Gold and silver weaken, will the super IPOs hit again?

Three super unicorns focusing on going public "pump" money out, will gold and silver face greater shocks?

Today, let's talk about gold and silver, and also discuss a new variable emerging in the U.S. stock market: super IPOs.

Recently, the trend of gold and silver has made many people uncomfortable.
Gold isn't as strong as it was some time ago.
Silver is more troublesome, surging sharply when rising, but also falling hard when it drops back.

Now, everyone's concern is no longer just about short-term fluctuations in gold and silver.
The bigger question is: will there be another wave of liquidity pressure later?

At this critical moment, a new story is emerging in the U.S. stock market.
SpaceX, OpenAI, Anthropic—these super unicorns may soon go public.
Well-known "big short" Michael Burry recently issued a warning:
If these giants' IPOs happen in concentrated waves, the market may need to deploy huge amounts of capital to absorb them, with pump-out scales possibly exceeding those during the 2000 internet bubble.

The scary part of this statement isn't just "IPOs are large."
What truly worries people is another layer:
If the U.S. stock market begins to adjust due to high AI valuations and super IPOs, will it also tighten liquidity across the entire market?

This question becomes very practical when applied to gold and silver.
Gold and silver are already weak.
If another liquidity pump-out occurs in the U.S. stock market, will gold and silver continue to be hammered down?

This question can't be answered simply with yes or no.
Because, even with a decline in U.S. stocks, the nature of the underlying funds can vary greatly.
Some declines are just internal rebalancing within the U.S. stock market.
Others could evolve into a market-wide scramble for cash.
These two scenarios have completely different impacts on gold and silver.

Let's focus on two key points in the main discussion:

1. Are super IPOs just a reshuffling within the AI sector, or will they transmit pressure to the gold and silver markets?
2. Will recent weakness in gold and silver be further amplified by changes in U.S. stock market liquidity?

**01 First, the conclusion**

Super IPOs in AI may indeed draw some market funds away.
But the first funds to be drained are most likely not those of gold and silver.
They are more likely to be taken from existing AI heavyweight stocks.

If companies like SpaceX, OpenAI, Anthropic go public one after another, institutions wanting to participate will need cash and allocation capacity.
This money won't be drained evenly from the entire market.
It is most likely to come from three sources:

- A portion from institutional cash and short-term bonds;
- A portion from tech growth ETFs and thematic funds;
- And another portion from those already heavily invested in AI stories, with the highest valuations.

In other words, if new AI assets come to market, the easiest to reallocate won't be gold or oil, but the existing large positions in AI holdings.
This is a localized pump-out, not a market-wide blood loss.

But if this process continues to trigger ETF redemptions, margin calls, bond liquidity deterioration, and rapid long-term rate increases, the nature of the situation changes.
It would no longer be just internal rebalancing; it would be a liquidity stampede.
At that stage, gold and silver could be sold together.
Not because their fundamentals suddenly deteriorate, but because the market needs cash.

This is the most critical dividing line today:
A normal U.S. stock market correction may not scare gold and silver.
But a market-wide cash scramble will truly threaten them.

Silver is usually more fragile than gold in such an environment.
Because gold is more like insurance, while silver is different: it has both precious metal and industrial properties, and is more susceptible to risk appetite, leverage, and liquidity effects.

**02 Returning to Burry's warning**

His concern is simple:
If three super companies go public in a concentrated wave, the market will need to deploy a large amount of capital to absorb these new stocks.
SpaceX, OpenAI, Anthropic—all are highly valued companies.
If they all hit the capital markets within the same window, institutions will have to reallocate funds.
This is what is called IPO pump-out.

This logic isn't nonsense.
Large funds need cash to participate in new stock offerings.
To prepare cash, they might sell some existing holdings.
The problem is, many people, upon hearing "pump-out," jump to another conclusion:
Will the market be drained? Will gold and silver also be hammered?
There's an additional judgment missing here:

Institutions buying new stocks won't sell all assets equally.
Funds usually come from the most related, most crowded, and easiest-to-sell areas.

