Author: Evie Soemardi

Posted on by

Why Did Gold Rise Overnight? Four Forces Driving the Rally

Only days after entering August on uncertain footing, gold and silver delivered one of their strongest single-day advances in weeks.  The move surprised many investors given that precious metals had spent much of the past six months correcting from the extraordinary highs reached earlier this year; however, overnight price action was driven less by any single headline and more by a convergence of monetary policy, economic data and geopolitical developments.  While gold trades at approximately AUD $6,068 per ounce, silver at AUD $88.34 and platinum at AUD $2,509, these developments have eased several of the short-term headwinds that had weighed on precious metals since the beginning of the year.

 

Has the Federal Reserve become less certain about raising interest rates?

The most significant catalyst remains the US Federal Reserve.  At its July meeting, the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) voted to leave the federal funds rate unchanged at 3.50% to 3.75%. While the decision itself was widely anticipated, the voting breakdown was not.  The committee voted nine to three, with Cleveland Fed President Beth Hammack, Minneapolis Fed President Neel Kashkari and Dallas Fed President Lorie Logan all favouring an immediate rate increase.

Three dissents are uncommon in modern Federal Reserve history and typically signal genuine disagreement within the committee rather than minor differences in opinion.  Until recently, financial markets interpreted this division as increasing the likelihood of another rate hike later this year.  Higher interest rates generally support higher bond yields, increasing the opportunity cost of holding non-income-producing assets such as gold and silver.  As a result, expectations of further monetary tightening have remained one of the principal reasons precious metals have struggled to regain the momentum seen throughout 2025.  Importantly, investors are now questioning whether that hawkish outlook remains justified.

 

Did the latest U.S. jobs data reduce the chances of another rate hike?

The first major test arrived with the latest Job Openings and Labour Turnover Survey (JOLTS).  Job openings declined modestly from 7.6 million to around 7.44 million.  The softer labour market data reinforced evidence that demand for workers is gradually easing, reducing confidence that the economy could withstand a more restrictive monetary environment brought about by higher interest rates.  Because the Federal Reserve has repeatedly emphasised the importance of labour market conditions when setting monetary policy, the report immediately prompted investors to reassess the probability of another rate increase.  The significance of the report lies less in the absolute number and more in its timing.  Following a divided Federal Reserve meeting, the weaker labour data reduced confidence that policymakers will ultimately decide another increase is necessary.  As expectations for tighter monetary policy softened, bond yields have eased (especially the 10 Year Treasury bond) and gold responded positively.

Financial markets are currently treating each major economic release as evidence either for or against another rate rise.  Rather than reacting to individual data points in isolation, investors are attempting to determine whether inflationary pressures continue to justify additional tightening.  For precious metals, every report that reduces those expectations removes another short-term headwind.

 

Are falling oil prices also supporting gold?

While monetary policy dominated investor attention geopolitics provided a second catalyst.  Oil prices moved lower following comments from US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent suggesting that an agreement to reopen commercial shipping through the Strait of Hormuz could be reached within days.  Brent crude subsequently declined as investors anticipated that any reduction in regional tensions would improve oil supply and reduce inflationary pressures.

The situation remains far from straightforward.  Within hours of those comments, UK Maritime Trade Operations confirmed that a commercial vessel had been struck by an unidentified projectile in the Strait of Hormuz.  Iran also denied engaging in direct negotiations with Washington, although reports suggest it is the discussion involving Iran and Oman over future shipping arrangements that could be finalised imminently.  The Iran-Oman agreement would see each country controlling different parts of the strait, thus leaving considerable control with Iran.  While the U.S. administration was not directly involved, it and its European counterparts had place considerable pressure on Oman to reach an agreement with Iran.

Despite these contradictions, financial markets responded primarily to the possibility that oil supplies may normalise.  The connection to gold is indirect but important.  Lower oil prices reduce inflation expectations, easing pressure on central banks to continue raising interest rates.  If inflation moderates more quickly than previously expected the case for additional Federal Reserve tightening weakens.  Once again, this reduces upward pressure on bond yields and improves the investment environment for precious metals.

 

Did a weaker US dollar add further support?

Outside America gold also benefited from renewed weakness in the US dollar.  The US Dollar Index recently traded near its lowest level in almost seven weeks, driven primarily by the Federal Reserve’s decision to leave interest rates unchanged and a decline in U.S. Treasury yields.  Coordinated efforts to support the Japanese yen occurred at the same time, adding to broader shifts in currency markets.  Because gold is priced globally in US dollars, any decline in the currency effectively reduces the purchase price for international buyers using euros, yen, yuan or Australian dollars.

A weaker dollar therefore tends to broaden global demand for physical gold, particularly among central banks and long-term investors already seeking greater diversification away from US financial assets.  While currency movements rarely determine the direction of gold in isolation, they often amplify existing trends already developing elsewhere in financial markets.

 

Are the short-term headwinds beginning to fade?

No single development explains gold’s overnight rally.  Rather, the move reflects several independent factors beginning to align.  Expectations of another Federal Reserve rate increase have softened following weaker labour market data.  Bond yields have eased accordingly.  Lower oil prices have reduced immediate inflation concerns, while a weaker US dollar has improved purchasing power for international buyers.

