Why Isn’t Gold Acting Like a Safe Haven—Yet? War, Liquidity Stress, and the Fracturing of the Bullion System (Part I)

 

Nations have scoured the earth for gold in order to control others only to find that gold has controlled their own fate. The gold at the end of the rainbow is ultimate happiness, but the gold at the bottom of the mine emerges from hell. Gold has inspired some of humanity's greatest achievements and provoked some of its worst crimes. When we use gold to symbolize eternity, it elevates people to greater dignity—royalty, religion, formality; when gold is regarded as life everlasting, it drives people to death—Peter L. Bernstein 

In this issue

Why Isn’t Gold Acting Like a Safe Haven—Yet? War, Liquidity Stress, and the Fracturing of the Bullion System (Part I)

I. The Muted Signal

II. Two Gold Markets

III. The Clearing Infrastructure

IV. When Logistics Stress Becomes Financial Stress

V. The Collateral Squeeze

VI. The Dollar as Lightning Rod

VII. Fragmentation, Not Failure

VIII. What the Quiet Is Actually Saying

VIIIA. Post Script: "There is No Haven" 

Why Isn’t Gold Acting Like a Safe Haven—Yet? War, Liquidity Stress, and the Fracturing of the Bullion System (Part I) 

Oil is surging, the dollar is rising—and gold isn’t responding. The explanation lies in liquidity stress, collateral dynamics, and the plumbing of the global bullion system.

I. The Muted Signal 

Long regarded as a safe haven, gold is expected to shine in times of crisis—particularly amid geopolitical shocks such as the escalating tensions surrounding the U.S.–Israel–Iran conflict.

Yet as instability deepens in the Middle East, a curious divergence has emerged. Oil prices have surged, and the U.S. dollar has strengthened, but gold has remained conspicuously subdued. 

For many observers, this raises an uncomfortable question: has gold lost its safe-haven status? 

The answer is almost certainly no. What we are witnessing instead is a familiar—but often misunderstood—dynamic in times of financial stress. Gold does not operate within a single, unified market responding to a single force. Rather, it exists at the intersection of multiple systems—monetary, financial, and physical—each reacting differently under pressure. 

To understand gold’s apparent silence today, one must move beyond the simplistic safe-haven narrative and examine the underlying mechanics of how crises actually unfold. 

II. Two Gold Markets 

Gold is not a single market. It is two markets operating simultaneously. 

The financial layer consists of futures traded on COMEX, forward contracts cleared through the London bullion system, and gold ETFs. Prices here move primarily in response to macro variables: the dollar, real interest rates, and shifts in global risk sentiment.

Figure 1

The resurgence in global gold ETF flows early in the year highlights the responsiveness of this financial layer to momentum, liquidity, and broader macroeconomic signals. (Figure 1, upper chart)

Unlike physical markets, positioning here can expand rapidly and at scale, without the need for underlying physical settlement, largely unconstrained by the frictions of moving and storing metal. Yet this flexibility stands in contrast to the more constrained and regionally fragmented nature of physical gold markets—a divergence that becomes evident when comparing pricing across Shanghai and London. 

The physical layer operates very differently. It consists of doré bars produced by mines, bullion refined in Switzerland, jewelry demand across Asia, and steady accumulation by central banks. This layer depends on transportation networks, refinery throughput, vault logistics, and customs clearance. 

Even at the level of demand, gold is not unified. As shown by the World Gold Council, demand is structurally divided across investment, jewelry, and industrial uses—each driven by distinct economic forces and time horizons. (Figure 1, lower graph) 

Figure 2

Rather than moving in lockstep, Shanghai and LBMA pricing in early 2026 oscillated between premium and discount. This back-and-forth reflects a market where arbitrage is active but not seamless—revealing, in practice, the dual structure of gold as both a financial asset and a physical commodity. (Figure 2) 

Under normal conditions, arbitrage keeps these two layers aligned. When physical premiums emerge in Asia or the Middle East, traders move gold to capture the spread, transmitting local signals back into global benchmarks. But when logistics slow or uncertainty rises, that alignment weakens. Physical markets may tighten even as financial benchmarks remain anchored to macro forces. 

III. The Clearing Infrastructure 

The global bullion system relies on a relatively concentrated infrastructure. 

London dominates price discovery through the clearing system associated with the London bullion market, while Switzerland refines a large share of the world’s doré into internationally tradable bars. Logistics hubs in the Gulf, in turn, connect African supply with major consumer markets in Asia. 

This network typically functions smoothly because gold flows continuously between these nodes. 

Figure 3

In effect, the bullion system operates as a hub-and-spoke network: Switzerland serves as a dominant refining center processing a substantial share of global supply, while London anchors pricing and clearing. This concentration enhances efficiency, but also creates critical points of vulnerability. 

When transport routes are disrupted or regional stability deteriorates, those vulnerabilities become visible. 

Geopolitical tensions in the Middle East have begun to complicate these flows. Even partial restrictions on cargo routes or airspace can slow the movement of metal between mining regions, refineries, and end markets. 

In a system where arbitrage depends on the physical movement of bullion, even modest friction does not simply delay flows—it weakens the transmission of price signals between markets. 

IV. When Logistics Stress Becomes Financial Stress 

Disruptions in the physical gold market rarely remain isolated. 

When the movement of metal becomes uncertain, arbitrage trades that normally link markets turn riskier. Traders who once relied on seamless transfer between regions suddenly face basis risk, as the cost and timing of moving bullion becomes unpredictable. 

