Why Isn’t Gold Acting Like a Safe Haven—Yet? The Gold–Oil Ratio and the Liquidity Stress Behind Early-Crisis Gold Weakness (Part II)

 

It is particularly odd that economists who profess to be champions of a free-market economy, should go to such twists and turns to avoid facing the plain fact: that gold, that scarce and valuable market-produced metal, has always been, and will continue to be, by far the best money for human society— Murray Rothbard

In this issue

Why Isn’t Gold Acting Like a Safe Haven—Yet?  The Gold–Oil Ratio and the Liquidity Stress Behind Early-Crisis Gold Weakness (Part II)

I. What the Quiet Actually Means

II. Safe Havens and the Hierarchy of Money

III. The Gold–Oil Ratio and Crisis Transmission

IV. Mean Reversion or Regime Shift? Interpreting the Gold–Oil Ratio

V. Liquidity Stress: When Gold Falls First

VI. Real-Time Example: Central Banks Mobilize Gold, Turkey’s Gold Sales

VII. Real-Time Example: Liquidity Stress in the UAE

VIII. Gold Across Monetary Regimes

IX. Conclusion: The Signal in the Silence 

Why Isn’t Gold Acting Like a Safe Haven—Yet?  The Gold–Oil Ratio and the Liquidity Stress Behind Early-Crisis Gold Weakness (Part II) 

Energy shocks, dollar liquidity stress, and why gold often lags before it leads during financial crises 

Part II 

I. What the Quiet Actually Means 

Part I examined why gold has remained surprisingly subdued despite escalating geopolitical tensions and rising oil prices. The explanation lies not in the failure of gold’s safe-haven role, but in the mechanics of liquidity stress and the structure of the global bullion system. 

Part II explores what that quiet may be signaling. By examining the relationship between gold and oil, the liquidity dynamics of financial crises, and gold’s behavior across monetary regimes, a clearer picture begins to emerge. 

Gold’s silence may not reflect stability. 

It may instead reflect the early stage of a broader liquidity adjustment inside the global dollar system. 

While modern financial systems are built on credit rather than metal, periods of stress often reveal that the hierarchy of money still persists beneath the surface. 

II. Safe Havens and the Hierarchy of Money 

Safe-haven assets are often misunderstood. In practice, they represent savings held in forms with high moneyness—assets expected to preserve value (store of value) while remaining readily marketable during periods of stress. 

Their appeal rests on two characteristics: the ability to preserve purchasing power and the ability to be converted into cash quickly with minimal price disruption or marketability. 

Crucially, these properties are context-dependent. Assets perceived as safe are not inherently risk-free; their status reflects market confidence in their liquidity and convertibility. U.S. Treasuries, for example, are technically government liabilities, yet they function as safe assets because of their deep, liquid markets and the central role of the dollar in global finance. 

Gold occupies a distinct position in this hierarchy. Its moneyness is reinforced not only by the absence of counterparty risk but also by physical characteristics—durability, divisibility, recognizability, and malleability—that historically supported its acceptability across time and geography. 

These features contributed to gold’s persistent marketability, particularly in environments where trust in financial intermediaries weakens. 

However, as Austrian economist Gary North emphasized, these properties do not constitute intrinsic value. Value is not inherent in the metal itself but is imputed by market participants. Gold’s status as a safe-haven asset therefore arises from sustained confidence in its liquidity and acceptability, especially under conditions of stress. 

This hierarchy becomes clearer when markets transition from stability to crisis. 

Figure 1

The divergence among major fiat currencies highlights how gold’s moneyness becomes more pronounced as confidence in fiat purchasing power declines. (chart from Jesse Colombo’s The Bubble Bubble Report) [Figure 1] 

As described by Hyman Minsky, prolonged financial stability encourages leverage and risk-taking. When stress emerges, this dynamic reverses abruptly. Market participants experience a liquidity squeeze, reprioritizing assets according to their moneyness—favoring those that can be converted into cash quickly and reliably without significant loss of value. 

III. The Gold–Oil Ratio and Crisis Transmission 

One way to understand gold’s muted response to current geopolitical tensions is through its relationship with oil. 