From a technical perspective, the recent price action is also becoming more constructive.  After correcting for much of the past seven months and spending July consolidating within a relatively narrow trading range, both gold and silver have begun showing signs that downside momentum may be easing.  Short-term moving averages have strengthened relative to their longer-term counterparts, a development technical analysts often interpret as an early indication that buying interest is improving.  Whether this ultimately develops into a sustained rally will depend on incoming economic data, Federal Reserve expectations and the evolution of geopolitical events.  For now, however, several of the factors that constrained precious metals throughout the first half of 2026 appear to be becoming less restrictive, providing a more supportive backdrop than investors have seen for some time.

Posted on by

Why are Central Banks Still Buying Gold at Record Prices?

Only recently we examined the latest gold price forecasts from many of the world’s largest institutional banks.  While several expect a period of consolidation or modest weakness in the short term, they all maintain a forecast between USD $4,800 and $6,000 by year end.  At first glance, this appears contradictory.  If gold is expected to soften over the coming months, why do these same institutions remain so confident about its longer-term prospects?  The answer lies less with private investors and speculative traders, and more with the world’s central banks.  Unlike retail investors, central banks do not buy gold in response to short-term price movements.  They accumulate gold as part of a long-term reserve management strategy, often with investment horizons measured in decades rather than months.  As a result, their buying has become one of the most important structural forces supporting the gold market today.  Currently gold trades at AUD $5,828, silver at $82.80, and platinum at $2,307.72.

 

Central banks continue to buy gold at record levels

Central banks are among the largest holders of physical gold in the world.  Collectively, they own around one fifth of all the gold ever mined throughout history, making them one of the single largest sources of demand for the precious metal.  Far from reducing their holdings after gold reached record prices, central banks have continued to accumulate bullion at historically elevated levels.  According to the World Gold Council (WGC), central banks purchased a net 244 tonnes of gold during the first quarter of 2026 alone, a 3% increase over the same period last year despite significantly higher prices.

This follows several years of extraordinary buying.  Over the past four years, central banks have purchased an average of approximately 1,000 tonnes of gold each year, around double the annual average recorded during the previous decade.  This sustained demand has coincided with one of the strongest bull markets in gold’s modern history.  In 2025, total global gold demand exceeded 5,000 tonnes for the first time on record.  During the same year, gold recorded 53 new all-time highs and generated an unprecedented market value of approximately USD $555 billion.

While jewellery, investment and industrial demand all contributed to this outcome, central banks have increasingly become the market’s most consistent long-term buyers.

Gold has overtaken US treasuries as a reserve asset

Perhaps the clearest indication of changing attitudes toward gold comes from the composition of official reserve assets.  For decades, governments around the world relied heavily on US Treasury securities as one of the primary stores of national wealth.  Treasury bonds offered liquidity, security and the backing of the world’s largest economy.  That relationship is now changing.  According to the European Central Bank, gold accounted for 27% of official global reserve assets at the end of 2025 (central banks combined), overtaking US Treasuries which represented 22% of reserves.  The euro accounted for approximately 15%, while the US dollar itself continued to represent around 57% of global foreign exchange reserves.

Importantly, this is not a story about central banks abandoning the US dollar altogether.  Rather, it reflects an increasing desire to diversify reserve assets away from instruments that carry counterparty risk and toward assets that exist outside the global financial system.  Gold occupies a unique position in this regard.  Unlike government bonds, physical gold is no one’s liability.  The physical asset cannot be printed, defaulted upon or diluted through monetary policy.  For reserve managers seeking long-term stability, these characteristics have become increasingly valuable.

 

Why the weaponisation of the US dollar is changing Reserve Bank asset management

One of the most significant catalysts for central bank buying emerged following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022.  After Western governments imposed sanctions on Russia approximately USD $300 billion of Russian central bank reserves held overseas were frozen.  At the same time, Russia was excluded from the SWIFT international payments network, severely limiting its access to the global financial system.

While these actions were directed at a specific geopolitical event, they also demonstrated an important reality to reserve managers around the world.  Foreign exchange reserves held within another country’s financial system may not always remain accessible during periods of political conflict.  Physical gold is fundamentally different.  Gold stored within a country’s own borders cannot be frozen by another government, sanctioned by a foreign central bank or restricted through international payment systems.  For many countries, particularly emerging economies, this reinforced gold’s role as a strategic reserve asset rather than simply an investment.

The World Gold Council’s latest Central Bank Gold Reserves Survey reflects this changing mindset.  The survey found that concerns surrounding geopolitical instability, reserve diversification and sanctions have become increasingly important considerations when central banks determine the composition of their reserves.  Of the survey participants, 81% expected gold to hold a larger portion of the collective asset pool, while 74% expect the US dollar’s share of global reserves to lower over the next five years.

 

Emerging economies are driving central bank gold buying

Although central bank buying has become a global phenomenon, Emerging Markets and Developing Economies (EMDE) central banks have been among the most active purchasers.  Around 37% of EMDE central banks (surveyed by the WGC) reported “concerns about sanctions” or the “anticipation of changes in the international monetary system” as factors behind their decision to hold gold.  Since the 2022 Russia Ukraine War broke out, China has added more than 350 tonnes of gold to its reserves.  Poland has purchased approximately 320 tonnes, while India has added around 130 tonnes.  Türkiye also accumulated hundreds of tonnes before reducing holdings in early 2026 to assist with domestic economic pressures after the price moved higher.