Clearinghouses respond in the only way they can: by demanding additional collateral. Margin calls follow. 

To meet these calls, participants often liquidate the most liquid assets available—typically dollar-denominated instruments. 

What begins as a logistical friction in the physical market thus propagates into the financial system, triggering a collateral-driven tightening that can ripple across broader markets. 

Disruptions in the physical market do not remain isolated. 

V. The Collateral Squeeze 

Gold occupies a unique position in global finance. It is simultaneously a commodity, a reserve asset, and a form of high-quality collateral used across derivatives, repo agreements, and bullion banking. During periods of market stress, this collateral role can temporarily dominate its safe-haven function. 

Three mechanisms typically drive this dynamic: 

• Forced liquidation. Institutions facing margin calls sell the most liquid assets available. Gold is often among the first assets sold—not because confidence in it has vanished, but because it can quickly raise cash. 
• Haircut widening. When volatility rises, clearinghouses increase the discount applied to gold posted as collateral. Positions that were previously adequately margined can suddenly require additional coverage, forcing further liquidation 
• Tightening in the gold lending market. Bullion banks regularly lend gold through swaps and leases. Under stress, these channels can constrict as counterparties become more cautious. 

A current illustration of these dynamics comes from Dubai. Recent reports show that shipments of gold have been delayed due to regional logistical bottlenecks, rising insurance premiums, and higher financing costs amid Middle East tensions. 

Physical gold that is stuck or delayed can be sold locally—often at a discount—to meet liquidity needs even while global confidence in gold remains intact. This episode demonstrates how frictions in the physical market can amplify financial pressures, turning bullion into a source of immediate cash rather than a stable safe-haven. 

These collateral-driven dynamics are not unprecedented. Similar patterns emerged during the global financial crisis, the European sovereign debt crisis, and the market dislocations of 2020. In each case, gold initially weakened during the liquidity phase of the shock before later reasserting its safe-haven role. 

Financial instability theorist Hyman Minsky argued that crises often begin with a scramble for liquidity, forcing investors to sell even high-quality assets to meet obligations. Gold’s early weakness during crises—including today’s Dubai example—fits squarely within this pattern. 

VI. The Dollar as Lightning Rod 

A common explanation for gold’s weakness is that investors fled into U.S. Treasuries, strengthening the dollar.

Figure 4

The broader market picture suggests something different. Bond markets have not been rallying strongly. To the contrary, yields across many sovereign markets have risen as investors reassess inflation risk and fiscal sustainability following the oil shock. (Figure 4, upper image) 

The dollar’s strength reflects another mechanism. The global financial system is largely funded in dollars. (Figure 4, lower diagram) 

When volatility rises and leveraged positions unwind, institutions need dollars to meet margin calls and settle obligations. 

Capital flows into the dollar not necessarily because it is safe, but because it is required. The dollar therefore acts less like a haven and more like a lightning rod for global liquidity stress. 

Recent market behavior reinforces this dynamic. Episodes of rising dollar demand have coincided with sharp declines in gold prices and tightening cross-currency funding conditions—an indication that global markets are paying a premium to access dollars. 

These moves suggest that what appears to be gold weakness is in fact a symptom of a broader liquidity squeeze, in which institutions sell liquid assets to obtain dollars needed to meet obligations. 

Figure 5 

Historical patterns support this interpretation. Gold has often declined during the initial phase of major financial stress events, including the global financial crisis and the pandemic shock, before rallying as liquidity conditions stabilize. (Figure 5) 

Even gold can be temporarily liquidated in this environment, illustrating how financial liquidity dynamics can dominate its intrinsic safe-haven appeal. 

VII. Fragmentation, Not Failure

Figure 6 

Another structural trend may be shaping gold’s muted response. 

Central banks continue to accumulate gold, extending a multi-year pattern of reserve diversification, although the pace of purchases has moderated in recent months. (Figure 6) 

This suggests that while the strategic bid for gold remains intact, accumulation is becoming more measured—less urgent, more sensitive to price and liquidity conditions. 

At the same time, new trading corridors have gradually developed outside the traditional Western clearing system. Asian markets frequently trade at premiums to London, while regional demand and policy dynamics increasingly influence the movement and pricing of physical gold. 

Taken together, these developments point to a gradual shift toward a more multipolar bullion market. Disruptions to established logistics routes may accelerate this transition, encouraging alternative trading channels and settlement infrastructure. 

This signal that the architecture of the gold market is evolving—away from a single, tightly integrated system toward a more fragmented landscape, where multiple hubs and pathways shape pricing, flows, and accumulation decisions. 

While the trajectory of central bank gold policy remains uncertain under current conditions, a stronger dollar and rising fiscal demands—whether from defense spending or domestic support—may incentivize some central banks to mobilize gold reserves for liquidity. 

Yet these same conditions—intensifying geopolitical fragmentation and rising monetary risk—may reinforce the opposite impulse: to accumulate gold as insurance, as a hedge against currency volatility, or as part of a broader strategy of reserve diversification away from the dollar. 

This tension reflects a deeper uncertainty. Whether central banks become net sources of liquidity or continue as structural buyers will depend on how the current crisis evolves—whether it remains a liquidity event or transitions into a broader monetary regime shift. 

VIII. What the Quiet Is Actually Saying 

Gold’s muted reaction to current geopolitical tensions is not a failure of its safe-haven role. It is a signal—just not the one most investors are looking for. 

