A trading blind spot is a hidden weakness or overlooked factor in an investor’s decision-making process. It’s when you think you’re seeing the whole picture, but a key piece of information, context, or bias is obscuring your vision. Blind spots don’t show up on your “dashboard” — you only realize them after they’ve cost you money or opportunity.
This remains one of the most notorious blind spots in modern markets… In May 1999, Gordon Brown — then the U.K.’s Chancellor of the Exchequer — announced the sale of 415 tons of Britain’s gold reserves. At $282 an ounce, he argued the move was a “restructuring into more productive assets.” In reality, he liquidated at the absolute bottom. What was once $3.5 billion would today be worth nearly $48 billion. The British press still calls it “Brown’s Bottom,” shorthand for the most infamous misstep in central banking history.
The irony is striking. With the resources of a modern-day King Solomon, Brown could have secured Britain’s wealth for generations. Instead, he sold the crown jewel of reserves at fire-sale prices. It’s a cautionary tale of trading blind spots — moments when investors, armed with data and authority, fail to see what’s directly in front of them. And today, as central banks from China to Poland buy record amounts of gold at $3,600 an ounce, the question is whether they’re repeating the same error — or recognizing something the market still refuses to price in.
Look, the point of this article isn’t to dunk on Gordon Brown. We’ve all had trades that made us look like we couldn’t find our rear end with both hands and a flashlight. Brown just happened to make his in front of the whole world. The lesson here isn’t about blame — it’s about the blind spots that trip every trader sooner or later. And here’s where I want to take you: not just pointing out the potholes but showing you how to dodge them. Because the real value in this story isn’t that Brown sold the bottom — it’s that you and I can learn from it, spot our own blind spots, and put a system in place so we don’t repeat the same kind of financial faceplant.
Now, here’s why this matters. Today, central banks aren’t dumping gold at the bottom — they’re hoarding it at the top. China, Poland, India — stacking bars at $3,600 an ounce.
Either they’re pulling the dumbest reverse-Gordon Brown impression ever, or they see what the crowd doesn’t. They know the price is wrong. Don’t kid yourself: they’re not guessing. They’re playing the long game, and the public is still staring at headlines like sheep.
The purpose of trading — like the purpose of life, marriage, or remembering to take out the trash — is simply becoming aware of what actually matters. And awareness is slippery. If you’ve been trading for any length of time, you already know the bad news: you’re not a genius, you’re just a human. Which means you’ve got built-in strengths, glaring weaknesses, and the uncanny ability to repeat the same dumb mistakes because that’s how we’re wired. Take me, for example. Early in my trading career, I was brilliant at piecing together grand macro themes — like Nostradamus with a Bloomberg terminal. The problem? I was always early. Not fashionably early. Not politely early. Catastrophically early. Which meant I spent months, sometimes years, sitting in losing trades waiting for the world to catch up with my foresight. It’s like being right about the apocalypse but stuck paying rent until it shows up.
Those unpleasant trading fiascos had one redeeming feature: they finally beat some sense into me. They forced me to confront what really matters in trading. And after years of gnashing teeth, burning capital, and yelling at my brokerage screen, I boiled it all down to just two words — “IS” and “SHOULD.” What is happening versus what you think should happen. The market doesn’t pay you for your grand theories of how the world ought to work. It pays you for respecting what is unfolding in front of your face. Miss that distinction, and you’ll end up like I did — right in theory, broke in practice, and explaining your brilliance to the landlord.
The words “IS” and “SHOULD” are fascinating little beasts to define. What is happening? What should happen? Two entirely different universes, and yet traders — and yes, entire newsrooms — mash them together like a bad cocktail. Back when I was starting out, I lived in the land of “SHOULD.” It was my natural habitat. The dollar should weaken, inflation should push gold higher, markets should reward my uncanny foresight. Except they didn’t. They don’t care. And what fascinates me most is that the financial media seems just as drunk on “SHOULD” as I once was. Turn on the television and you’ll see it everywhere: anchors dutifully reporting what is happening — GDP growth, rate cuts, deficits — then immediately pivoting to some sweeping sermon about what should happen because of it. The result? A murky stew where hard facts and wishful thinking blend together until nobody can tell which is which. And if you’re trading off that brew, you’re not an investor — you’re a mystic with a margin account.
Since Nixon slammed shut the Gold Window on August 15, 1971, gold has rocketed 8,566% while the Dow Industrials crawled up 5,088% — and that’s excluding dividends. Do the math and you’ll see it plain: gold has outperformed the bluest of blue chips by almost 41% over the last 54 years. Were you even aware of that? Most people aren’t — and that’s the blind spot. The top 30 corporations in the Dow, with all their CEOs, brands, and Wall Street cheerleaders, still can’t keep pace with what used to be money. Not even close.
