Gold and Silver ETF Prices Are Breaking from NAV During Volatile Markets

When Even the Most Liquid Precious Metals ETFs Break from NAV

To illustrate how these dislocations show up, I pulled one-year premium and discount data for the two largest and most liquid precious metals ETFs: SPDR Gold Shares

These funds trade millions of shares on average over a 30-day period, typically carry bid-ask spreads around 0.01%, and have deep options markets with weekly expirations and a wide range of strikes. By most measures, they represent the most efficient vehicles for accessing gold and silver through ETFs.

For most of the past year, prices stayed tightly anchored to NAV, even as precious metals rallied. That relationship began to fray toward the end of 2025 and into early 2026.

On December 12, 2025, SLV traded at a 4.1% discount to NAV. Just two weeks later, on December 26, it flipped to an 8.68% premium. The most extreme move occurred on January 30, 2026, when SLV briefly traded at a 19.33% discount to NAV, while GLD was trading at a 2.84% discount.

What this shows is not a failure of the ETF structure, but its limits under stress. The creation and redemption mechanism relies on authorized participants stepping in to arbitrage price differences. During periods of intense volatility, liquidity can dry up in the underlying metal markets.

When investors are rushing to buy or sell ETF shares faster than those arbitrage trades can be executed, prices can temporarily detach from NAV. In other words, extreme enthusiasm or panic can overwhelm an otherwise efficient mechanism, even in the most liquid ETFs in the market.

What Can ETF Investors Do?

The first step is to make premiums and discounts to NAV a routine part of ETF due diligence. It is easy to take the ETF arbitrage mechanism for granted, especially in highly liquid products, but recent episodes show that assumption does not always hold during periods of extreme volatility.

Most ETF issuers publish current premium or discount data alongside historical averages, the monthly frequency of premiums versus discounts, and typical trading ranges. Reviewing that information can help investors judge whether they are buying or selling at a reasonable price relative to the underlying assets.

The second takeaway is more subtle. ETFs that hold gold and silver mining equities did not experience the same degree of dislocation. While mining ETFs did trade slightly above or below NAV at times, those deviations were generally in line with historical norms.

The reason comes down to liquidity and market access. It is far easier for authorized participants to source and exchange publicly traded equities than it is to move physical precious metals or manage exposure through futures and vaulting arrangements during stressed conditions. When markets are under pressure, that difference matters.

For investors, it means that during periods of heightened volatility, the choice between spot precious metals ETFs and mining equity ETFs is not just about exposure, but also about how efficiently that exposure can be priced and traded.

Please note that this article reflects the author’s personal views and does not represent the opinions of the publication or its affiliates. It is for informational purposes only and does not constitute investment advice. It is essential to seek guidance from a registered financial professional before making any investment decisions.