Voima Weekly #25 - Instrument Choice and Market Turbulence

Noise and Interpretation

Last Friday’s market movements were a good illustration of this. The discussion on X was vivid and, at times, contradictory, leaving many readers unsure what actually drove the move and what was merely interpretation layered on top. The movements themselves did not originate from noise, but from structural factors. Noise simply makes them harder to understand.

Weekly is not intended to comment on short-term movements, but to examine the longer arc: how and why developments unfold over time, and what kind of perspective this requires from an investor.

Markets have been living in a TikTok-era for some time now. This creates opportunities for speculation and narrative-building, especially as AI-generated content becomes increasingly difficult to distinguish from authentic material, or even from real people.

When ChatGPT was first released, I remember discussing with technology-savvy friends whether the internet should be archived immediately. Today, video and audio are already difficult to distinguish from reality, and it is entirely plausible that within a year this distinction will be practically impossible.

In such an environment, it is hardly surprising that market movements can appear erratic and difficult to interpret. When fiat liquidity is simultaneously increasing², price formation becomes more sensitive to narratives, errors, and movements in both directions. Volatility is not an anomaly but a consequence.

I will return at the end to Friday’s sell-off and explain why I view it as positive for the precious metals market.

Before that, a short detour that an attentive reader will already be able to connect to the broader picture. I recently appeared on Inderes’ platform in a discussion with Sauli Vilén on gold investing³, after which I received feedback questioning why I did not spend more time advocating physical gold relative to ETF-based solutions.

Instruments, Power, and Politics

ETF’s and financial instruments more broadly, including short selling are excellent tools. This applies equally in the context of gold and commodities. There is nothing inherently wrong with them. The key distinction is not “good versus bad,” but where trust is anchored: in the instrument, in the system, or in ownership - and for how long. What works in one situation may not serve another.

The rise of ETFs has undeniably made capital markets more efficient, cheaper, and more accessible. At the same time, ownership has become increasingly concentrated, with clear political implications. When ownership power concentrate among a small number of global actors, their perspectives inevitably shape markets⁴. This is not about individual decisions, but about structure — about how influence is exercised through capital.

Ownership power is not detached from politics; it moves with it. The freezing of Russian foreign reserves, the suspension of payment systems such as Visa, or the termination of software license deliveries all remind us that financial instruments and economic systems operate within political constraints. Discussions around Greenland’s sovereignty and property rights further highlight that power and jurisdiction are not abstract concepts.

This is precisely why the form of ownership and the choice of instrument are not secondary details. When political conditions can abruptly redefine what works and what does not, the decisive questions become: where is the asset legally located, what does it rely on, and under whose terms is it governed?

At this point, it is essential to distinguish between instruments and objectives.

Instruments are not objectives

1) Gold-tracking ETFs and derivatives

These function well for short-term views, tactical positioning, and speculation. They are liquid and efficient, but rely on intermediaries, counterparties, and the functioning of derivatives markets. They are suitable for movement - not for saving.

2) Physically backed gold ETFs

For many, a workable compromise. They provide exposure to gold, but ownership is represented by a fund share, a securities structure rather than direct metal. The underlying asset may exist, but the investor remains bound to regulatory frameworks, custodians, and legal structures.

This structural risk is not unique to gold, but applies broadly to securitized investments. In recent years we have seen multiple cases where the underlying asset did not disappear, yet the investment framework failed: Russian ETFs were frozen due to geopolitical decisions, property funds suspended redemptions under liquidity stress, and certain renewable-energy funds suffered significant write-downs as conditions changed.

The common denominator was not the asset itself, but the fact that investors were bound by the constraints of the securities structure.

3) Physically operated gold accounts

Designed to combine secure custody, operational mobility, and owner discretion. Trust is anchored in physical metal and in the genuine option to act: withdraw, transfer, use as collateral, trade - or do nothing. Liquidity in this model is not a market assumption, but a function of the operator’s structure, counterparty network, and operational capability.

Not a portfolio line item, but one of the foundations of wealth.

Purchasing power, not returns

I deliberately keep gold separate from my investment portfolio. Not because it is a “better investment,” but because its role is different.

This is not a fringe view. In large parts of the world, particularly in Asia and the Middle East - gold still functions as everyday savings rather than a financial product. Considering population sizes and the prevalence of gold held as jewelry, coins, or other readily realizable forms, it is reasonable to say that over a billion people include gold as part of their savings. The reason is simple: preserving purchasing power.