And yeah, I can already hear the knee-jerk reaction: “Oh, you must be a gold bug.” Nope. Not waving a gold flag, not preaching end-times doom, not stocking my bunker with canned beans. I’m just comparing the cold, hard numbers — two completely different assets, side by side, over 54 years. And the math doesn’t lie: gold is running laps around the Dow. You might not like the conclusion. You might wish it weren’t true. But you can’t argue with arithmetic.
Maybe that 8,566% run in gold since Nixon closed the window was just a fluke, right? A lucky accident. So, let’s be fair. Let’s rewind the tape and look at gold from the turn of the millennium — because surely, the Dow and its mighty corporations have caught up by now.
Since January 1, 2000, the Dow Industrials have limped up 293%. Congratulations, you turned a dollar into four in a quarter century. Break out the champagne but maybe buy the cheap stuff.
Meanwhile, gold screamed 1,228% higher. That’s turning a dollar into thirteen. Gold didn’t just beat the Dow, it lapped it, slapped it, and stole its lunch money. The top 30 corporations in America, with their armies of MBAs, marketing gurus, and government bailouts, couldn’t keep pace with a shiny yellow rock dug out of the dirt.
And here’s the kicker — you can call me a gold bug, a crank, or a conspiracy nut all you want. But the math is staring you in the face like a neon sign at midnight: gold crushed the Dow by more than 4-to-1. The Dow got outperformed by a lump of metal. If that doesn’t tell you something about currency debasement and blind spots, you’re not just missing the trade — you’re asleep at the wheel.
Let’s get back to trading blind spots and Brown’s Bottom. The most common mistake traders make isn’t buying the wrong stock or picking the wrong sector, it’s that they don’t have a hard-and-fast rule to tell them when they’re right and when they’re wrong. They drift along on gut feel, CNBC chatter, and stubborn pride until the market wrings them dry. Now don’t get sleepy on me — this is actually easy to fix. It boils down to swallowing your ego, admitting you blew it, and repositioning yourself with the trend.
How do you do that? Benchmarks. Pros use them every day. Simple example: I won’t even touch a stock unless it’s beating the S&P 500 over a set time frame. Why? Because strength begets strength, and the benchmark keeps me honest about what “value” and “growth” really mean. And one of the most powerful benchmarks in history is also one of the simplest: divide what you’re analyzing by the price of gold.
Here’s why: price is always a ratio of exchange. When you buy an asset — any asset — you’re effectively short dollars and long that thing. We all pretend that’s “reality.” But change the denominator to gold and suddenly you see the world differently. Which brings us to this chart: the S&P 500 divided by gold. Traders watch this ratio like hawks. When it rises, stocks are beating gold. When it falls, gold is eating stocks for lunch.
Study it. Since “Brown’s Bottom,” the S&P has actually lost value against gold in real terms. And more recently — over the last five months — the S&P is once again down relative to gold. That’s the blind spot: on Wall Street you can measure things in nominal terms or in real terms, and the difference is as vast as the conclusions you reach. One shows you what the ticker says. The other shows you the truth.
Think of nominal terms as the number on the price tag. That’s it. Plain, simple, no questions asked. A candy bar says $1.50, so you pay $1.50. That’s the “nominal” price — it’s what the label says right now.
Real terms, though, ask a smarter question: “What does that $1.50 actually buy me compared to before?” If the candy bar used to be twice as big for the same price, then in real terms you’re getting ripped off, even if the nominal price hasn’t changed.
Here’s another way to think about it: Nominal is like looking at your height in inches. Real is like comparing your height to everyone else in the class. Nominal tells you the raw number. Real tells you what that number means in context.
So, when Wall Street says the S&P 500 is at all-time highs in nominal terms, it’s bragging about the sticker price. But when you measure it in real terms — say, against gold or inflation — you might discover your “record high” isn’t such a big deal after all.
Take a good, hard look at that chart. In REAL terms, stocks are actually lower today than they were in the year 2000. Yeah, that’s a tough pill for economists and Wall Street cheerleaders of currency debasement to choke down, but here’s the deal: the math doesn’t lie.
Twenty-five years, four Fed chairs — Greenspan, Bernanke, Yellen, Powell — and it’s all been for naught. They tossed money at every crisis like frat boys spraying beer at a kegger. Sure, it created the illusion of a fix — stocks at “record highs,” a GDP chart they could wave around at press conferences — but peel off the nominal mask and it’s ugly.