Oil represents an immediate claim on global liquidity. It is consumed, dollar-priced "Petrodollar", and highly sensitive to geopolitical disruption. Gold, by contrast, represents stored value—held primarily as protection against monetary instability. 

(Incidentally, oil is often called “black gold,” reflecting its quasi-monetary properties: global acceptability, scarcity, and embedded value as the economy’s primary energy input.)  

Figure 2

In real terms, Brent oil’s price trend appears to have formed a secular bottom in the late 1990s around the Asian Financial Crisis. (Figure 2, upper chart) 

Since then, the broader trajectory has been upward, interrupted by the 2000s commodity spike and the pandemic collapse. This pattern points to deeper structural forces: monetary expansion, chronic underinvestment in energy, and rising geopolitical risk. 

With Middle East tensions intensifying and war-economy dynamics increasingly shaping policy, the current oil shock may prove more persistent than markets expect. 

When geopolitical shocks drive oil prices sharply higher, the global financial system experiences a liquidity drain as energy-importing economies scramble for additional dollars to fund higher fuel costs—tightening financial conditions across currencies and credit markets. 

With dollar credit estimated at roughly $14 trillion—over half in debt securities (Bank of International Settlement)—this dynamic amplifies dollar demand during periods of stress. [Figure 2, lower image] 

This mechanism echoes economist Irving Fisher’s debt-deflation dynamics: rising costs and tightening collateral conditions force economic actors into a dollar funding pressure. 

In such episodes, gold does not always rise immediately. 

Instead, the gold–oil ratio compresses as oil outpaces gold. The system prioritizes settlement over preservation—dollars are needed to pay for energy before reserves can be accumulated as protection. 

Historically, this reflects the early phase of crisis transmission. Energy shocks propagate rapidly through trade balances, currencies, and funding markets, triggering collateral demand that can temporarily suppress traditional hedges. 

Only later—once liquidity pressures ease or policy responses take hold—does gold tend to reassert itself. 

IV. Mean Reversion or Regime Shift? Interpreting the Gold–Oil Ratio 

The gold–oil ratio captures the relative performance of the two commodities; recently, gold has significantly outperformed oil. Heuristically, it can be read as follows:

• High ratio: monetary stress, weak growth, disinflationary pressures
• Falling ratio (oil catching up): cyclical inflation, supply shocks, rearmament, and stronger industrial demand

If the global economy is transitioning toward a war footing—characterized by higher defense spending, rising commodity intensity, and tightening energy geopolitics—then near-term oil outperformance relative to gold is plausible. 

Even in a less oil-dependent world, geopolitical tensions can amplify supply–demand imbalances. 

That said, these forces can overlap. Inflationary pressures, financial stress, and supply shocks may coexist rather than unfold sequentially. 

Mean reversion suggests scope for oil to outperform gold, with historical anchors around ~18–22 (mean) and ~15–18 (median). However, these benchmarks may no longer be stable.

First, Goodhart’s Law applies: once the ratio becomes a widely targeted signal, its reliability deteriorates.

Second, base effects distort comparisons, especially after extreme moves. When ratios are measured off extreme starting points—such as the pandemic collapse in oil or gold’s surge during periods of monetary stress—subsequent moves can appear disproportionately large or directional. In reality, these shifts may reflect mechanical normalization from distorted bases, rather than a clean cyclical signal.

Figure 3

Third, the apparent gold-oil ratio uptrend since 2008 indicates shifting structural drivers—implying that historical mean/median benchmarks may themselves be drifting higher. (Figure 3) 

In short, while mean reversion remains a useful guide, the regime may be evolving—making static historical anchors increasingly unreliable. 

It may be that the recent compression in the gold–oil ratio reflects gold’s prior fat-tailed outperformance, with the current move representing a normalization back toward its two-decade trend channel rather than a structural reversal. 

V. Liquidity Stress: When Gold Falls First 

One of the most counterintuitive features of financial crises is that gold can weaken precisely when investors expect it to strengthen. 

This occurs because gold is not only a store of value—it is also one of the most liquid assets in global markets. 

When financial stress intensifies, institutions face margin calls, collateral demands, and funding obligations. To meet these pressures, they liquidate assets that can be sold quickly.

Gold often becomes one of those assets.

This reflects the liquidity phase described by Hyman Minsky, in which the immediate need for funding temporarily overrides longer-term investment considerations.