The motivations behind these purchases become even clearer when further examining the World Gold Council’s survey data.  Among central banks in emerging and developing economies, 95% identified geopolitical instability as an important factor influencing reserve management decisions.  Inflation concerns were cited by 84% of respondents, while 60% highlighted the growing significance of trade conflicts and tariffs.  Each of these figures was materially higher than those reported by advanced economies.  These nations are not simply reacting to today’s gold price.  They are responding to a world that appears increasingly fragmented, where geopolitical relationships, trade policies and reserve management strategies are becoming more complex than at any time in recent decades.

Could central bank buying push gold to USD $8,000?

The influence of central bank buying can perhaps best be illustrated by Deutsche Bank, Germany’s leading international investment bank.  Rather than publishing a conventional price forecast, the bank modelled a scenario in which gold’s share of global central bank reserves increases from around 30% today to 40% over the next five years.  Under this assumption, Deutsche Bank estimated that gold could reach approximately USD $8,000 per ounce, representing almost 80% upside from current prices.  Importantly, the bank stressed that this is not an official price forecast, but a conceptual exercise demonstrating the potential impact of continued reserve diversification.  Since the Global Financial Crisis (GFC), central banks have accumulated more than 225 million ounces of gold, while official buying has expanded well beyond traditional purchasers such as China, Russia, India and Türkiye to include countries such as Kazakhstan, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Egypt and the United Arab Emirates.  Add to this the fact that many European banks continue to accrue despite the phenomenal amount of legacy gold reserves already held.  Whether gold ultimately reaches USD $8,000 is almost beside the point.  The significance of the analysis lies in illustrating how continued central bank demand could become one of the most powerful long-term drivers of the gold market.

 

What central bank gold buying means for investors

Considering these circumstances many institutional banks continue to publish bullish long-term gold forecasts despite expecting periods of short-term weakness.  Short-term price movements are influenced by a wide range of factors, including interest rate expectations, inflation data, employment figures, currency movements and investor sentiment.  These influences can easily push gold higher or lower over periods of weeks or months.

However, central bank buying operates on an entirely different timeframe.  Reserve managers are making strategic decisions that may influence portfolios for decades.  Their purchases are driven by diversification, geopolitical considerations, financial stability and the preservation of national wealth rather than short-term market volatility.  While central bank purchases may moderate from the record levels seen in recent years, they are still expected to remain the market’s most reliable source of demand because concerns surrounding fiscal deterioration, currency credibility and reserve diversification remain firmly in place.

What does this mean for investors?  Short-term pullbacks should not necessarily be confused with deteriorating long-term fundamentals.  Daily market movements often reflect changing sentiment, while central bank buying reflects structural shifts occurring within the global financial system.  If the world’s largest and most sophisticated reserve managers continue increasing their exposure to physical gold despite record prices, it suggests they see the role of gold becoming more important, not less, over the years ahead.

That does not mean gold will rise in a straight line.  Markets rarely do; however, it does help explain why many of the world’s largest institutional banks remain comfortable forecasting periods of short-term volatility while simultaneously maintaining a constructive outlook over the next twelve months.  Sometimes the most important signal isn’t found in tomorrow’s price action, but in what the world’s central banks are quietly doing behind the scenes.

Posted on by

The Everything Bubble: Why History Suggests Preparation Matters More Than Prediction

Every major financial bubble has its own story.  The Roaring Twenties were fuelled by electricity, the late 1990s by the internet, and the Global Financial Crisis (GFC) by an unsustainable housing boom.  Despite their different catalysts, each was driven by the same belief: this time is different.  Today, investors are embracing artificial intelligence (AI) with similar enthusiasm.  AI promises to reshape industries, boost productivity and transform the global economy.  At the same time, government debt has reached record levels, property prices are elevated once again, and financial markets have become increasingly concentrated in a handful of technology companies.

Gold currently trades at approximately AUD $5,811 per ounce, while silver sits near AUD $83.64 and platinum at AUD $2,318.67 per ounce.  Although metals have softened as bond yields and the US dollar strengthened, the broader economic backdrop raises an important question: are today’s markets resembling the conditions that preceded previous financial crashes?

 

How concentrated are today’s financial markets?

One feature shared by many financial bubbles is the growing concentration of wealth into a small number of market leaders.  Investors increasingly focus on first-generation companies expected to shape the future, often pushing valuations well beyond underlying fundamentals.  Today’s AI boom has produced similar conditions.  Amazon, Alphabet (Google’s parent company), SpaceX, Anthropic, OpenAI, in addition other heavy hitters such as Microsoft, and Oracle, have attracted hundreds of billions of dollars as investors position for what many believe will be the next industrial revolution.