What we are observing is the early phase of a crisis in which liquidity demand, dollar funding pressures, and market microstructure dominate price formation. In this phase, assets are not repriced based on long-term risk, but on immediate funding needs. 

History suggests that these phases do not persist indefinitely. Energy shocks, financial stress, and monetary instability tend to unfold sequentially, not simultaneously. 

If current tensions deepen into broader economic and financial disruption, the forces suppressing gold today may reverse. The same mechanisms driving liquidity demand—margin calls, collateral tightening, and dollar scarcity—often give way to monetary easing and balance sheet expansion. 

It is typically at that point—not during the initial scramble for liquidity—that gold reasserts its role. 

The signal is not absent. It is delayed. 

Gold is not failing as a safe haven—it is being temporarily subordinated to the needs of a dollar-based financial system under stress 

VIIIA. Post Script: "There is No Haven" 

Recent market behavior reinforces this interpretation. In the past week, the dollar, gold, U.S. Treasuries, bitcoin, and oil have all weakened simultaneously. 

In normal circumstances, at least one of these assets would function as a refuge. When all of them decline together, the signal is different: markets are not seeking safety—they are seeking liquidity. 

In other words, the system is still in the scramble-for-cash phase of adjustment or at times like this, markets behave as if no haven exists at all.

 

PSE Divergence Confirmed — The September Breakout That Redefined Philippine Mining in the Age of Fiat Disorder

 

The choice of the good to be employed as a medium of exchange and as money is never indifferent. It determines the course of the cash-induced changes in purchasing power. The question is only who should make the choice: the people buying and selling on the market, or the government? It was the market that, in a selective process going on for ages, finally assigned to the precious metals gold and silver the character of money. For two hundred years the governments have interfered with the market’s choice of the money medium. Even the most bigoted étatists do not venture to assert that this interference has proved beneficial—Ludwig von Mises 

In this issue 

PSE Divergence Confirmed — The September Breakout That Redefined Philippine Mining in the Age of Fiat Disorder

I. April 2023: The Thesis That Time Has Now Validated

II. September’s Seismic Shift: Mining Index Outpaces the PSEi

III. The Fiat Fracture: Gold's Three-Legged Bull Market and the Chronicle of Monetary Rupture

IV. Gold as Signal of Systemic Stress

V. Fracture Points: Tumultuous Geopolitics and the New War Economy

VI. A Militarized Global Economy and The Fiscal–Military Feedback Loop

VII. Economic Warfare: Tariffs, Fragmentation, and Supply Chain Bifurcation

VIII. World Central Banks Signal Distrust: The Gold Accumulation Surge and Fiat Erosion

IX. The Paradox of Philippine Mining Reform: Bureaucratic Control over Market Forces

X. The Philippine Mining Index Breakout: Gold Leads, Nickel Surprises, Copper Lags and the Speculative Spillover

XI. Conclusion: The Uneasy Return of Hard Assets in a Soft-Money World 

PSE Divergence Confirmed — The September Breakout That Redefined Philippine Mining in the Age of Fiat Disorder 

Beyond the PSEi: Tracking the Philippine Mining Index's decoupling, the gold-fiat fracture, and the systemic risks that power resource equities. 

I. April 2023: The Thesis That Time Has Now Validated

Figure 1 

Back in April 2023, we predicted that rising gold prices would boost the Philippine mining index for several reasons: (see reference) 

1. Unpopular – It is the most unpopular and possibly the "least owned" sector—even "the institutional punters have likely ignored the industry." As proof, it had the "smallest share of the monthly trading volume since 2013." 

2. Lack of Correlation – "its lack of correlation with the PSEi 30 should make it a worthy diversifier" 

3. Potential Divergence – We wrote that "the current climate of overindebtedness and rising rates seen with most mainstream issues, the market may likely have second thoughts about this disfavored sector. Soon." 

4. Formative Bubble – We posed that "If the advent of the era of fragmentation or the age of inflation materializes, could the consensus eventually be chasing a new bubble?" 

Well, media coverage hardly noticed it, but the relative performance of the Mining sector vis-à-vis the PSEi 30—or the Mining/PSEi ratio—made significant headway last September. It critically untethered from its 5-year consolidation phase. (Figure 1, topmost chart) 

Recall: mines suffered a brutal 9-year bear market from 2012 to 2020. The Mining/PSEi ratio hit its secular low during the pandemic recession, pirouetted to the upside, peaked in September 2022, but remained rangebound—nickel lagged, and gold lacked sufficient momentum to lift the index. 

II. September’s Seismic Shift: Mining Index Outpaces the PSEi 

That dramatically changed in September. The Mining/PSEi ratio experienced a seismic breakout, powered by a decisive thrust in gold mines, buoyed further by surging nickel mines. 

But this time may be different. The 2002–2012 bull cycle was driven by Mines outrunning a similarly bristling PSEi 30. Today, the Mines are diverging—operating antithetically from the broader index—a potential reflection of gradual and reticent transition of market leadership. (Figure 1, middle graph) 

The September numbers underscore the shift (Figure 1, lowest table) 

PSEi 30: –3.28% MoM, –18.14% YoY, –6.46% QoQ, –8.81% YTD

Mining Index: +25.86% MoM, +47.97% YoY, +35.07% QoQ, +63.96% YTD 

So yes, it fulfilled our projections of a bull market in motion while validating our ‘diversifier’ thesis. Still, despite its massive run, the sector remains disfavored—its share of the monthly main board volume remains the smallest.