During this stage of a crisis, the system prioritizes cash over protection.

Gold may weaken not because its safe-haven role has disappeared, but because it remains one of the few assets capable of generating immediate liquidity.

VI. Real-Time Example: Central Banks Mobilize Gold, Turkey’s Gold Sales 

Figure 4

Recent news reports indicates that Turkey deployed gold-linked lira and foreign-exchange swaps, alongside outright sales, to support the lira during a period of market stress, as the USD/TRY exchange rate surged to successive record highs. Its gold reserves fell by roughly 50 tonnes (to 772 tonnes), the largest decline since 2018. [Figure 4] 

Such operations illustrate another dimension of gold’s role in modern reserve management. By mobilizing gold through swaps, central banks can generate immediate foreign-currency liquidity, effectively using gold as a liquidity bridge—complementing direct FX intervention rather than fully substituting for it. 

However, these tools primarily address short-term liquidity pressures rather than underlying macroeconomic imbalances. 

When markets perceive that a central bank is actively deploying finite reserve assets, these actions can signal constraint—potentially raising risk premia and intensifying pressure on the currency. 

As external buffers are drawn down, the policy path often becomes increasingly dependent on domestic liquidity provision, with central banks resorting to expansion of the monetary base to sustain market functioning. 

This dynamic highlights the reflexive nature of intervention: measures intended to stabilize markets can amplify fragilities over time through resource misallocation.

Importantly, such actions do not diminish gold’s monetary role. On the contrary, they demonstrate that gold continues to function as high-quality collateral within the global financial system during periods of stress. 

VII. Real-Time Example: Liquidity Stress in the UAE 

Recent developments in the Gulf financial system offer a contemporary illustration of these dynamics.

Figure 5

Following a sharp collapse in banking liquidity—reportedly approaching 45 percent in parts of the regional funding market—the Central Bank of the United Arab Emirates moved to inject massive amounts of liquidity into domestic banks. [Figure 5, upper diagram] 

The intervention aimed to stabilize funding conditions and prevent disruptions in the region’s financial system. 

While such measures can temporarily ease liquidity pressures, they also reveal the underlying structure of modern crises. When funding conditions tighten, policymakers must often intervene rapidly to maintain the functioning of credit markets. In the short term, these interventions can strengthen demand for dollar liquidity, particularly in economies closely tied to global energy markets. 

The result is a paradox. 

Even as geopolitical tensions rise and energy prices surge—conditions that would normally support gold—financial systems may initially prioritize liquidity stabilization over reserve accumulation. 

Gold’s subdued behavior during such episodes may therefore reflect not complacency, but temporary pressure within the global funding system. 

This dynamic is further illustrated by recent developments in the U.S. dollar. Despite shocks including the U.S.–Israel–Iran conflict, the DXY index has shown muted gains and even diverges from 2-year rate differentials. [Figure 5, lower pane] 

This suggests that dollar strength in this period is less about a classic safe-haven bid and more about liquidity demand driven by de-risking and deleveraging. 

The lack of coordinated upside in gold, bonds, and bitcoin points to collateral stress rather than a simple flight to safety. Meanwhile, interest rates themselves may reflect not only policy and war risk, but also fiscal pressures and issuance dynamics, blurring the signals that rate differentials typically provide. 

In classic safe-haven episodes, defensive assets tend to rise together. When that coordination breaks down, it often signals that markets are prioritizing liquidity and collateral access rather than portfolio hedging. 

VIII. Gold Across Monetary Regimes

Figure 6 

Gold’s long-term behavior is non-linear. Its bull markets tend to move in waves associated with epochal shifts in global monetary regimes. [Figure 6] 

The first bull cycle followed the collapse of the Bretton Woods system after the Nixon Shock and lasted until the early 1980s. This was followed by a bear market and a two-decade lull, reflecting the “salad days” of the U.S. dollar standard—characterized by the rise of globalization, the Fed’s drift toward easy-money policies, and the deepening of the dollar’s exorbitant privilege. 

A second wave emerged in the early 2000s and accelerated after the Global Financial Crisis, when central banks dramatically expanded their balance sheets in response to economic shocks. 