Approximately one hundred years after the Roaring Twenties boom there are still echoes in the stock market sector for those who care to listen.  In October 2025, the ten largest US companies accounted for 37.7% of the entire stock market, surpassing the previous record of 37.3% reached in 1932.  Importantly, note that the previous record was not set during the boom itself but after the Wall Street Crash that caused the Great Depression.  The largest companies of the era did not collapse immediately.  As smaller initiatives failed investors sought the relative safety of established market leaders, increasing their share of the overall market before they too eventually succumbed to broader economic conditions.  If history offers any guide today’s concentration in the technology sector could become even more pronounced before the cycle ultimately turns.

Combined with elevated property prices, record government debt and expensive equity valuations, some analysts have begun referring to today’s environment as the Everything Bubble.

 

What can the Roaring Twenties teach us about today’s AI boom?

Nearly a century ago, electricity inspired the same excitement that surrounds artificial intelligence today.  Companies such as General Electric (appliances), RCA (radio) and AT&T (telecommunications) were viewed as the architects of a new economic era, transforming manufacturing, communications and everyday life.  As investors borrowed heavily on margin, valuations became detached from earnings and confidence replaced caution.  When sentiment finally turned in October 1929, the Dow Jones fell 25% in just four trading days.  The market continued to lose almost half its value by mid-November before ultimately declining 89% between September 1929 and July 1932.

The technology endured; the speculative excess did not.  AI is here to stay, but will its pioneering companies endure?

 

Are today’s AI leaders repeating the Dot-Com Bubble?

The internet boom (also known as the dot-com bubble) followed a remarkably similar path to the consumer euphoria experienced in the 1920s.  Investors abandoned traditional valuation metrics in favour of growth and market share, convinced that the internet had rewritten the rules of investing.  Between 1995 and March 2000, the Nasdaq increased fivefold before collapsing 76.8% over the following two and a half years.  Of the companies that dominated the market at the time currently only three remain relevant: Microsoft lost approximately 64% in the subsequent crash, Amazon almost 95%, and Oracle 80%.  Other companies such as Cisco, Intel, Dell, and eBay are still household names but they no longer command the same market influence as they did in the late 1990s.

One of the more striking parallels between the internet boom and today involves corporate confidence.  Near the peak of the dot-com bubble, Motorola issued USD $300 million of 100-year bonds, a decision now viewed as emblematic of peak optimism.  More than two decades later, Alphabet issued its own 100-year corporate bonds, attracting approximately USD $9.5 billion in investor demand.  Just as capital once flooded into companies expected to build the internet, today’s investment is concentrated in businesses building AI infrastructure.  The technology may change the world, but history suggests transformative innovation and speculative excess often arrive together.

 

Does banking and real estate still pose a threat to financial stability?

While technology stocks struggled after 2000, another bubble was developing elsewhere.  Between 2001 and 2005, roughly 40% of new private sector jobs in the United States were linked to housing as the real estate industry boomed.  Household mortgage debt rose from 61% of GDP in 1998 to 97% by 2006 as easy credit fuelled rapidly rising property prices.  When defaults began, liquidity disappeared and banks with loose lending and investment practices were put under strain.  When investment bank Bear Stearns collapsed in March of 2008 JPMorgan acquired it with the assistance of the Federal Reserve; next, Lehman Brothers filed for bankruptcy in September (traditionally “crash month” in the stock market), and immediately thereafter governments were forced into unprecedented bailouts to prevent a broader financial collapse.  When American real estate failed, it took the already shaky banking industry with it by default.

Once again, real estate appears overvalued.  In the United States, the median price of a single-family home is now more than double its 2007 level while all forms of income have contracted in 2026.*  Meanwhile, inflation has also steadily eroded purchasing power.  What cost USD $1.00 before the GFC now costs approximately USD $1.62.

Australia tells a similar story.  Since 2000, average wages have increased by around 40%, while residential property prices have risen by approximately 390%.  During the GFC, US housing prices fell between 30% and 60%, while Australia’s property market declined by just 8.5%, largely due to government intervention; however, with Australian property values having so significantly outpaced wage growth over the past two decades, questions remain about how sustainable current valuations are should economic conditions deteriorate.  Read more about Australian real estate and gold here.

Unlike 2008, however, today’s risks extend beyond housing and private banking to include record public debt, elevated equity valuations and slowing global growth.

 

Why are bond markets flashing warning signs?

The bond market is also sending signals reminiscent of previous financial volatility.  The US 10-year Treasury yield has again reached levels (above 4.4%) not consistently sustained since October 2007, immediately before the GFC.  Interestingly, yields tested these levels multiple times during the three years leading into that crisis before broader financial stresses emerged.  Rising yields reflect growing concern over inflation, government borrowing and fiscal sustainability.  Years of quantitative easing and deficit spending helped stabilise economies through successive crises but also expanded debt and reduced purchasing power.  While history never repeats perfectly, periods of rising yields, tightening financial conditions and elevated asset prices have often preceded increased market volatility.

Read more about the graph above.

 

Does every bubble begin with the belief that this time is different?

Every financial bubble has been supported by a convincing narrative.  In the 1920s it was electricity.  In the late 1990s it was the internet.  Before 2008 it was housing.  Today it is artificial intelligence.  The difference is that today’s market combines elements of several previous cycles.  Record market concentration, revolutionary technological advancement, elevated property prices, expanding government debt, persistent inflation and geopolitical uncertainty have created conditions that resemble multiple historical bubbles rather than just one.  While none of this guarantees another financial crisis it does suggest investors should be cautious of assuming today’s risks are fundamentally different from those that came before.