Most people do not save to optimize returns. They save to build something tangible: a home, security for their children, or flexibility in retirement. When the same amount of money buys a smaller home, less energy, or a shorter break from everyday life year after year, the problem is not a lack of effort or returns - it is that the currency no longer functions as a reliable unit of measure.

In such an environment, institutional credibility comes under strain — not only elsewhere in the world, but increasingly in the West as well. Can gold overshoot or undershoot in the short term? Of course. Prices move and often swing too far in both directions. But these are price movements, not the core story.

The fundamentals have not changed. The majority of the world’s governments operate with structural deficits. Debt can be rolled over for a time, but over the longer term the easier path is monetary policy - the gradual erosion of purchasing power

This has been the pattern for centuries, and there is little to suggest it has ended. Recent gold purchases by central banks point to the same phenomenon - the need to protect reserves and diversify risk in a system where long-held assumptions are no longer stable.

Market on the move

In this context, last Friday’s roughly 7.4% decline in gold, while the year remains solidly positive⁵, is good news to me. The move up had been rapid and strong, making a correction both healthy and necessary. Such movements clear the market and create room for new positioning -they do not break the broader narrative, they strengthen it.

Silver is not a pure store of value like gold. It is dual in nature: an industrial metal and, to some extent, money. This makes it more sensitive and often more volatile. The energy transition, electrification, and electronics rely on silver in ways that are difficult to substitute. For a long-term portfolio, a modest allocation to silver can be justified, but it demands more patience and stronger nerves than gold.

More broadly, markets are not stagnant; they are in motion. Capital does not wait for explanations, it seeks new equilibrium. This is why commodities tend not to rise in the long term individually, but collectively. Energy, metals, and other physical resources move at different speeds and intensities, but broadly in the same direction.

I consider it plausible that gold priced in euros settles in the range of €350–380 per gram over the coming years, reflecting Europe’s economic, geopolitical, and political trajectory relative to the global environment. This is not a fixed forecast, but a dynamic assessment that must be updated as monetary and political conditions evolve.

While attention has long focused on the United States, Europe faces at least equally serious structural challenges: fragmented fiscal policy, bureaucratic governance, weak growth, heavily indebted states, and limited monetary flexibility. The euro is a more sensitive unit of measure than is often acknowledged.

Models are not truths; they are tools. When boundary conditions change, conclusions must change with them.

This is not only my own reflection. Similar questions arise repeatedly in client discussions and institutional dialogues: in what form should purchasing power be preserved, and to which unit of measure should trust ultimately be anchored? It is also worth remembering that those of us working in finance and investment tend to view the world from above, through numbers and abstractions. Meanwhile, an ordinary family may be asking far more concrete questions: why a ferry trip to Sweden suddenly costs so much more, why car insurance keeps rising, or whether there is still room in the budget for a holiday, or even a brief pause from everyday pressures.

These are not questions of market positioning or strategy, but of purchasing power. And particularly in many Western countries, its erosion is not driven by prices alone, but by the cumulative burden of taxes, fees, and mandatory costs that steadily consume household flexibility.

Weekly is not an investment recommendation. It is a tool for thinking.

When units of measure, structures, and assumptions are in motion, the foundational questions return to the table.

–Marko Viinikka
Founder, CEO
Voima Gold Oy

At the beginning of 2026, global cross-border bank claims reached a record USD 45 trillion, exceeding even the peak observed prior to the 2008 financial crisis. Importantly, this figure does not include derivatives. According to BIS statistics published in December 2025, the aggregate notional value of OTC derivatives stood at approximately USD 846 trillion.

In the 2022 letter, Fink emphasized responsibility, the climate transition, and the broader societal role of corporations as part of long-term value creation for shareholders. In the 2023 letter, the tone shifted. ESG-related developments were acknowledged to have gone too far in certain respects, and the focus moved toward correcting excesses and safeguarding economic sustainability and competitiveness. This is just one example of a broader pattern.

Disclaimer: Voima Weeklies are the personal writings of the undersigned. They do not necessarily represent the official view of Voima Gold Oy or any other company, nor do they constitute investment advice or a recommendation to purchase securities.

Contact information

Voima's Office – Bulevardi 5, 00120 Helsinki, Finland

Contact +358 (0)9 612 1917, Monday–Friday, 09:00–16:00 Helsinki time, contact@voimagold.com

Copyright © 2025 Voima Gold Oy. 2843889-9