Figure 2

Even with the gaming sector’s bubble showing cracks, speculative interest in PLUS and BLOOM (at 4.38%) nearly matched the ten-issue Mining Index (4.46%) in September. In short, market sentiment still favors gaming over mining. (Figure 2, topmost image) 

Ultimately, the mining sector’s performance—and its transition to a potential secular bull market—will hinge on its underlying commodities. 

In 2016, we wrote, 

Divergence or rotation can only be affirmed when gold mining stocks will move independently from the mainstream stocks. The best evidence will emerge when both will move in opposite directions. This had been the case from 2012 through 2015 when miners collapsed while the bubble industries blossomed. It should be a curiosity to see when both trade places. Time will tell. [italics original] (Prudent Investor, 2016) 

That’s a bullseye!

III. The Fiat Fracture: Gold's Three-Legged Bull Market and the Chronicle of Monetary Rupture 

Gold’s long-term ascent is a chronicle of monetary rupture. (Figure 2, middle chart) 

The first major break came under Franklin D. Roosevelt, with Executive Order 6102 (1933) and the Gold Reserve Act (1934), which outlawed private gold ownership and revalued the dollar’s gold peg from $20.67 to $35 per ounce. This statutory debasement set the modern precedent for political interference in money. 

The second rupture—Nixon’s 1971 “shock” ending Bretton Woods convertibility—ushered in the fiat era. Untethered from monetary discipline, gold surged from $35 to ~$670 by September 1980, a 19x return over nine years, driven by double-digit inflation, oil shocks, and institutional distrust. This marked the first leg of the post-gold-standard bull cycle under the U.S. dollar’s fiat regime. 

The second leg (2001–2012) unfolded over eleven years, beginning around $265 in February 2001 and peaking near $1,738 in January 2012—a 6.6x return. 

This phase reflected a response to cascading financial crises and aggressive monetary easing: the dotcom bust, 9/11, the Global Financial Crisis, and the Eurozone debt spiral. Central bank interventions—QE and ZIRP from the Fed and ECB—amplified gold’s role as a hedge against fiat dilution. 

The third leg (2015–) began in late 2015, bottoming near $1,050 in the aftermath of China’s devaluation. Over the next decade thru today, gold climbed past $3,800—a ~3.6x return—driven by global central bank accumulation, geopolitical fracture, asset bubbles, inflation spillovers, and record leverage across public and private sectors. 

As a sanctuary asset, gold has not only preserved purchasing power but also signaled systemic fragility. Real (inflation-adjusted) prices have reached all-time highs, underscoring gold’s function as a monetary barometer. (Figure 2, lowest diagram) 

Today, its strength reflects more than cyclical momentum—it mirrors the widening cracks of the fiat era. 

Gold’s trajectory—marked by 9-, 11-, and 10-year legs—suggests that mining valuations may be more tightly coupled to global monetary dysfunction than domestic policy alone. 

With gold now approaching USD 4,000, history suggests we may well see prices reach at least USD 6,000.

For resource-driven economies like the Philippines, this episodic repricing offers a potent lens for evaluating mining equities.  Rising gold valuations, persistent inflation, and the flight to real assets amid waning faith in fiat systems suggest that mining performance may be more tightly coupled to global monetary dysfunction than domestic policy alone. 

Still, each leg has emerged from distinct fundamentals—past performance may rhyme, but not reprise. 

IV. Gold as Signal of Systemic Stress 

Last March, we launched a three-part series forecasting that gold would sustain its record-breaking run. 

In the first installment, we argued that gold has historically served as a leading indicator of economic and financial stress: "gold’s record-breaking runs have consistently foreshadowed major recessions, economic crises, and geopolitical upheavals."

Figure 3 

Today, that reflexive relationship remains in play. 

As global growth falters under the weight of fiscal imbalance and geopolitical strain, central banks have turned decisively toward rate cuts, reversing the tightening cycle that began in 2022. By September, the scale of collective policy easing has already approached pandemic-era levels, underscoring a synchronized monetary response to mounting economic stress. (Figure 3, topmost window) 

V. Fracture Points: Tumultuous Geopolitics and the New War Economy 

In the second part, we explored how monetary disorder underpins gold’s sustained upside. "Gold’s record-breaking rise may signal mounting fissures in today’s fiat money system, " we wrote, “fissures expressed through escalating geopolitical and geoeconomic stress. "  

Those fissures have widened. Over the past month, geopolitical tensions have intensified across multiple fronts, amplifying systemic risks for both commodity markets and global capital flows. In Europe, the Ukraine war has evolved from proxy engagement to near-direct confrontation, punctuated by Putin’s claim that "all NATO countries are fighting us." 

Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán echoed this unease, posting on X: (Figure 3, middle picture) 

"Brussels has chosen a strategy of wearing Russia down through endless war… sacrificing Europe’s economy, and sending hundreds of thousands to die at the front. Hungary rejects this. Europe must negotiate for peace, not pursue endless war." 

Paradoxically, Hungary is part of EU and NATO. 

In the Middle East, Trump’s proposed Gaza peace plan has been welcomed by parts of the EU but criticized by both Israeli hardliners and Hamas, exposing deep political rifts that could derail any lasting truce. 

Washington has also expanded its Caribbean military buildup apparently eyeing Venezuela—a Russian ally—under the pretext of targeting “drug smugglers.” 