Predicting exactly when markets will turn has always been difficult.  Preparing for uncertainty is far more practical.  History shows that by the time economic risks become obvious, defensive assets have often already repriced.  Insurance is rarely purchased after the event it is designed to protect against.

Recent weakness in gold and silver has largely reflected higher bond yields, a stronger US dollar and expectations that interest rates may remain elevated.  Yet the long-term drivers supporting precious metals remain intact.  For long-term investors, periods of softer precious metals pricing have often provided opportunities to either enter the market or build existing positions.  Certainly, Bank of America has called sub- USD $4,000 in gold an opportunity to dollar-cost-average.  Other investment houses have stated intentions to go overweight on gold again very soon.  History cannot tell us when the next correction will occur, but it consistently demonstrates that those who prepare before uncertainty emerges are often better positioned than those who wait for certainty to arrive.

 

 

Posted on by

Why has gold softened in 2026?

At the time of writing, gold trades at approximately AUD $6,018, having retreated significantly from the record highs reached earlier this year.  Following one of the strongest annual performances in decades during 2025, the correction has understandably raised questions about whether the bull market has run its course.  The short answer, according to many of the world’s largest financial institutions, is no.

Rather than signalling a structural reversal, most institutional research suggests the recent weakness reflects a combination of higher bond yields, a more hawkish Federal Reserve, profit taking following gold’s extraordinary rally, and improving investor appetite for risk assets.  While these factors have weighed on prices in the short term, the longer-term outlook remains surprisingly consistent.  From the World Gold Council to central banks and major investment banks, the overwhelming consensus is that gold continues to occupy an increasingly important role within the global financial system.  And where gold goes, silver ( currently at AUD $89.93) and platinum (AUD $2,395) will follow.

 

What is the World Gold Council saying about gold?

The World Gold Council (WGC) believes current prices broadly reflect today’s macroeconomic environment.  Its latest mid-year outlook describes an economy characterised by moderate growth, cooling but still elevated inflation, and expectations that central banks will maintain relatively tight monetary policy.  Under these conditions, the Council expects gold to remain broadly rangebound, fluctuating approximately 5% either side of USD $4,100 per ounce unless a new catalyst emerges.  Importantly, the Council does not view the recent correction as unusual.  Gold’s realised volatility briefly exceeded 50% during the escalation of the U.S.-Israel-Iran War before easing back below 30%.  While this remains above the long-term average of approximately 17%, history suggests these periods of elevated volatility are typically temporary and tend to moderate as markets stabilise.

The report identifies three potential catalysts capable of reigniting the rally: deteriorating economic or geopolitical conditions, lower interest-rate expectations, or renewed buying from long-term investors.  Under those circumstances, the WGC believes gold could recover towards USD $4,500 per ounce, with a move towards USD $5,000 possible if conditions deteriorate significantly.

On the downside, the Council acknowledges that higher bond yields, continued U.S. dollar strength and stronger investor confidence with a growing preference for risk-on assets could place further pressure on prices. Even so, it argues that declines beyond 10% to 15% from current levels would likely attract significant buying interest, limiting further downside.

Perhaps most notably, the Council highlights that much of gold’s recent buying has occurred during Asian trading hours, while many of the price declines have occurred during U.S. trading.  The observation reinforces the growing influence of Asian investors and central banks in determining gold’s long-term direction.

 

Why are central banks still buying gold?

If the World Gold Council provides the market’s assessment, central banks provide perhaps the strongest evidence of long-term confidence.  According to the WGC, official sector purchases have averaged approximately 1,000 tonnes annually since 2022.  Although some central banks temporarily reduced purchases or conducted gold swaps during the first quarter of 2026, the Council expects them to remain net buyers for the year overall.

Separate research from the Official Monetary and Financial Institutions Forum (OMFIF) reinforces this trend.  Surveying 74 central banks responsible for more than USD $10 trillion in reserve assets, OMFIF found that 82% currently hold physical gold, compared with 71% only a year earlier.  More significantly, a net 30% intend to increase their gold holdings over the next one to two years, making gold the most sought-after reserve asset among all investment categories surveyed.

The motivations are equally revealing.  Fifty-one percent of reserve managers cited geopolitical risk as a primary reason for holding gold, an increase of eleven percentage points from the previous year.  Eighty-five percent identified instability in the Middle East as the greatest geopolitical threat to reserve portfolios, while 81% highlighted uncertainty surrounding U.S. foreign policy.  Nearly 80% also believe the global monetary system is gradually evolving towards a more multipolar structure, increasing the appeal of reserve assets that sit outside any single country’s currency system.  Interestingly, 61% of reserve managers expect gold to trade between USD $5,000 and USD $6,000 per ounce within the next twelve months, despite prices already sitting near historically elevated levels.

 

What are major banks forecasting for gold?

