Peter Schiff

Euro Pacific Asset Management, or EPAM, lists Schiff as Chief Economist & Global Strategist and chairman of its investment committee. The firm offers funds and portfolio management focused on international markets. A portfolio is simply the collection of investments someone holds. Schiff therefore speaks both as a commentator and as someone involved in decisions about clients’ money. The company profile documents his role; assessing a particular opinion still requires reading its reasoning and evidence. [1]

Imagine watching bitcoin’s price rise in dollars. Schiff would ask how much gold it now buys. In an interview published on October 10, 2025, he proposes this comparison because Bitcoin is often described as a digital alternative to gold. Gold serves as the benchmark, or yardstick. The dollar price tells you how many dollars you receive; the gold price tells you how much metal. Neither alone tells you how many everyday goods you can buy. Comparisons also need to cover the same period. [2]

Consider our own teaching example with invented prices. BTC rises from 100 to 110 USD, meaning US dollars. Meanwhile, a troy ounce of gold, a weight unit used in gold trading, rises from 2000 to 2400 USD. Previously, a bitcoin bought 0.05 ounce; now it buys about 0.04583 ounce. Its dollar price rose by 10%, yet it buys about 8.3% less gold. Both results can be true at once. These are not historical prices or Schiff’s returns, and we leave out fees for simplicity. [2]

In the same interview, Schiff acknowledges that tokenization could make gold easier to transfer. This means creating a digital token intended to represent a right to a quantity of metal. Passing that record on can be easier than shipping a bar. You still need to know who holds the gold, how its existence can be checked and whether you can actually collect it. Those questions depend on the custodian and the specific product terms, including transfer rules. A transaction recorded on a blockchain cannot inspect the physical contents of a vault. [2]

A Bitcoin critic and a shop accepting bitcoin payments are not necessarily a contradiction. An announcement published on SchiffGold on May 21, 2014 describes a partnership with BitPay enabling precious-metal purchases with bitcoin. The praise for this payment option came from marketing director Michael Finger, not Schiff. It documents the introduction of a service at that time. Allowing a customer to pay in BTC does not itself mean Schiff recommends saving in BTC. What happens to the payment next also matters. [3]

Imagine a customer sending BTC while the shop wants money in its bank account. A payment service can bridge that difference. BitPay’s documentation allows merchants to receive proceeds in ordinary currency or cryptocurrency, depending on their settings. This transfer of funds to the merchant is called settlement. A customer can therefore pay in bitcoin without the merchant holding it long term afterward. The documentation explains BitPay’s capabilities; it does not establish which settings SchiffGold used then or uses today. [4]

SchiffGold published criticism of the announced US crypto reserve on March 4, 2025. The executive order followed on March 6. It distinguished the Strategic Bitcoin Reserve from a separate stockpile of other digital assets. Strategies to acquire additional BTC had to be budget neutral, meaning they were not to impose extra costs on US taxpayers. The earlier commentary cannot therefore be read as an analysis of that final wording. Nor does the order itself establish that a purchase occurred; that would need a further report of implementation. [5] [6]

With a prominent commentator, one successful prediction or one major mistake can stick in our minds. A client’s account, however, contains specific purchases, sales and costs. To assess a forecast, we need its wording, date and time horizon; for a portfolio, we need actual results after fees. EPAM itself notes that adviser registration does not establish a particular level of skill and that past performance does not guarantee future returns. Schiff’s criticism can prompt reflection, but its persuasiveness or media impact cannot replace this analysis. [1]