Because nothing they’ve done — wild swings in interest rates, exponential debt creation, endless stimulus — has closed the gap. All they’ve really accomplished is debasing the currency. And when you debase the currency, everything priced in that currency rises: stocks, real estate, groceries, postage stamps, the works. That’s not growth, it’s math. More dollars chasing the same stuff means higher prices, period.
The Fed calls it “policy.” I call it the world’s most expensive parlor trick: print prosperity on paper while the purchasing power in your wallet evaporates. And in real terms — measured in gold, in reality, in something that can’t be faked — the scoreboard hasn’t budged.
Now, does that mean stocks are about to crash? Nope. Year-to-date, stocks are up 13%. But here’s the kicker — gold’s up 37% in the same stretch. And when metals start outrunning financial assets, it’s like a yellow traffic light: you don’t slam the brakes, but you better stop daydreaming and pay attention.
Think of it this way: when gold beats stocks, it’s the market tapping you on the shoulder like a stern driving instructor saying, “Eyes on the road, kid. You’re not in danger yet, but if you keep ignoring the signals, the wreck is coming.”
Let’s bring this down to street level. You like trading the Magnificent 7 — Tesla, Nvidia, Apple, Microsoft, Amazon, Meta, Alphabet? Good. But here’s the thing: you better have a benchmark, or you’re just flying blind.
If you’re trading Tesla, your benchmark is the Consumer Discretionary ETF (XLY). If you’re trading Nvidia, it’s the Technology ETF (XLK) or even the Semiconductor ETF (SMH). Why? Because the Mag7 names are supposed to be the Ferraris of their sectors — fast, sleek, always in the lead. If they’re not outrunning the sector ETF, that’s your first warning light on the dashboard.
Here’s the rule of thumb: when a Mag7 stock outperforms its sector ETF, that’s business as usual — the market’s telling you the big dogs are still hunting. But when the sector ETF starts outperforming the Mag7 stock? That’s not noise, that’s a shift. It means money is leaving the supposed leaders and spreading to the pack. And when the lead dogs fall behind, the whole sled can tip over.
Ignore that benchmark at your own risk. It’s not just a statistic — it’s a survival tool.
Traders love to delude themselves. You commit to an asset, you fall head over heels for its “prospects,” and suddenly you’re less an investor and more a stage-five clinger in a bad relationship. The question is: are you focused on what IS happening, or what you think SHOULD happen? That difference is where fortunes are made and blown to smithereens.
Enter the humble benchmark. Boring as a yardstick, but absolutely vital. Benchmarks are the marriage counselor of trading — they stop you from falling hopelessly in love with your own bad ideas. They keep your equity intact and your losses small, which is a much nicer way of saying they keep you from being an idiot with your money.
Take Gordon Brown, patron saint of bad trades, he liquidated Britain’s gold reserves in pursuit of “more productive assets.” Sounds clever, until you look at the S&P 500 divided by Gold ratio. If Brown had paid attention to that benchmark, he would’ve known within six
months that he was standing on the wrong side of the trade, waving politely as the train left the station. All he had to do was swallow his pride, admit the mistake, and buy back in. Instead, history immortalized his misstep as “Brown’s Bottom.”
The truth is benchmarks don’t lie, don’t flatter, and don’t care about your feelings. They simply tell you whether your darling investment is actually performing, or whether it’s dead weight that belongs on someone else’s balance sheet. Ignore them, and you’re Gordon Brown. Respect them, and you might just survive your own blind spots.
For decades, gold has been the mirror policymakers would rather smash than look into. Most of the status quo — and certainly our monetary authorities — hate gold, because it pushes on them something they spend careers trying to avoid: accountability. Stocks can be juiced with easy money, GDP massaged with revisions, unemployment framed in half a dozen ways. But gold? It doesn’t care about talking points. It simply reflects the value of money itself.
And that’s precisely why government officials despise it. Gold is the heckler in the back row pointing out that the emperor has no clothes. Just recently, I watched President Trump address the United Nations, proudly bragging about how many times the stock market hit new all-time highs during his administrations. Sounds impressive — until you run the benchmark. Divide the S&P 500 by gold and you’ll quickly see the truth: in real terms, stocks peaked back in 2000. Two decades of so-called progress, and the companies at the top of Wall Street’s pyramid are still lagging what used to be money. For me, that’s not just a chart — it’s a stinging indictment of the Federal Reserve and the fiat system they defend.
This matters because currency debasement is not theoretical — it’s policy. It’s the way governments paper over debt and keep bond markets stable. The $6 trillion created in 2020 was not manna from heaven. It was dilution, pure and simple. And when policymakers tell you it’s “for the greater good,” what they’re really saying is: your savings are the sacrificial lamb. Gold simply makes the cost visible.