The current period represents a third phase—marked by a drift toward a war economy: protectionism, sanctions, and kinetic conflict—while also shaped by overlapping forces including evolving monetary policies, the weaponization of the dollar, oil and commodity dynamics, AI-driven structural uncertainty, and central bank accumulation of gold. 

These forces are gradually reshaping how gold is accumulated, traded, and—for central banks—deployed within national reserve strategies. 

IX. Conclusion: The Signal in the Silence 

Gold’s current calm should not be mistaken for irrelevance. 

Financial crises rarely begin with a clean flight to safety. Instead, they begin with liquidity stress. Funding markets tighten, institutions scramble for cash, and the most liquid assets are often sold first to meet obligations. 

In these early stages, the global financial system prioritizes settlement over preservation. Energy shocks drain dollars from the system, trade balances shift abruptly, and capital flows reprice risk across currencies and credit markets. 

This sequence helps explain why gold can appear subdued even as geopolitical tensions escalate. Oil shocks transmit stress through the real economy first, tightening liquidity before investors turn toward long-term stores of value. 

Only later—once liquidity pressures ease or policy responses expand—does gold typically reassert its defensive role. 

The current compression in the gold–oil ratio may therefore reflect not the failure of gold as a safe haven, but the timing of crisis transmission within a dollar-centric financial system. 

If the emerging environment is indeed shifting toward a more fragmented geopolitical order—characterized by energy insecurity, fiscal expansion, de-globalization, kinetic conflicts, and a gradual erosion of monetary trust—then gold’s quiet phase may represent the prelude rather than the conclusion of its cycle. 

The signal is not absent. 

It may simply be arriving later in the crisis sequence. 

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.

 

Is the Philippine Peso’s Rise a Secret Bargaining Chip in Trump’s Trade War?

Devaluation is not a tool for exports. It is a tool for cronyism and always ends with the demise of the currency as a valuable reserve—Daniel Lacalle

In this issue 

Is the Philippine Peso’s Rise a Secret Bargaining Chip in Trump’s Trade War?

I. BSP Denies Currency Manipulation Amid Trade Talks

II The Mar-a-Lago Framework: Dollar Devaluation as Trade Strategy

III. Asian Geopolitical Allies Lead Currency Appreciation Against USD

IV. Market Signals Point to Implicit Bilateral Deals

V. Taiwan’s Hedging Frenzy: Collateral Damage of FX Realignment?

VI Gross International Reserves Tell a Different Story

VII. Breaking Historical Patterns: GIR Decline Amid Peso Strength

VIII. Yield Spreads and Market Disruptions Signal Intervention

IX. Conclusion: The Hidden Costs of Currency Leverage; Intertemporal Risks and Economic Feedback Loops 

Is the Philippine Peso’s Rise a Secret Bargaining Chip in Trump’s Trade War? 

How the BSP's currency interventions may be hiding an implicit trade deal with Washington

I. BSP Denies Currency Manipulation Amid Trade Talks 

From a syndicated Reuters news, the Interaksyon reported May 20: "The Philippine central bank said there is no indication that its management of the peso’s exchange rate is part of trade negotiations with the U.S. government, as it signalled a preference for non-interest rate tools to manage capital inflows. The Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas said while it expected to further ease monetary policy because of a favourable inflation outlook, it favoured a more nuanced approach to managing liquidity and exchange rate volatility. “The BSP does not normally respond to capital flow surges or outflows, or even volatility, using policy interest rate action,” the BSP said in an emailed response to questions from Reuters. Philippine officials met U.S. authorities on May 2 to discuss trade. Although not directly involved in the talks, the BSP said there was no indication foreign exchange considerations were explicitly part of the negotiations. The Philippines has not been spared from President Trump’s tariffs, although it faces a comparatively modest 17% tariff, lower than regional neighbours Malaysia, Thailand, Indonesia, and Vietnam. “The BSP adopts a pragmatic approach in managing capital flow volatility, combining FX interventions when necessary, the strategic use of the country’s foreign exchange reserve buffer, and macroprudential measures,” it said." (bold added)

II The Mar-a-Lago Framework: Dollar Devaluation as Trade Strategy 

Though the Mar-a-Lago Accord, coined by analysts like Zoltan Pozsar and popularized by Stephen Miran, is a speculative framework, it draws inspiration from the 1985 Plaza Accord, where G5 nations coordinated to depreciate the U.S. dollar to boost American exports. Stephen Miran, now Chairman of the White House Council of Economic Advisers, published a paper in November 2024 titled ‘A User’s Guide to Restructuring the Global Trading System.’ 