 Commercial banks have become more cautious in the short term without abandoning their long-term outlook.  Goldman Sachs recently reduced its year-end 2026 target from USD $5,400 to USD $4,900 per ounce, reflecting expectations that the Federal Reserve will keep interest rates elevated for longer, limiting inflows into gold-backed exchange traded funds.  Deutsche Bank also lowered its fourth-quarter target from USD $6,000 to USD $4,800 per ounce for similar reasons; however, neither institution has abandoned its broader bullish view.  Bank of America continues to maintain a 12-month target of USD $6,000 per ounce despite acknowledging that prices may remain under pressure in the near term.  UBS expects gold to trade between USD $5,900 and USD $6,200, arguing that gold ultimately protects against the monetary consequences of conflict, including rising deficits, currency debasement and slowing economic growth rather than conflict itself. ANZ recently lowered its year-end forecast slightly to USD $5,600, while maintaining that geopolitical uncertainty and slowing global growth continue to support higher long-term prices.  J.P. Morgan remains among the most optimistic, forecasting gold could reach USD $6,000 by the end of 2026 and potentially USD $6,300 during 2027.

The revisions therefore appear less like a change in conviction and more like a recognition that higher interest rates are delaying, rather than preventing, the next stage of the cycle.

Is gold still in a long-term bull market?

The current environment presents two opposing forces.  On one side are higher bond yields, a resilient U.S. dollar and a Federal Reserve that continues prioritising inflation over economic stimulus.  These remain genuine headwinds for gold and help explain why prices have softened after their remarkable gains throughout 2025.

On the other side sit the longer-term structural drivers.  Central banks continue accumulating gold at historically elevated levels.  Reserve managers remain concerned about geopolitical risk, sovereign debt and the evolution of the international monetary system.  Commercial banks have trimmed their near-term forecasts, yet almost universally continue to expect substantially higher prices over the next one to two years.

The distinction is important.  Short-term price movements are often driven by monetary policy and investor positioning.  Longer-term trends are shaped by structural changes in the global financial system, and those changes continue to favour physical gold.  Markets rarely move in a straight line.  Gold is no exception.  Yet beneath the day-to-day volatility, institutional demand continues to suggest that the broader investment case for physical gold remains firmly intact.

Posted on by

Inflation’s Unfinished Business

The first Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) meeting, under new Federal Reserve Chair Kevin Warsh, delivered no change to interest rates, but it may prove significant for another reason.  Rather than focusing on future rate cuts, the Federal Reserve has signalled that inflation remains its primary concern and that financial markets should place greater emphasis on incoming economic data rather than central bank guidance.  At the time of writing, gold trades at approximately AUD $5,818, silver at AUD $83.56 and platinum at AUD $2294.  Meanwhile, the Federal Reserve has maintained the federal funds rate at 3.50% to 3.75%, as largely expected by the market.  More importantly, the meeting marked a noticeable change in tone from the Federal Reserve itself.

 

What changed at Kevin Warsh’s first Federal Reserve meeting?

Warsh’s first meeting was notable not only for the decision to leave rates unchanged, but also for how the decision was communicated.  Under former Chair Jerome Powell, financial markets became accustomed to extensive forward guidance; Warsh appears intent on moving in a different direction.  The June policy statement was significantly shorter and less detailed than those issued under previous leadership.  Warsh also removed forward guidance from the statement and declined to submit his own interest rate projections as part of the committee’s quarterly “dot plot.” Instead, he repeatedly emphasised that financial markets should respond to economic data rather than attempting to interpret Federal Reserve intentions.  In practical terms, this means Wall Street may receive fewer clues regarding future policy decisions. Investors, economists and fund managers will likely need to place greater emphasis on inflation reports, employment data and economic activity rather than relying on guidance from the central bank itself.

 

 Why did the Federal Reserve hold interest rates steady?

The primary reason for maintaining current interest rates is straightforward: inflation remains too high.  The latest Consumer Price Index (Headline CPI) report showed annual inflation running at 4.2% in May 2026, the highest reading in three years.  This represents a significant increase from the 2.4% annual rate recorded in January, before the escalation of conflict involving Iran and the subsequent energy shock.   The Federal Reserve’s preferred inflation target remains 2%.  Current inflation therefore remains more than double the desired level.

Perhaps more importantly, the committee’s own projections suggest policymakers are becoming less inclined to cut rates anytime soon.  Every participating policymaker projected that rates would either remain unchanged or move higher by year end.  Median forecasts place the federal funds rate at 3.8% in 2026, 3.6% in 2027, 3.4% in 2028 and 3.1% over the longer term.  The balance of risks appears tilted toward higher rates rather than lower ones, for the moment.

  

Why is inflation still running above the Fed’s target range?

Energy

While energy prices have been the most visible contributor to inflation, the broader picture remains more complex.  The U.S.-Israel-Iran war and the disruption of energy markets has had a substantial impact on headline inflation (or overall inflation).  In May, overall energy costs were up 23.5% year over year.  Petrol prices increased 33%, while fuel oil prices surged 58.9% in the U.S.  The national average price for regular petrol climbed from approximately USD $3.12 per gallon a year ago to USD $4.15 (USD 69 cents to $1.10 per litre).

Shelter

However, inflation is not solely an energy story.  Shelter costs, which represent the largest component of the CPI basket, continue to rise steadily. The shelter index increased 3.4% over the previous twelve months.  Because housing costs typically adjust slowly as leases are renewed, shelter inflation tends to remain elevated long after other categories begin cooling.

