원문 보기
For about 20 years, there was one rule in the gold market that could be relied on like clockwork. When real interest rates rose, gold became cheaper. No exceptions worth mentioning. This rule has stopped working, and it's happening right now. At the same time, seven major Wall Street banks set year-end gold price targets that are significantly higher than today's.
Meanwhile, credit markets are sounding the alarm about AI costs, causing one company's default insurance to soar to its highest level since the 2008 financial crisis. If you own gold or silver or are trying to figure out whether the recent pullback is the end of history or just a pause, give me a few minutes.
I'll explain why the old rules of the gold market no longer work, what the banks are really saying with the numbers in hand, why the AI sector's warnings are more important to your metals than you think, and what's really happening to silver that almost no one mentions. Stay with me, because these threads are interconnected in a way that most reviews don't show, and I'll tell you the honest version, without dramatization.
Before we get too deep, I noticed that most of the people watching these videos aren't subscribed yet. If you like this content and want to receive more honest market analysis, please take a second to subscribe and like . This helps the channel a lot and ensures that you don't miss future videos. Now let's get back to the topic.
Chapter One: The Rule That Broke. Let's start with the mechanism, because you have to understand it before anything else makes sense. For about two decades, from the early 2000s to 2021, gold and real interest rates, that is, rates adjusted for inflation, moved in a close inverse relationship. When real rates fell, gold rose.
When real rates rose, gold fell. Analysts have tracked this using the yield on 10-year inflation-protected Treasury securities, and this correlation has held fairly consistently, averaging -0.7 on a moving average basis . Starting in 2022, this connection began to break down. Real interest rates rose sharply as the Federal Reserve aggressively raised them to combat inflation, and under the old rules, gold would have fallen sharply.
Instead, it proved resilient, reaching new highs by 2024-2025, even as real yields remained significantly positive. The reason, according to analysts who have studied the issue in detail , is that central bank purchases have replaced exchange-traded fund flows as the primary force determining the price of gold.
Central banks do not buy or sell gold based on that quarter's interest rate. They buy based on a ten-year strategy of diversifying reserves. And when such a buyer becomes a marginal price maker, the old scenario based on interest rates ceases to fully explain market movements. Here's a frank nuance, because it matters.
In recent months, as real yields have risen again along with the Federal Reserve's hawkish policy, some of that old feedback loop has begun to re-emerge, and gold has come under renewed pressure. So, this doesn't mean that the old rule is dead forever. The fact is that gold is now responding to two forces simultaneously: the real yield cycle and structural demand from central banks.
And depending on which force dominates at a given stage, gold can look either very sensitive to rates or stubbornly detached from them. This is the real picture, more useful than either extreme. A quick request before we go any further. If you're confused by the fact that gold sometimes completely ignores interest rates and sometimes follows them closely, subscribe as we continue to dissect what exactly drives the market as it changes.
And I want to know: do you currently hold gold, silver, or both? And has your confidence been tested by this year's volatility? Tell us frankly in the comments. I read everyone. Now let's move on to what the banks are actually predicting, because the real numbers are worth hearing in full. Chapter two: what the banks are really saying.
Here I want to give you real current figures, not a rounded version from the headlines. Goldman Sachs currently has a target for the end of 2026 of $4,900 per ounce— a figure the bank lowered from $5,400 back in June, citing reduced inflows into ETFs and market expectations of no rate cuts. JPMorgan has a significantly higher forecast, with a target range of $5,000 to $5,055 for the second half of the year.
UBS remains one of the most optimistic among the major banks, with a target in the range of $5,400 to $5,500 and a clear scenario for growth to $7,200 in the event of a significant escalation of geopolitical risks. Bank of America has one of the boldest targets on Wall Street: a 12- month forecast of $6,000, with analyst Michael Widmer pointing to an extreme demand scenario that could push gold to $8,000 by 2027 if concerns about fiscal deficits and historically low gold holdings in investors' portfolios intensify.
Morgan Stanley has a more conservative view—around $4,800. Pay attention to what is actually happening here. These banks differ significantly in their estimates of the magnitude of the move, with year-end targets ranging from $4,800 to $6,000, but no major bank currently has a baseline forecast that would see gold worth less than it is today.
This is indeed an unusually high level of agreement on direction among institutions that are fiercely competitive and regularly take opposing positions. The difference is not whether it's up or down, but how high. It would also be fair to mention previous results. When gold first reached record highs in late 2024, banks' average annual forecast was significantly lower than the actual price of gold.
And this scenario repeated itself throughout 2025. Gold consistently outperforms the forecasts that are built around it. This is not a reason to take every bank figure as the truth, but it is worth noting: when these banks were wrong, they were undervaluing gold, not overvaluing it. Chapter Three: Warning from the AI Sector.
Here is an element that ties the situation together that most gold reviews completely ignore, as it comes from the credit markets around AI spending, not the gold market itself . The spread on Oracle's 5- year credit default swap, essentially the price of insurance against Oracle's default on its debt, has risen to about 203 basis points in recent weeks—the highest level since 2008, at the height of the global financial crisis.
This reflects bond investors' demand for significantly higher compensation for holding Oracle's debt, which is directly driven by concerns about the scale of the company's spending on AI infrastructure. In the last fiscal year, Oracle spent about $55.7 billion on capital investments to build AI data centers, and even with operating cash flow growing 54 % year over year to $32 billion , the company still had negative free cash flow of almost $24 billion.