One of the great blind spots in modern finance is how we measure value. Investors measure gold in dollars, but they rarely flip the equation to measure dollars in gold. It seems like a small distinction, but it changes the story entirely.
When you say gold is “worth” $3,700 an ounce, you’re framing the metal in terms of a currency that itself is being steadily devalued. That framing makes gold look volatile, even speculative. But invert the ratio — ask how many ounces of gold a dollar will buy — and the
picture comes into sharp relief. In 1971, one dollar could buy nearly 1/35th of an ounce. Today, it buys 1/3,700th. The dollar hasn’t been stable; it has been dissolving.
Ignore this reality at your own peril.
This inversion matters because it strips away the illusion that the dollar is the fixed benchmark. It isn’t. It’s the variable. And when you start measuring dollars in gold, you begin to see why central banks are hoarding bullion and why long-term investors treat it as a hedge. The narrative flips: gold hasn’t “gone up.” The dollar has gone down.
And that’s the uncomfortable truth policymakers don’t like to admit. Measuring in dollars flatters the system. Measuring in gold exposes it. It’s the blind spot that separates those lulled by headlines from those preparing for reality.
The distinction between IS and SHOULD is one of the most powerful mental models in trading. What is happening versus what we think should happen — two very different realities. The danger comes when traders collapse them together, blinded by their own narratives.
Gold is the perfect case study. Investors constantly say gold is at $3,700, and then they project what it should do based on interest rates, inflation, or the Federal Reserve’s latest comments. But here’s the blind spot: they measure gold in dollars, when the far more revealing exercise is to measure dollars in gold. Reframe it that way, and the narrative changes completely. Gold hasn’t “risen.” The dollar has deteriorated. What is real is that your money buys a fraction of the value it once did.
If Gordon Brown had understood this distinction back in 1999, he might have seen his own blind spot. Gold at $282 an ounce looked like dead money. It “should” have stayed flat, he reasoned. But the IS was that the dollar was being devalued — structurally, systemically, and inevitably. Six months of benchmarking against gold would have exposed the mistake, long before history branded it “Brown’s Bottom.”
For traders, the lesson is clear: don’t let “should” narratives lull you into complacency. Use benchmarks, invert the frame, and anchor yourself to what is happening. Because when you measure dollars in gold, you’re not looking at opinion — you’re looking at reality stripped bare.
Gold, at nearly $3,700 an ounce, looks expensive on the surface. But when adjusted for global money supply, it remains undervalued compared with prior peaks. Since March 2020, the Federal Reserve has injected $6 trillion into the system — expanding M2 by 40% in just
four years, more than the previous decade combined. Yet gold hasn’t tracked that surge. Many analysts calculate the metal is about $800 below where it “should” be.
That gap is critical. Despite nominal all-time highs, gold remains cheaper relative to money supply than it was in both 2011 and 1980. If it simply caught up, the numbers suggest $4,400 per ounce on the conservative end, and $9,700 at the high end. It’s a divergence of historic proportions. And it explains why central banks are aggressively buying — while retail investors dismiss gold as “expensive.”
Meanwhile, the professionals — the ones who know how to read a chart — are leaning in hard. Hedge funds and traders are stacked long, their blue bars towering over red shorts like skyscrapers over a row of garden sheds. Net positioning hasn’t looked this bullish since April. Translation: the pros aren’t fading this rally, they’re riding it like a getaway car with the cops in pursuit.
And here’s the kicker: gold miners are making out like bandits. At $3,600 gold, they’re pocketing $2,200 per ounce in margin. That’s a 50% profit jump off just a 26% move in the commodity. Why? Operational leverage, baby. This isn’t 2011 with bloated debt and reckless dilution. Today, miners are clean, lean, and shoving free cash back into dividends and buybacks. Barrick alone threw $1 billion at buybacks last year. They’re basically running printing presses of their own.
The broader macro environment supports that move. Interest rates are drifting lower, fiscal deficits remain elevated, trade tensions are escalating, and geopolitical conflicts continue to unsettle markets. Against this backdrop, gold’s role as a store of value has reemerged, and central banks are reinforcing the trend. In 2024, China alone added 225 tons to its reserves and has continued buying through 2025.
Which brings us full circle. Gordon Brown sold Britain’s gold at the bottom, assuming it was “dead money.” Today, central banks are buying at $3,600, confident it’s still cheap relative to the trillions sloshing through the system. One of these trades will define the next decade. If history is any guide, the lesson is clear: gold’s story isn’t about sticker price, it’s about scarcity in an age of limitless printing.