Services

Services inflation also remains persistent.  Transportation services were up 4.1% year over year, while medical care services increased 3.6%.  These categories are particularly important because they often reflect broader labour costs and underlying economic demand rather than temporary commodity price shocks.

Collectively, these factors explain why the Federal Reserve remains reluctant to declare victory over inflation.

 

Why isn’t the labour market forcing rate cuts?

Another major factor influencing interest rates is employment.  Historically, the Federal Reserve faces pressure to lower rates when unemployment rises sharply or economic activity deteriorates.  Technically, neither condition currently exists.  Employers added approximately 172,000 jobs during May, while the unemployment rate remained stable at 4.3%.  Over the past year, unemployment has largely remained within a narrow range between 4.3% and 4.5%.  This is a markedly different environment from 2022 at the height of the Covid 19 Pandemic Era, when there were just over two job vacancies per unemployed worker and labour shortages were driving rapid wage growth throughout the economy.  Today’s labour market appears substantially more balanced with about one job vacancy per unemployed worker.

However, while inflation continues to rise, both wage growth and the household savings rate in the United States have moved sharply lower.  Rather than being supported by stronger earnings, consumption is increasingly being sustained through reduced savings, as the chart below illustrates.  While some economists may regard this as a red flag, the Federal Reserve insists that with employment remaining relatively stable, it has room to wait and assess whether inflation continues easing or begins accelerating further.

What is the bond market telling investors?

One of the most immediate consequences of the Fed’s decision can be seen in bond markets.

The U.S. 10-year Treasury yield currently sits near 4.5%, a level last consistently observed in September 2007 before the Global Financial Crisis (GFC).  Meanwhile, the 30-year Treasury yield has climbed to approximately 4.9%, levels not seen since July, 2007.  Australian bond markets reflect similar conditions.  Australian 10-year government bond yields currently sit around 4.8%, while 30-year bonds yield approximately 5.3%.  For investors, these yields are becoming increasingly attractive.

Core CPI (inflation without the volatility of food and energy included) currently sits at approximately 2.9% while Headline CPI (which includes everything) is 4.2%.  A 10-year Treasury yielding 4.5% therefore provides a real return buffer of roughly 1.6% compared to Core CPI or 0.2% when measured against Headline CPI, while longer-duration bonds offer an even greater margin above inflation.  Either way, Government bond yields offer investors immediate protection against inflation.  Bonds once again provide meaningful income and a reasonable opportunity to maintain purchasing power.

 

How do higher interest rates affect gold and silver?

This environment creates a more challenging short-term backdrop for precious metals.  Gold and silver do not generate income, so when bond yields rise and investors can earn a return above inflation, some capital naturally shifts toward fixed-income markets.  This helps explain why precious metals often consolidate during periods of rising yields; however, the broader picture remains more complex.  Inflation has not been resolved, government debt continues to expand, geopolitical tensions remain elevated, and energy markets are still vulnerable to disruption.  These same pressures that support higher bond yields also strengthen the long-term case for tangible assets.  In the short term, gold and silver must compete with bonds for capital.  Over the longer term, their role is tied to purchasing power preservation, currency risk, and confidence in the broader financial system.  If inflation outstrips bond yields (as it did leading up to the GFC and during the Covid 19 Pandemic Era), look to see capital rotate back to precious metals.  As the second half of 2026 unfolds, the tension between these forces is likely to remain one of the most important themes across global markets.

Posted on by

The AI Capital Race Expands

Artificial intelligence continues to dominate financial markets, but the story is evolving beyond valuations and upcoming initial public offerings (IPOs). While investors have focused heavily on listings such as SpaceX, OpenAI and Anthropic, another capital-raising wave is quietly developing alongside them.  This time it is coming from some of the world’s largest publicly listed technology companies.

At the time of writing, gold trades at approximately AUD $6,134, silver at AUD $99.23 and platinum at AUD $2,544.51.  Meanwhile, technology giants are committing unprecedented sums toward AI infrastructure, data centres and cloud-computing capacity.  Whether through IPOs, bond issuances or capital expenditure programmes, the common theme is capital.  While the mechanisms differ, all of these initiatives are ultimately competing for the same pool of global capital within a relatively compressed timeframe.

 

Different paths to the same destination

 The upcoming AI-related IPOs involve private companies selling ownership stakes to public investors for the first time.  The objective is straightforward: raise capital to fund growth while providing liquidity to existing shareholders.  Established public companies operate differently.  Rather than selling new ownership interests, they often raise funds through debt markets by issuing corporate bonds (i.e. they sell debt and pay back with interest).  Investors lend money to the company in exchange for a fixed return, while the company gains access to capital without diluting existing shareholders.  These debt obligations are paid out prior to dividends.  Although the structures differ, the outcome is remarkably similar.  Investors must decide where to allocate their funds.  Capital directed toward a bond issue is capital unavailable for an IPO or share purchase.  Capital committed to an equity raising cannot simultaneously be invested elsewhere.  Money can only be spent once.