Rating agencies took notice: S&P Global downgraded Oracle's credit rating by one notch, leaving it just one notch above speculative grade . And this doesn't just apply to Oracle. Alphabet, Amazon and Meta credit default swap spreads are also widening, with Alphabet's spread hitting a record high after the company reported negative free cash flow.
Credit market analysts have called Oracle's CDS an indicator of broader concerns about AI capital spending across the sector. A way for investors to hedge against the possibility that the debt taken out to build this infrastructure will mature before the revenues are available to pay it off. That's why it's related to your metals.
When credit markets start to put real stress into the value of some of the world's largest and most valuable companies. Companies that were the main engine supporting the growth of the stock market. This is precisely the environment that has historically directed capital toward assets that do not carry counterparty risk.
Gold and silver are not dependent on Oracle's cash flow or whether AI revenues will ever catch up with its costs. If credit stress in the AI sector continues to grow—and this is a real story that is evolving, not finished—it adds another structural threat to the arguments institutional buyers are already building around record gold purchases by central banks .
Chapter four: the history of silver. Most gold reviews skip this. So far, the focus has been on gold, but silver has its own structural history developing in parallel, and it is perhaps even more radical. Silver is currently trading in the $60 range, well below its all-time high of over $121, set on January 29 of this year.
J.P. Commodity Division Morgan had forecast an average silver price of $81 for the year, but in July lowered the forecast to $60-65, citing the strength of the dollar and uncertainty about interest rates— the same factors we just discussed for gold. However, this pullback hides a fundamentally different structural story than gold.
The Silver Institute has documented six consecutive years of global supply shortages. This means that the world has been consuming more silver than it has mined every year since 2020. This is not a one-time event. This is a stable, long-term trend. Unlike gold, silver has a second demand driver that is not related to monetary policy or central bank reserves.
About half of the world's demand for silver is for industrial uses: solar panels, electronics, electric vehicles, and data center infrastructure. And silver remains the best available electrical conductor for these industries, with no cheap substitutes available on a large scale. This industrial demand is not disappearing just because the Fed keeps rates unchanged.
At the same time, silver supply cannot respond quickly to price signals because most of the world's silver is mined as a by-product of copper, lead, and zinc mining. A mining company doesn't open a new mine just because the price of silver is rising. She discovers it based on the economics of the base metal, with any silver mined with it just being an added bonus.
This structural mismatch— ever- increasing demand versus supply that cannot expand quickly—is why the 6- year deficit has not corrected itself, as the laws of supply and demand would predict for any other commodity. Historically, silver has also shown a tendency to lag gold in the early stages of a recovery.
Investors, frustrated by this process, later see it catch up with gold, and in some cycles, outpace it by several orders of magnitude, once the broader monetary market stabilizes again . This is not a guarantee that the cycle will repeat itself, but it is a documented historical pattern that is worth knowing if you are holding silver during a period when it seems to be moving slower than gold.
I want to be careful , as it's easy to lump these factors together and make them seem more compelling than the actual evidence supports. Regarding real interest rates: the link between gold and rates has not been completely broken. It has become more complex and has actually partially recovered in recent months against the backdrop of rising real yields.
Anyone who tells you that gold is now completely immune to interest rates is wrong . Regarding bank forecasts: these are just forecasts, not guarantees, and the same banks that are now set on gold growth have previously been significantly wrong in both directions. The base case of $4,900 to $6,000 by the end of the year is a real documented consensus, but it is a consensus, not a certainty.
Regarding the credit history of Oracle and AI: elevated CDS spreads reflect genuine investor concern, but they do not guarantee a default or a large-scale crisis, and spreads have soared and retreated before without real credit events. And for silver: the 6- year supply deficit is real and documented, but silver remains significantly more volatile than gold, and the same dollar strength and Fed uncertainty that weigh on gold can weigh just as heavily, and sometimes more heavily, on silver in the short term.
Here's what all four themes have in common. Each represents a genuine, proven departure from the calm, predictable environment that gold and silver investors have become accustomed to in previous years. This should be clearly understood without dramatizing the situation more than the facts themselves do .
Here's what I want you to take away from this. The close relationship between gold and real interest rates that existed for decades has indeed become more complicated: central bank purchases now compete with real earnings as the main factor in pricing. The seven largest Wall Street banks currently have year-end gold targets in the range of $4,800 to $6,000, above the current price—an unusual level of agreement on direction, even despite significant disagreement on the specific numbers.
Credit markets are pricing in the real rise in debt concerns that are fueling the AI infrastructure boom. As Oracle default insurance costs are at their highest since the 2008 financial crisis, and silver has its own six-year supply deficit with an industrial demand engine that is independent of any of the above.
None of these topics alone will tell you where gold and silver will go next month. Together, they describe a market environment that has truly changed and is worth understanding clearly, rather than reacting to any individual headline that hits your feed today. I want to hear your opinion. Of these four topics—rate spreads, bank forecasts, AI credit stress, or silver shortages—which do you think has the most impact on where these metals go next?
Write why in the comments. I read each of them, and it forms the themes for our subsequent research. If this brought together facts that most gold and silver reviews keep separate, subscribe before you leave, as we will continue to follow all four topics as they develop.
Comments 0