If the new listings are AI companies, the most directly affected are the existing AI assets that are already heavily held:
For example, AI leading stocks, tech growth ETFs, and high-valuation companies closely tied to AI stories.
But these assets are on the same trading table as the new IPOs.
Institutions won't create new money out of thin air.
To buy new AI stocks, they might have to sell some old AI holdings.

Therefore, the first-level impact is more like an internal shuffle within the AI sector, not a market-wide drain.
This is why the direct impact of super IPOs on gold and silver shouldn't be exaggerated.
If it's just internal rebalancing among AI assets, gold and silver may not necessarily fall together.

The real concern is the second layer:
If AI corrections are no longer just localized rebalancing but trigger a market-wide scramble for cash, then gold and silver will be dragged into the turmoil.

**03 When does localized rebalancing turn into a market-wide cash scramble?**

Look for four signals:

**Signal 1: Continuous large ETF redemptions**

Today's U.S. stock market is different from 2000.
ETFs and passive investments are now very large.
If super IPOs in AI cause tech stocks to fluctuate, and this leads to continuous redemptions in broad-based ETFs, tech ETFs, and growth ETFs, the selling pressure will spread from a few stocks to the underlying basket of stocks.
At this point, the decline won't just be active rebalancing; it will become a structural sell-off.
Investors redeem funds, and market makers and fund managers have to unwind underlying assets.
If this selling persists, market pressure will intensify.

So, don't just look at how much the NASDAQ has fallen—also watch:

- Whether ETF bid-ask spreads are widening
- Whether premiums and discounts are abnormal
- Whether redemption pressures are continuous

If ETF mechanisms operate smoothly, risks remain localized;
If ETFs can't handle the outflows, liquidity truly tightens.

**Signal 2: Forced liquidation of margin positions**

When the market rises, leverage makes gains smoother;
When it falls, leverage accelerates selling.
If AI leading stocks decline, triggering margin calls or forcing highly leveraged funds to liquidate, the nature of the sell-off changes.
Initially, it might be institutional rebalancing;
Later, it becomes forced selling by investors.

Active selling and forced selling are not the same:
Active selling can be gradual;
Forced selling leaves no choice, and the more it falls, the more it sells, creating a vicious cycle.
This is where a stampede becomes most dangerous.

**Signal 3: Deterioration of liquidity in the U.S. Treasury market**

This may seem unrelated to AI IPOs, but it's crucial.
U.S. Treasuries are the global asset pricing anchor.
If liquidity in the Treasury market worsens, bid-ask spreads widen, and institutional portfolio adjustments become harder:
Assets can't be sold at good prices, and new positions are hard to build.
In such an environment, any supply shocks in the stock market will be amplified because the underlying market capacity to absorb shocks weakens.

**Signal 4: Rapid rise in long-term interest rates**

AI, high-growth, and tech stocks are essentially high-duration assets.
Their valuations depend heavily on future cash flows.
If the 10-year U.S. Treasury yield continues to rise, increasing discount rates, growth stock valuations will be pressured.
If super IPOs coincide with a rising long-term rate environment, the pressure will be even greater.
Because at that point, the market isn't just reallocating for new IPOs; it is re-pricing the entire high-valuation growth sector.

Therefore, assessing this situation isn't just about Burry's statement or the valuation of SpaceX, OpenAI, and Anthropic.
The key variables are four:

- Are ETFs experiencing redemptions?
- Are margin positions being forcibly liquidated?
- Is U.S. Treasury liquidity deteriorating?
- Is the long-term interest rate continuing to rise?

If none of these occur simultaneously, super IPOs are likely just localized pump-outs.
If two or three happen together, beware: U.S. stocks may face a liquidity shock, and gold and silver will be affected too.

**04 Looking back at 2000**

Burry compares today with 2000 because there are similarities:
Tech narratives are hot, market valuations are high, IPOs are concentrated, and many believe a new tech cycle will change the world.
These similarities are enough to cause concern.