 

Google’s historic debt raise

 Google’s parent company, Alphabet, has increased their target raise from USD $80 billion to USD $84.75 billion.  They have already recently demonstrated the scale of this competition by raising approximately USD $32 billion through eleven separate corporate bond tranches.  The offering ranged from two-year notes through to 100-year bonds making it one of the largest corporate debt issuances in recent years.  The century bond alone attracted approximately USD $9.5 billion in orders despite offering a spread of only 120 basis points above comparable government debt.  The last time 100-year bonds were issued was during the dot-com bubble in 1997; in this instance Motorola offered USD $300 million worth of 100-year bonds and is today heralded as a prime example of peak corporate confidence to occur near the top of a cycle.  As with many other technology giants during the dot-com crash, Motorola went on to lose approximately 79% of market capital over the next three years.  Again, history does not repeat but it certainly can rhyme.

The timing is noteworthy.  Just days before the debt issue, Alphabet announced plans to increase capital expenditure to approximately USD $80 billion in 2026, largely directed toward artificial intelligence infrastructure.  The debt raise therefore appears less about strengthening the balance sheet and more about funding one of the largest technology expansion programmes currently underway.

 

The data centre arms race 

The debt itself is not the most important story.  The spending it enables is.  Artificial intelligence requires extraordinary amounts of computing power.  That computing power requires data centres, semiconductors, networking equipment, electricity generation and cooling systems on a scale rarely seen in the private sector.  Morgan Stanley estimates spending by hyperscale cloud-computing companies could reach approximately USD $400 billion during 2026, up from around USD $165 billion in 2025.  In a single year, projected investment is expected to increase by approximately USD $235 billion.  Alphabet’s USD $80 billion commitment is only one part of a much larger trend.  Amazon is expected to spend approximately USD $200 billion on capital expenditure this year, while Microsoft and Meta continue directing tens of billions of dollars toward AI-related infrastructure.  Collectively, these commitments represent one of the largest peacetime technology build-outs ever undertaken.  Debt raises, bond offerings and equity issuances are financing mechanisms.  Capital expenditure represents the physical deployment of resources into productive assets.  The AI story is increasingly becoming an infrastructure story.

 

Amazon and the expanding investment cycle

Amazon sits at the centre of the same trend.  Through Amazon Web Services (AWS), the company operates one of the world’s largest cloud-computing businesses and remains heavily exposed to the growth of artificial intelligence.  Some of its customers include Netflix, Airbnb, Adobe, Canva, and thousands of government agencies, with 924 data centres and counting spread across 50 countries as at 2023.  To put this in perspective, Australia is home to just over 250 data centres nationwide.  To maintain its competitive position, Amazon has published capital expenditure of USD $128.3 billion in 2025.  In order to remain a contender the company has announced a spend of $200 billion in 2026, the bulk of which has been assigned to support AI infrastructure, data-centre construction and computing capacity.  Why is Amazon investing so heavily into AI and customised web services? As a company asset, AWS generates around 60% of total profits and is seen to be capped by supply issues rather than demand.

What makes this particularly significant is that Amazon, Alphabet, Microsoft and Meta are all pursuing similar strategies simultaneously.  Each company is seeking to expand computing capacity at an unprecedented pace, placing increasing pressure on engineering talent, semiconductor supply chains, electrical infrastructure and available investment capital.  The result is an industry-wide competitive investment cycle that increasingly resembles a modern industrial build-out rather than a traditional software expansion.

 

The competition for capital 

Viewed in isolation, a USD $32 billion bond issue or a USD $75 billion IPO may not appear extraordinary; however, viewed collectively a different picture emerges.  SpaceX overshot their target raise of USD $75 billion by USD $10 billion, raising $85.7 billion to date.  OpenAI is pursuing USD $110 billion.  Anthropic is targeting a valuation approaching USD $1 trillion and needs to raise enough capital to match.  Alphabet wants to raise USD $84.75 billion in funds via debt while planning approximately USD $80 billion in capital expenditure.  And Amazon is targeting around USD $100 billion.  Investors seeking exposure to these opportunities may fund their participation by reducing positions elsewhere.  Institutions allocating funds to major IPOs may rebalance existing portfolios.  Bond investors participating in large debt issuances may redirect capital away from other fixed-income opportunities.  The question is how broader markets will respond as hundreds of billions of dollars are simultaneously drawn toward a single investment theme.

In summary

 The most important development is not the individual moving parts.  Rather it is the combined effect of investment capital raising in a contracted timeframe during a significant technology stock boom.  Some is being raised through debt markets.  Some comes from retained earnings and internal cash flows.  And some of that capital is being raised through IPOs (which could turn out to be the most excessive pump and dump scheme in history).  Regardless of the source, the destination remains the same: a massive build-out of AI infrastructure.  Inflows of capital into a single sector of this magnitude has historically equated to excessive valuations; consequently, other asset classes become undervalued as capital rotates into the “next big thing.”  In such an environment gold and silver stand out as the perfect contrarian investment.  While short-term price movements will continue to be dictated by broader market conditions, the long-term trend remains clear.  The AI revolution is no longer simply a software story.  It is becoming one of the largest infrastructure projects in modern economic history, and that carries significant implications for the commodities required to build it.