Compounding these tensions are the looming U.S. government shutdown, ICE-fueled riots, EU fragmentation, and territorial disputes across Asia (including the Thai-Cambodia and South China Sea flashpoints). Together, these developments erode international interdependence and deepen the sense of global instability. 

VI. A Militarized Global Economy and The Fiscal–Military Feedback Loop 

Adding fuel to the fire, debt-financed fiscal stimulus through military spending has reached unprecedented scale. According to SIPRI, global military expenditures rose 9.4% in real terms to $2.718 trillion in 2024—the highest total ever recorded and the tenth consecutive year of increase. (Figure 3, lowest visual) 

This war economy buildup echoes historical patterns, where militarism became not just a tool of statecraft but a structural imperative. 

Modern defense economies increasingly resemble historical warrior societies such as Bushido Japan, Sparta, and Napoleonic France, where militarism evolved from a tool of power into a systemic necessity. 

In these societies, idle warriors or elite military classes threatened internal stability, compelling leaders to redirect aggression outward. Hideyoshi’s invasion of Korea, for instance, was less about conquest than about pacifying a restless samurai class. 

Today’s massive defense spending serves a parallel function: sustaining industrial output, protecting elite interests, and demanding perpetual geopolitical justification. The result is a fiscal–military feedback loop in which peace itself undermines the architecture of power. 

This militarized economic order breeds a dangerous paradox: when growth depends on arms production and deterrence, the line between defense and aggression dissolves. As nations over-arm to preserve influence and momentum, the world risks sliding into a self-fulfilling conflict dynamic—where fiscal expansion, political ambition, and national pride coalesce into the very forces that once ignited global wars. 

VII. Economic Warfare: Tariffs, Fragmentation, and Supply Chain Bifurcation 

These geopolitical flashpoints are layered atop escalating geoeconomic risks that mirror economic warfare. 

The U.S. has rolled out sweeping new tariffs—10% on lumber and 25% on furniture and cabinetry—adding to earlier steel and aluminum levies that have rattled European industries. With a stronger euro hurting export competitiveness and rising trade barriers disrupting supply chains, Europe’s manufacturing base faces mounting stress. 

The U.S. recently raised tariffs on Philippine exports to 19%, part of a broader “reciprocal” trade posture that threatens ASEAN and EU economies alike. Export controls targeting Chinese tech and semiconductor firms underscore the growing bifurcation of global supply chains, especially in the AI and chip sectors. 

VIII. World Central Banks Signal Distrust: The Gold Accumulation Surge and Fiat Erosion

Figure 4

Amid this widening fragmentation, central banks have accelerated their gold accumulation—buying despite record-high prices. 

As the World Gold Council reported, central banks added a net 15 tonnes of gold in August, consistent with the March–June monthly average, marking a rebound after July’s pause. Seven central banks reported increases of at least one tonne, while only two reduced holdings. (Figure 4, topmost and middle charts) 

Notably, as political institutions, central bank reserve management decisions are not profit but politically driven. 

The Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP), additionally, was the world’s largest seller of gold reserves in 2024, citing profit-taking at higher prices. Yet in 2025, it resumed small purchases—ironically, at even higher price levels. (Figure 4, lowest graph)  

Figure 5 

Measured in Philippine pesos, gold and silver prices are extending their streak of record-breaking highs (Figure 5, upper window) 

As history reminds us, the BSP’s massive gold sales in 2020 preceded the 2022 USD/PHP spike, suggesting that the 2024 divestment—intended to support the peso’s soft peg—could again foreshadow a breakout above PHP 59, perhaps by 2026? 

Most strikingly, global central banks’ gold reserves have grown so rapidly that their aggregate gold holdings are now nearly on par with U.S. Treasury holdings—a clear sign of eroding faith in the contemporary U.S. dollar-based order. (Figure 5, lower image) 

The modern-day Thucydides Trap—intensifying hegemonic competition expressed not only in geopolitics, but also in economic, financial, and monetary spheres—has increasingly powered the gold-silver tandem. 

Viewed in this light, as gold rises against all currencies, the message is clear: it is not gold that’s appreciating, but fiat money that’s depreciating. Gold is no longer just insurance asset— it is, and remains, money itself. 

IX. The Paradox of Philippine Mining Reform: Bureaucratic Control over Market Forces 

In the absence of commodity spot and futures markets—a critical handicap to price discovery, risk management, and capital formation—the state’s default response has been to expand taxation and administrative controls instead of developing genuine market mechanisms. 

Rather than pursuing market liberalization or introducing commodity exchanges to improve efficiency and productivity, the Philippine social democratic paradigm of reform remains fixated on taxation, administration, and bureaucratic control. 

The passage of the Enhanced Fiscal Regime for Large-Scale Metallic Mining Act (RA 12253) and the push for the Mining Fiscal Reform Bill mark the government’s latest attempt to "modernize" the fiscal framework of the mining industry. 

On paper, these reforms promise stronger oversight, greater transparency, and a "fairer share" of mineral wealth between the state and the private sector. The new regime introduces margin-based royalties, a windfall profits tax, and project-level accounting rules meant to simplify tax compliance and reduce leakages. Yet, beyond the reformist veneer lies a system still anchored on bureaucratic discretion—where regulators retain broad authority to interpret profitability thresholds, accounting standards, and tax computations. 

In practice, this discretion perpetuates the opacity and arbitrariness that the law sought to correct. Rather than institutionalizing transparency, the framework risks entrenching regulatory capture, enabling bureaucrats to negotiate or manipulate fiscal obligations behind closed doors. 

