&P 500 | Gold futures | Bitcoin |

Feb. 2018 correction -10.2% | -2.6% | -26.0% |

Q4 2018 -19.8% | +5.1% | -37.4% |

COVID crash -33.9% | -2.5% | -33.4% |

2022 bear market -25.4% | -7.2% | -58.8% |

2025 drawdown -18.9% | +1.7% | -21.1% |

Bitcoin was negative in all five. Its median return was -33.4%. Gold was positive in only two of five, so this is not a claim that gold always rises in a crisis. Its median return was -2.5%, and it lost less than Bitcoin in every episode.

Independent checks

The FRED S&P 500 series reproduced the same five peak dates, trough dates and drawdown percentages.

The official GLD archive returned -2.4%, +5.0%, -3.6%, -7.3% and +1.6% over the same windows. That is almost identical to the gold-futures result.

Coinbase Bitcoin data through FRED returned -25.9%, -37.9%, -31.4%, -58.8% and -16.0%. Exact BTC returns differ from Yahoo because a 24/7 market needs an arbitrary daily cutoff. The robust result is unchanged: negative in all five, with a median of -31.4% on Coinbase versus -33.4% on Yahoo.

What happens if the threshold is only 5%?

That expands the sample to 13 S&P 500 drawdowns.

- Gold was non-negative in 6 of 13, with a median around -2.3%.

- Bitcoin was non-negative in 2 of 13, with a median between -16.9% and -21.1% depending on the closing source.

The best counterexample for Bitcoin was the April-to-June 2019 correction. The S&P 500 fell 6.8% while BTC gained roughly 52% on Coinbase data. Bitcoin does not fail in every risk-off period.

Gold also failed badly during the January-to-March 2026 correction. The S&P 500 fell 9.1% and GLD fell 12.9%. BTC fell 25.3%, but gold did not protect capital in that episode.

Iran is a warning against cherry-picking

The first week of the 2026 Iran war actually favored Bitcoin: from February 27 to March 6, gold futures fell 1.6% while BTC gained 3.4%.

The July re-escalation also favored BTC over the next five S&P sessions: gold fell 2.0% and BTC gained 2.6%.

The latest seven-day snapshot favored gold: from August 3 to August 10, gold gained 10.3% while BTC gained less than 1%.

These Iran windows were selected retrospectively from the AP chronology. They are context, not a preregistered event study. Depending on the week, either side can cherry-pick a win.

My conclusion

If "safe haven" means an asset that always rises in a crisis, neither gold nor Bitcoin qualifies.

If it means an asset that has reduced the damage during major equity drawdowns, gold has the stronger record in this ten-year sample. Bitcoin may have other valuable characteristics, but it has not yet demonstrated gold-like downside protection.

What definition would you use for a safe haven, and what result would make you change your view on gold or Bitcoin?

This is educational analysis, not investment advice.

Sources:

- S&P 500 methodology and independent data: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/SP500/downloaddataand

- Official GLD description and historical archive: https://www.spdrgoldshares.com/usa/gld/

- Coinbase Bitcoin through FRED: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CBBTCUSD

- Iran chronology: https://apnews.com/article/iran-us-timeline-trump-hormuz-war-ceasefire-04da58cbae991183f8b52ef5bf615963

- Academic safe-haven definition: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=952289

Not sure if anybody found this but as I was looking for the main quest character tree house in the glacier section (margarita or something forgot the name) had trouble finding it and using the sea glider map found a tunnel network truly towards the edge of the map.

It’s basically impossible to find without the sea glider map. When you get in the center of it, it look like a black sky with stars… it’s full of diamonds and rare metals.

Of course I forgot to take screenshots of it but if you guys want to go see it, I’ll return there and give better infos to reach it.

Was just curious to see if this spot was known or still very hidden to most!

Last time I posted the five-week results of 23 unusual-volume names we rejected. Fifteen were down, eight were up, and the three biggest moves against us were the most useful because they forced us to recheck the original reasons for passing.

This is the other side of that process: the names that survived.

Since June 16, the dated call ledger has ten observations. At Friday's close it was up 15.3% when weighted by our published rating tiers, or 12.8% equal-weighted. Five of ten calls were ahead of their own sector benchmark. The losses are included.

It is a good start and a tiny sample. A broad metals rally helped, which is exactly why I do not trust the headline by itself.

Across four scanner runs this week, 792 rows cleared the mechanical screen. Friday alone produced 209 unique names. The biggest mistake would be treating those flags as picks. A volume event says something changed; it does not say the change is bullish, durable or investable. Most names were rejected after review.

The rejection log matters because it prevents hindsight. If I publish the yeses but quietly forget the noes, I can make almost any young process look intelligent. Keeping both sides visible makes the next bad week more informative than the current victory lap.

So I am happy with +15.3%, but I would rather have another three months of dated yeses and noes than a cleaner screenshot today.

For anyone tracking penny-stock screens: do you keep the names you rejected, or only the positions you took? What has taught you more?

Disclosure: my own research process; I hold some of the names in the ledger. No paid issuer relationships. Educational discussion only, not investment advice. Data through the August 7, 2026 close.

Here is the scorecard after less than two months of running a dated small-cap process:

- 10 calls since June 16

- +15.3% weighted by our published rating tiers

- +12.8% if every call is weighted equally

- 5 of 10 ahead of their own sector benchmark

- every losing call still included

That first number is the one people would put in a victory-lap title. The fourth is the one that keeps me honest.

Across four runs this week, the scanner printed 792 qualifying rows. Friday alone had 209 unique names. That was not a shopping list. It showed where attention was moving; the research rejected most of it.

The portfolio result benefited from a broad move in metals, so +15.3% does not prove much on ten calls. A rising sector can bail out mediocre selection. It can also hide the difference between a good thesis and good timing.

The next useful test is a bad week. If the stronger calls separate themselves, the losses stay contained and the dated decisions still make sense after the fact, the process may be adding something. If not, the headline return was mostly beta wearing a nice suit.

What would you use to judge it: total return, benchmark wins, max drawdown, or whether the thesis was written before the move?

Disclosure: my own research process; I hold some of the names in the ledger. No paid issuer relationships. Educational discussion only, not investment advice. Data through the August 7, 2026 close.