Gold Could Hit $5,000, Strategist Says. Why Others Are Worried About a Crash.
3 min
Investors normally don’t talk about the risks of a bubble forming in the asset that they’re buying to hedge against a different bubble, but gold’s extraordinary surge is starting to trigger uncomfortable conversations about the yellow metal’s bullish prospects.
Gold prices have gained more than 55% this year, blowing past the $3,000 an ounce mark in early spring and topping the $4,000 threshold for the first time on record last month. Gold was up another 3.3% to $4,108.60 in Monday trading, a new record high.
Myriad reasons have been cited for the surge, including the slumping U.S. dollar, soaring tech stocks that have concentrated broader market risks into a handful of megacap tech names, purchases by central banks seeking to diversify away from the dollar, and renewed inflation risks tied to ongoing tariff and trade disputes.
Central bank buying has also been significant, with China alone adding 39.2 tons to its overall holdings since it returned to the market in November of last year.
“Central banks’ appetite for gold is driven by concerns from countries about Russian-style sanctions on their foreign assets in the wake of decisions made by the U.S. and Europe to freeze Russian assets, as well as shifting strategies on currency reserves,” said ING commodities strategist Ewa Manthey.
“The pace of buying by central banks doubled following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022.”
Gold-backed ETFs , meanwhile, are attracting billions in new investments, with overall additions likely to have topped 100 tons over the three months ending in September. That’s more than triple the quarterly average over the past eight years.
The combination of forces is likely to drive more gains for gold in the months ahead, according to Société Générale’s commodity research team, headed by Mike Haigh.
“Gold’s ascent to $5000 seems increasingly inevitable,” Haigh wrote in a note published Monday, citing both strong ETF flows and renewed central bank purchases.
Haigh also notes that ETF flows are tracking a rise in SocGen’s U.S. uncertainty index, which is now pegged at more than three times the level it reached over the five months before last year’s presidential election win for President Donald Trump.
“We cannot imagine a situation where we return to pre-Trump index uncertainty normalcy over our forecast horizon, so ETF flows are a key component to our price forecasting,” Haigh said. His $500o price target is pegged for the end of 2026.
Lisa Shalett, chief investment officer at Morgan Stanley Wealth Management, has a different take, tied in part to what she sees as a way for governments to “challenge the dollar’s stranglehold on global money movements.”
Gold holdings, Shalett argues, can “improve collateralisation of their fiat currencies and/or cryptocurrencies in a world where currency markets undefined may be remade by digital assets, cryptocurrencies, and stablecoins.”
The gold market’s mimicry of previous historic booms, however, has caught the attention of Bank of America analyst Paul Ciana, who cautioned in a note published last week that “prices have tended to pivot near round-number levels.”
Citing data showing “midway corrections” in long term bull markets for gold, Ciana sees the chances for a near-term pullback that “rhymes” with pullbacks of around 40% in the mid-1970s and 25% following the global financial crisis in 2008.
“This boom is about 10 years old, smaller in size than the 1970s and 2000s boom but nearly as old,” Ciana wrote. “This warrants caution into round number resistance at $4,000, or again later at $5,000.”
Gold isn’t likely a bubble. It’s hard for central banks to sell, and many of the countries encouraging its import, like China and India, also make it difficult for investors to move offshore.
But gold did lose around 60% of its value in the two decades that followed its 1970s boom, with bear markets following in 2008 and 2015.
This year’s really is still going strong, of course, but with gold’s advance tied to nearly all of the concerns currently gripping financial markets, maybe it’s worth asking if it’s being “all things to all people” is the best kind of hedge—or just another risky bet on rising prices.
Copyright 2020, Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved Worldwide. LEARN MORE
Australia’s housing market defies forecasts as prices surge past pandemic-era benchmarks.
Records keep falling in 2025 as harbourfront, beachfront and blue-chip estates crowd the top of the market.
JPMorgan Chase has a ‘strong bias’ against adding staff, while Walmart is keeping its head count flat. Major employers are in a new, ultra lean era.
3 min
It’s the corporate gamble of the moment: Can you run a company, increasing sales and juicing profits, without adding people?