The very mechanisms intended to enhance oversight—royalty audits, windfall assessments, and transfer pricing reviews—may instead become new venues for rent-seeking and selective enforcement. This tension between statutory ambition and administrative reality leaves the industry vulnerable not only to corruption but also to uneven enforcement across operators and regions—cronyism. 

In the short term, elevated metal prices could conceal these governance flaws, boosting fiscal receipts and lifting mining equities under the illusion of reform-led success. But when the commodity cycle turns, the cracks will widen: weak oversight, inconsistent standards, and arbitrary taxation could resurface as deterrents to investment and valuation stability. 

Thus, what was framed as a fiscal modernization drive may ultimately reinforce the industry’s old paradox—where boom times mask systemic fragility, and reforms collapse when prices fall. 

X. The Philippine Mining Index Breakout: Gold Leads, Nickel Surprises, Copper Lags and the Speculative Spillover 

Lastly, while gold mining shares primarily contributed to the breakout of the Philippine Mining Index, nickel mines also sprang to life and added to the rally. The Philippine Stock Exchange recalibrated the composition of the Mining Index last August to reflect sectoral momentum. 

Gold-copper Lepanto A and B replaced Benguet A and B, while gold-silver miner Oceana Gold was newly included.

Figure 6

This partial reconstitution, combined with price action, reshaped the index’s internal weightings: as of October 3, gold-copper mines accounted for 74.65%, nickel 23.53%, and oil just 1.83%—a notable shift from March 31’s 68.3%-27.44%-4.25% distribution. (Figure 6 topmost graph)

From March 31st to October 3rd, gold mining shares surged 112%, driven by tailwinds from soaring gold and silver prices. Nickel mining shares, surprisingly, jumped 66.4% despite depressed global nickel prices. Meanwhile, solo oil exploration firm PXP Energy sank 16.5%. 

The biggest ranked mines in the index, in descending order, were Apex Mining, OceanaGold, Philex, Nickel Asia, and Atlas Consolidated. (Figure 6, second to the top image) 

USD prices of Silver and Copper surging while Nickel consolidates. (Figure 6 second to the lowest visual) 

While gold’s rally was the primary engine of the index breakout—amplified by the inclusion of more gold-heavy names—the rebound in nickel miners was more ironic. 

With easy money fueling an “everything bubble,” a rising tide appears to be lifting all mining boats. 

Another factor is that local nickel miners have mirrored the moves of international ETFs such as the Sprott Nickel Miners ETF [Nasdaq: NIKL], which advanced largely on global liquidity flows rather than on improvements in the underlying metal market. (Figure 6, lowest diagram) 

In essence, the surge in nickel shares reflects financial rotation and speculative spillover—capital chasing laggards and cyclical exposure amid abundant liquidity—rather than any meaningful recovery in nickel fundamentals. If the bids are to be believed, nickel prices would eventually have to rise and remain elevated; otherwise, the rally risks running ahead of earnings reality. 

Meanwhile, despite a resurgent copper price—also mirrored in ETFs like the Sprott Copper Miners ETF [Nasdaq: COPP]—some local copper mines have made little progress in scaling higher. 

We are yet to see substantial breakouts from the peripheral mines, suggesting that speculative flows have been highly selective, favoring liquidity and index-weighted names over broader participation. 

Ironically, the divergence between copper and nickel prices underscores the fragility of the latter’s mining rally. 

While copper’s surge has been confirmed by both spot prices and mining equities—reflected in the coherent ascent of ETFs like COPP—nickel’s stagnation contrasts sharply with the outsized gains in nickel mining shares and ETFs like NIKL. 

This disconnect suggests mispricing: a speculative equity bid front-running a commodity rebound that hasn’t arrived. Without confirmation from the metal itself, the feedback loop sustaining nickel equities risks collapse, exposing the rally as a liquidity mirage rather than a durable trend. 

XI. Conclusion: The Uneasy Return of Hard Assets in a Soft-Money World 

The Philippine mining sector’s transformation from pariah to rising star is both cyclical and structural. It reflects not only higher commodity prices but also the global search for hard assets in an era of currency debasement, geopolitical fracture, and policy incoherence. 

Gold’s rise tells a story of distrust in fiat money; nickel’s divergence, of speculative excess born of liquidity overflow. 

The mining index’s ascent thus mirrors the world’s economic psychology—a blend of fear and greed, of safe-haven accumulation and ultra-loose money–financed speculative rotation. 

Whether this is a sustainable repricing or a liquidity mirage will depend on whether global monetary and fiscal regimes stabilize—or fracture further. The former seems close to impossible; the latter, increasingly probable. 

Either way, the Philippine mining story has become a proxy for something much larger: the uneasy return of hard assets in a soft-money world. 

Postscript: No trend moves in a straight line. Gold, silver, and Philippine mining shares are now extensively overbought—inviting a countercyclical pause, not an end, to their ascent. 