But today is also different from 2000:
The problem in 2000 was a broad-spectrum bubble:
Many companies went public, many lacked mature business models, profits, or even strong revenues.
When the market started doubting the internet story, it wasn't just a few companies failing; a large number of companies lost trust simultaneously.
The underlying asset quality collapsed first.

Today's structure isn't exactly the same:
SpaceX has real business and contracts;
OpenAI and Anthropic, though under profit pressure, have real revenue growth, enterprise clients, and technological influence.
This doesn't mean they are cheap or that their IPOs will be successful, but it is different from the 2000 scenario where many companies only had stories, no real business.

The more troublesome issue today is that good assets might be priced too expensively.
Another concern is market concentration:
Currently, U.S. stock weights are highly concentrated, with a few tech and AI-related companies dominating the index.
If these companies all adjust simultaneously, the index will look ugly.
But a poor index doesn't necessarily mean the entire market's liquidity will collapse.
More precisely, it's like a crowded room: many funds are packed around the AI table, and new, more lucrative players are entering.
Should the old positions be sold? Who goes first? Who gets sold?
This is the more real risk today.
It's not that all markets run out of money, but that within the same AI pool, old and new assets are competing for funds.

**05 What's the relation to gold and silver?**

The key depends on how U.S. stocks fall.
If it's just internal rebalancing within AI, the direct impact on gold and silver is limited.

Gold might be pulled by two forces:

- On one side, U.S. stock adjustments could increase safe-haven demand;
- On the other side, if the dollar and U.S. bond yields strengthen due to capital flows, gold will face pressure.

Which side dominates depends on how the market interprets this adjustment:

- If it's just a correction in high-valuation tech stocks, gold may not perform strongly;
- If the market begins to worry about financial system stability, gold's safe-haven properties will strengthen;
- If there's a cash squeeze, gold might be sold first, then re-enter the buying phase.
These stages shouldn't be viewed as one.

Silver is more complex.
Silver is both a precious metal and an industrial metal.
If the U.S. stock correction is seen as an economic slowdown and risk appetite decline, silver will be more vulnerable.
If liquidity tightness is added, silver's volatility will be greater than gold's.
Because it isn't as purely a precious metal: it is affected by both industrial demand and leverage.

So, whether U.S. stock declines will continue to hammer gold and silver can't be answered simply with yes or no.
A more accurate answer is:

- A normal U.S. stock correction doesn't necessarily crash gold and silver;
- High-valuation AI rebalancing mainly hurts tech growth assets;
- Only if it escalates into a market-wide cash scramble will gold and silver be dragged down together;
- At that stage, silver is usually more fragile than gold.

This is the critical boundary that gold and silver investors should watch.

**06 Final response**

Super IPOs in the U.S. stock market will indeed pump out liquidity, but they won't necessarily drain the entire market.
More likely, institutions will first reallocate from old AI holdings, tech ETFs, and growth stocks to make room for new AI assets.
This will create adjustment pressure on high-valuation AI assets but isn't the same as a total market liquidity collapse like in 2000.

For gold and silver, the key isn't whether U.S. stocks fall, but how they fall.
- If it's just internal AI sector rebalancing, gold and silver may not be dragged down together;
- If it triggers ETF redemptions, margin calls, bond liquidity deterioration, and rising long-term rates, beware of a liquidity stampede.
- At that point, gold and silver could also be sold—not because their fundamentals are bad, but because the market needs cash.

The capital intent behind this is clear:
New AI assets are coming to market, and old AI positions may need to be cleared.
If this clearing only happens within tech growth stocks, it's a localized rebalancing;
If it becomes a market-wide cash scramble, gold and silver will be pulled into the chaos.

So, when you see a big drop in U.S. stocks later, don't immediately think "gold and silver are finished."
First, distinguish:
- Is this just an AI valuation adjustment, or is the market starting to scramble for cash?
- Is it a tech sector rebalancing, or are all assets deleveraging?

This difference determines whether gold and silver are just being dragged down or are part of a broader capital flight to safety. #成长值抽奖赢金条