American employers are increasingly making the calculation that they can keep the size of their teams flat—or shrink through layoffs—without harming their businesses.
Part of that thinking is the belief that artificial intelligence will be used to pick up some of the slack and automate more processes. Companies are also hesitant to make any moves in an economy many still describe as uncertain.
JPMorgan Chase’s chief financial officer told investors recently that the bank now has a “very strong bias against having the reflective response” to hire more people for any given need. Aerospace and defense company RTX boasted last week that its sales rose even without adding employees.
Goldman Sachs , meanwhile, sent a memo to staffers this month saying the firm “will constrain head count growth through the end of the year” and reduce roles that could be more efficient with AI. Walmart , the nation’s largest private employer, also said it plans to keep its head count roughly flat over the next three years, even as its sales grow.
“If people are getting more productive, you don’t need to hire more people,” Brian Chesky , Airbnb’s chief executive, said in an interview. “I see a lot of companies pre-emptively holding the line, forecasting and hoping that they can have smaller workforces.”
Airbnb employs around 7,000 people, and Chesky says he doesn’t expect that number to grow much over the next year. With the help of AI, he said he hopes that “the team we already have can get considerably more work done.”
Many companies seem intent on embracing a new, ultralean model of staffing, one where more roles are kept unfilled and hiring is treated as a last resort. At Intuit , every time a job comes open, managers are pushed to justify why they need to backfill it, said Sandeep Aujla , the company’s chief financial officer. The new rigor around hiring helps combat corporate bloat.
“That typical behavior that settles in—and we’re all guilty of it—is, historically, if someone leaves, if Jane Doe leaves, I’ve got to backfill Jane,” Aujla said in an interview. Now, when someone quits, the company asks: “Is there an opportunity for us to rethink how we staff?”
Intuit has chosen not to replace certain roles in its finance, legal and customer-support functions, he said. In its last fiscal year, the company’s revenue rose 16% even as its head count stayed flat, and it is planning only modest hiring in the current year.
The desire to avoid hiring or filling jobs reflects a growing push among executives to see a return on their AI spending. On earnings calls, mentions of ROI and AI investments are increasing, according to an analysis by AlphaSense, reflecting heightened interest from analysts and investors that companies make good on the millions they are pouring into AI.
Many executives hope that software coding assistants and armies of digital agents will keep improving—even if the current results still at times leave something to be desired.
The widespread caution in hiring now is frustrating job seekers and leading many employees within organizations to feel stuck in place, unable to ascend or take on new roles, workers and bosses say.
Inside many large companies, HR chiefs also say it is becoming increasingly difficult to predict just how many employees will be needed as technology takes on more of the work.
Some employers seem to think that fewer employees will actually improve operations.
Meta Platforms this past week said it is cutting 600 jobs in its AI division, a move some leaders hailed as a way to cut down on bureaucracy.
“By reducing the size of our team, fewer conversations will be required to make a decision, and each person will be more load-bearing and have more scope and impact,” Alexandr Wang , Meta’s chief AI officer, wrote in a memo to staff seen by The Wall Street Journal.
Though layoffs haven’t been widespread through the economy, some companies are making cuts. Target on Thursday said it would cut about 1,000 corporate employees, and close another 800 open positions, totaling around 8% of its corporate workforce. Michael Fiddelke , Target’s incoming CEO, said in a memo sent to staff that too “many layers and overlapping work have slowed decisions, making it harder to bring ideas to life.”
A range of other employers, from the electric-truck maker Rivian to cable and broadband provider Charter Communications , have announced their own staff cuts in recent weeks, too.
Operating with fewer people can still pose risks for companies by straining existing staffers or hurting efforts to develop future leaders, executives and economists say. “It’s a bit of a double-edged sword,” said Matthew Martin , senior U.S. economist at Oxford Economics. “You want to keep your head count costs down now—but you also have to have an eye on the future.”
In the remote waters of Indonesia’s Anambas Islands, Bawah Reserve is redefining what it means to blend barefoot luxury with environmental stewardship.
A cluster of century-old warehouses beneath the Harbour Bridge has been transformed into a modern workplace hub, now home to more than 100 businesses.