____

References 

Ludwig von Mises, The Real Meaning of Inflation and Deflation, January 2, 2024, Mises.org 

Prudent Investor Newsletter, Investing Gamechanger: Commodities and the Philippine Mining Index as Major Beneficiaries of the Shifting Geopolitical Winds! Substack, April 27, 2023 

Prudent Investor Newsletter, Phisix 6,650: Resurgent Gold, Will Mining Sector Lead in 2016? Negative Yield Spread Hits 1 Month Bill-10 Year Treasuries!, Blogspot February 15, 2016 

Prudent Investor Newsletter Do Gold’s Historic Highs Predict a Coming Crisis? Substack, March 30, 2025 

Prudent Investor Newsletter, Gold’s Record Run: Signals of Crisis or a Potential Shift in the Monetary Order? (2nd of 3 Part Series), Substack, March 31, 2025 

Prudent Investor Newsletter, How Surging Gold Prices Could Impact the Philippine Mining Industry (3rd of 3 Series), Substack, April 02, 2025 

Prudent Investor Newsletter, The Long-Term Price Trend and Investment Perspective of Gold, Blogspot, August 02, 2020  

Gold’s Record Run: Signals of Crisis or a Potential Shift in the Monetary Order? (2nd of 3 Part Series)

 

In the course of history various commodities have been employed as media of exchange. A long evolution eliminated the greater part of these commodities from the monetary function. Only two, the precious metals gold and silver, remained. In the second part of the 19th century, more and more governments deliberately turned toward the demonetization of silver. In all these cases what is employed as money is a commodity which is used also for nonmonetary purposes. Under the gold standard, gold is money and money is gold. It is immaterial whether or not the laws assign legal tender quality only to gold coins minted by the government—Ludwig von Mises 

This post is the second in a three-part series 

In this Issue 

Gold’s Record Run: Signals of Crisis or a Potential Shift in the Monetary Order?

I. Global Central Banks Have Driven Gold’s Record-Breaking Rise

II. A Brief Recap on Gold’s Role as Money

III. The Fall of Gold Convertibility: The Transition to Fiat Money (US Dollar Standard)

IV. The Age of Fiat Money and the Explosion of Debt

V. Central Banks: The Marginal Price Setters of Gold

VI. Is a U.S. Gold Audit Fueling Record Prices? 

Gold’s Record Run: Signals of Crisis or a Potential Shift in the Monetary Order? 

The second part of our series examines the foundation of the global economy—the 54-year-old U.S. dollar standard—and its deep connection to gold’s historic rally. 

I. Global Central Banks Have Driven Gold’s Record-Breaking Rise 

Global central banks have played a pivotal role in driving gold’s record-breaking rise, reflecting deeper tensions in the global financial system. 

Since the Great Financial Crisis (GFC) of 2008, central banks—predominantly those in emerging markets—have significantly increased their gold reserves, pushing levels back to those last seen in 1975, a period just after the U.S. government severed the dollar’s link to gold on August 15, 1971, in what became known as the Nixon Shock. 

This milestone reminds us that the U.S. dollar standard, backed by the Federal Reserve, will mark its 54th anniversary by August 2025.

Figure 1

The accumulation of gold by central banks, particularly in the BRICS nations, reflects a strategic move to diversify away from dollar-dominated reserves, a trend that has intensified amid trade wars, sanctions, and the weaponization of finance, as seen in the freezing of Russian assets following the 2022 Ukraine invasion.  (Figure 1, upper window)

The fact that emerging markets, particularly members of the BRICS bloc, have led this accumulation—India, China, and war-weary Russia have notably increased their gold reserves, though they still lag behind advanced economies—reveals a growing fracture in the relationship between emerging and advanced economies.  (Figure 1, lower graph and Figure 2, upper image)  

Figure 2

Additionally, their significant underweighting in gold reserves suggests that BRIC and other emerging market central banks may be in the early stages of a structural shift. If their goal is to reduce reliance on the U.S. dollar and close the gap with advanced economies, the pace and scale of their gold accumulation could accelerate (Figure 2, lower chart)

Figure 3

As evidence, China’s central bank, the People’s Bank of China (PBOC), continued its gold stockpiling for a fourth consecutive month in February 2025. (Figure 3, upper diagram)

Furthermore, last February, the Chinese government encouraged domestic insurance companies to invest in gold, signaling a broader commitment to gold as a financial hedge. 

This divergence underscores a deepening skepticism toward the U.S.-led financial system, as emerging markets seek to hedge against geopolitical and economic uncertainties by strengthening their gold reserves 

In essence, gold’s record-breaking rise may signal mounting fissures in today’s fiat money system, fissures that are being expressed through escalating geopolitical and geoeconomic stress. 

II. A Brief Recap on Gold’s Role as Money 

To understand gold’s evolving role, a brief historical summary is necessary. 

Alongside silver, gold has spontaneously emerged and functioned as money for thousands of years. Its finest moment as a monetary standard came during the classical gold standard (1815–1914), a decentralized, laissez-faire regime in Europe that facilitated global trade and economic stability. 

As the great dean of the Austrian School of Economics, Murray Rothbard, explained, "It must be emphasized that gold was not selected arbitrarily by governments to be the monetary standard. Gold had developed for many centuries on the free market as the best money; as the commodity providing the most stable and desirable monetary medium. Above all, the supply and provision of gold was subject only to market forces, and not to the arbitrary printing press of the government." (Rothbard, 1963) 

However, this system was not destined to endure. The rise of the welfare and warfare state, supported by the emergence of central banks, led to the abandonment of the classical gold standard. 

As Mises Institute’s Ryan McMaken elaborated, "This system was fundamentally a system that relied on states to regulate matters and make monetary standards uniform. While attempting to create an efficient monetary system for the market economy, the free-market liberals ended up calling on the state to ensure the system facilitated market exchange. As a result, Flandreau concludes: ‘[T]he emergence of the Gold Standard really paved the way for the nationalization of money. This may explain why the Gold Standard was, with respect to the history of western capitalism, such a brief experiment, bound soon to give way to managed currency.’" (McMaken, March 2025) 

The uniformity, homogeneity, and growing dependency on the state in managing monetary affairs ultimately contributed to the classical gold standard’s demise. 