Once in a great while, a breakthrough comes along so powerful it rewrites the rules of the game. Think electricity, the microchip, the internet. Today, that breakthrough is VantagePoint’s artificial intelligence. What’s astounding is that A.I. in general is solving problems so complex they were never even imagined in science fiction novels. It is already transforming medicine, finance, energy, and communication — and, since 1991, VantagePoint’s A.I. has been revolutionizing how traders make money in the markets.
For centuries, traders wrestled with the same age-old problems: when to get in, when to get out, how to separate noise from signal. Even the best minds on Wall Street struggled with the blind spots that trip us all up. But now, VantagePoint’s A.I. is provides a way out of that fog. It doesn’t guess. It doesn’t hope. It sees patterns invisible to the human eye and keeps you on the right side, of the right trend, at the right time.
This isn’t about theory. It’s about precision. With VantagePoint’s A.I., you no longer need to gamble on hunches or wait for headlines to confirm what the smart money already knew weeks earlier. Our trading software, powered by advanced artificial intelligence, scans mountains of data and delivers actionable forecasts — forecasts designed to tilt the odds dramatically in your favor. It’s like having the equivalent of thousands of analysts, all working for you around the clock, never tiring, never distracted, never emotional. That’s why we created the completely FREE Learn How To Trade With A.I. Live Online Masterclass. In this one event, you’ll see exactly how the technology works, why it’s different from anything you’ve ever tried, and how it can transform the way you trade. You’ll witness how A.I. identifies opportunities before they appear obvious, how it protects you from devastating blind spots, and how it allows ordinary traders to approach the markets with extraordinary confidence.
If you’ve ever felt frustrated by missed trades, confused by conflicting signals, or worn down by the emotional rollercoaster of the markets, this is your opportunity to break free. Don’t miss it. Seats for this live masterclass are limited, and the advantage A.I. offers is too valuable to ignore. Reserve your spot now. Watch the system in action. See the stocks it’s targeting now.
Discover today how A.I. can help you trade smarter, safer, and more profitably than ever before.
It’s not magic.
It’s machine learning.
THERE IS A SUBSTANTIAL RISK OF LOSS ASSOCIATED WITH TRADING. ONLY RISK CAPITAL SHOULD BE USED TO TRADE. TRADING STOCKS, FUTURES, OPTIONS, FOREX, AND ETFs IS NOT SUITABLE FOR EVERYONE.IMPORTANT NOTICE!
DISCLAIMER: STOCKS, FUTURES, OPTIONS, ETFs AND CURRENCY TRADING ALL HAVE LARGE POTENTIAL REWARDS, BUT THEY ALSO HAVE LARGE POTENTIAL RISK. YOU MUST BE AWARE OF THE RISKS AND BE WILLING TO ACCEPT THEM IN ORDER TO INVEST IN THESE MARKETS. DON’T TRADE WITH MONEY YOU CAN’T AFFORD TO LOSE. THIS ARTICLE AND WEBSITE IS NEITHER A SOLICITATION NOR AN OFFER TO BUY/SELL FUTURES, OPTIONS, STOCKS, OR CURRENCIES. NO REPRESENTATION IS BEING MADE THAT ANY ACCOUNT WILL OR IS LIKELY TO ACHIEVE PROFITS OR LOSSES SIMILAR TO THOSE DISCUSSED ON THIS ARTICLE OR WEBSITE. THE PAST PERFORMANCE OF ANY TRADING SYSTEM OR METHODOLOGY IS NOT NECESSARILY INDICATIVE OF FUTURE RESULTS. CFTC RULE 4.41 – HYPOTHETICAL OR SIMULATED PERFORMANCE RESULTS HAVE CERTAIN LIMITATIONS. UNLIKE AN ACTUAL PERFORMANCE RECORD, SIMULATED RESULTS DO NOT REPRESENT ACTUAL TRADING. ALSO, SINCE THE TRADES HAVE NOT BEEN EXECUTED, THE RESULTS MAY HAVE UNDER-OR-OVER COMPENSATED FOR THE IMPACT, IF ANY, OF CERTAIN MARKET FACTORS, SUCH AS LACK OF LIQUIDITY. SIMULATED TRADING PROGRAMS IN GENERAL ARE ALSO SUBJECT TO THE FACT THAT THEY ARE DESIGNED WITH THE BENEFIT OF HINDSIGHT. NO REPRESENTATION IS BEING MADE THAT ANY ACCOUNT WILL OR IS LIKELY TO ACHIEVE PROFIT OR LOSSES SIMILAR TO THOSE SHOWN.