III. The Fall of Gold Convertibility: The Transition to Fiat Money (US Dollar Standard) 

World War I forced governments to abandon gold convertibility, leading to the adoption of the Gold Exchange Standard—where only a select few currencies, such as the British pound (until 1931) and the U.S. dollar (until 1933), remained convertible into gold. 

Later, the Bretton Woods System attempted to reinstate a form of gold backing by pegging global currencies to the U.S. dollar, which in turn was tied to gold at $35 per ounce. 

However, rising U.S. inflation, fueled by fiscal spending on the Vietnam War and social welfare programs, combined with the Triffin dilemma, led to a widening Balance of Payments (BoP) deficit. Foreign-held U.S. dollars exceeded U.S. gold reserves, threatening the system’s stability. 

As economic historian Michael Bordo explained: "Robert Triffin (1960) captured the problems in his famous dilemma. Because the Bretton Woods parities, which were declared in the 1940s, had undervalued the price of gold, gold production would be insufficient to provide the resources to finance the growth of global trade. The shortfall would be met by capital outflows from the US, manifest in its balance of payments deficit. Triffin posited that as outstanding US dollar liabilities mounted, they would increase the likelihood of a classic bank run when the rest of the world’s monetary authorities would convert their dollar holdings into gold (Garber 1993). According to Triffin, when the tipping point occurred, the US monetary authorities would tighten monetary policy, leading to global deflationary pressure." (Bordo, 2017)

Bretton Woods required a permanently loose monetary policy, which ultimately led to a mismatch between U.S. gold reserves and foreign held dollar liabilities. 

To prevent a run on U.S. gold reserves, President Richard Nixon formally ended the dollar’s convertibility into gold on August 15, 1971, ushering in a fiat money system based on floating exchange rates anchored to the U.S. dollar. 

IV. The Age of Fiat Money and the Explosion of Debt 

With the shackles of gold removed, central banks gained full control over monetary policy, leading to unprecedented levels of inflation and political spending. Governments expanded their fiscal policies to fund not only the Welfare and Warfare State, but also the Administrative/Bureaucratic State, Surveillance State, National Security State, Deep State, Wall Street Crony State, and more. 

The most obvious consequence of this system has been the historic explosion of global debt. The OECD has warned that government and bond market debt levels are at record highs, posing a serious threat to economic stability. (Figure 3, lower chart) 

V. Central Banks: The Marginal Price Setters of Gold 

Ironically, in this 54-year-old fiat system, so far, it is politically driven, non-profit central banks—rather than market forces—that have become the marginal price setters for gold. 

Unlike traditional investors, central banks DON’T buy gold for profit, but for political and economic security reasons. 

The World Gold Council’s 2024 survey provides insight into why central banks continue to accumulate gold: "The survey also highlights the top reasons for central banks to hold gold, among which safety seems to be a primary motivation. Respondents indicated that its role as a long-term store of value/inflation hedge, performance during times of crisis, effectiveness as a portfolio diversifier, and lack of default risk remain key to gold’s allure." (WGC, 2024) 

This strategic accumulation reflects a broader trend of central banks seeking to insulate their economies from the vulnerabilities of the fiat system, particularly in an era of heightened geopolitical risks and dollar weaponization.

Figure 4 

The Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP) has historically shared this view. (Figure 4, upper graph) 

In a 2008 London Bullion Management Association (LBMA) paper, a BSP representative outlined gold’s importance in Philippine foreign reserves—a stance that remains reflected in BSP infographics today. 

Alas, in 2024, following criticism for being the largest central bank gold seller, BSP reversed its stance. Once describing gold reserves as "insurance and safety," it now dismisses gold as a "dead asset"—stating that: "Gold prices can be volatile, earns little interest, and has storage costs, so central banks don’t want to hold too much." 

This shift in narrative conveniently justified BSP’s recent gold liquidations. 

Yet, as previously noted, history suggests that BSP gold sales often precede peso devaluations—a warning sign for the Philippine currency. (Figure 4, lower window)

VI. Is the Propose U.S. Gold Audit Help Fueling Record Prices? 

Finally, could the Trump-Musk push to audit U.S. gold reserves at Fort Knox be another factor behind gold’s rally? 

There has long been speculation that U.S. Treasury gold reserves, potentially including gold stored for foreign nations, have been leased out to suppress prices.

Figure 5

Notably, Comex gold and silver holdings have spiked since these audit discussions began. Gold lease rates rocketed to the highest level in decades last January. (Figure 5, top and bottom charts) 

With geopolitical uncertainty rising, central bank gold buying accelerating, and doubts growing over fiat stability, gold’s record-breaking ascent may be far from over. 

Yet, it’s important to remember that no trend goes in a straight line.

___

References 

Murray N. Rothbard, 1. Phase I: The Classical Gold Standard, 1815-1914, What Has Government Done to Our Money? Mises.org 

Ryan McMaken, The Rise of the State and the End of Private Money March 25,2025, Mises.org 

Michael Bordo The operation and demise of the Bretton Woods system: 1958 to 1971 CEPR, Vox EU, April 23, 2017 cepr.org 

World Gold Council, Gold Demand Trends Q2 2024, July 30,2024, gold.org