It argues that the U.S. dollar’s persistent overvaluation harms American manufacturing by making exports less competitive and imports cheaper, contributing to a $1.2 trillion trade deficit in 2024.

To address this, Miran proposed devaluing the dollar by encouraging foreign central banks to sell dollar assets or adjust monetary policies, while using tariffs as a ‘stick’ to pressure trading partners into currency adjustments or trade concessions.

While dedollarization—reducing reliance on the dollar in global trade and reserves—is often cited as the cause of recent dollar weakness, this may apply to countries with geopolitical tensions with the U.S., such as China or Russia or other members of the BRICs.

However, it doesn’t explain the currency strength among staunch U.S. allies like the Philippines, Japan, and South Korea, suggesting a different motive: implicit negotiations with the Trump administration.

III. Asian Geopolitical Allies Lead Currency Appreciation Against USD

Figure 1 

Year to June 13, 2025, the USD dropped against 8 of 10 Bloomberg-quoted Asian currencies, led by USDTWD (Taiwan dollar) -9.9%, USDKRW (Korean won) -7.8%, and USDJPY (Japanese yen) -8.35%. (Figure 1, topmost and middle charts) 

These countries, staunch U.S. allies that host American military bases, are the most likely to accommodate Washington’s demands. 

In ASEAN, major currencies appreciated more modestly: USDMYR (Malaysian ringgit) fell 5.05%, USDTHB (Thai baht) 5.49%, and USDPHP (Philippine peso) 2.8%. 

In contrast, USDIDR (Indonesian rupiah) rose 1.06%, indicating rupiah weakening—likely due to Indonesia's neutral stance, persistent fiscal concerns, and weaker ties to the U.S.

IV. Market Signals Point to Implicit Bilateral Deals 

On May 23, MUFG commented: "Markets have seemingly perceived that President Trump is looking for a weaker US dollar versus several Asian currencies as part of bilateral trade negotiations. Bloomberg News recently reported that the Taiwanese authorities had allowed the TWD to appreciate sharply earlier this month. The deputy governor of CBC has said that this strategic move is to allow market expectations for TWD gains to play out. But this is apparently at odds with the Taiwan central bank’s past preference to intervene in the FX market to smooth out volatility. The Korean won has also advanced sharply on the news that the US-South Korea finished the second technical discussions on 22 May." (bold added) (Figure 1, lowest graph) 

This MUFG insight—"A weaker US dollar versus several Asian currencies as part of bilateral trade negotiations"—suggests an implicit bilateral Mar-a-Lago deal.

V. Taiwan’s Hedging Frenzy: Collateral Damage of FX Realignment? 

Notably, Taiwan’s insurers recently suffered massive losses during the USD selloff and may have even contributed to it. Taiwan’s Financial Supervisory Commission (FSC) summoned insurers for reportedly “rushing to hedge their US bond holdings.” This could reflect unintended effects of TWD appreciation, potentially tied to an implicit Mar-a-Lago deal. 

In a nutshell, it’s likely no coincidence that currency appreciation aligns with the U.S.’s closest allies, suggesting implicit bilateral Mar-a-Lago deals driven by Trump’s tariff leverage, despite official denials. 

VI Gross International Reserves Tell a Different Story 

"Never believe anything in politics until it is officially denied"—Ottoman Bismark 

Taiwan’s central bank’s denial of involvement closely mirrors that of the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP). 

The BSP has washed its hands from using the peso as a tool for negotiation, despite the Philippines status as a client state in ASEAN, bound by the 1951 Mutual Defense Treaty and hosting U.S. military bases. 

Given the Mar-a-Lago framework of coupling dollar devaluation with tariffs, trade negotiations with the U.S. would likely involve the BSP, making its denial implausible. 

While no official agreement exists, the BSP noted it could use a combination of “FX interventions when necessary” and “the strategic use of the country’s foreign exchange reserve buffer” for capital flows management. 

This rhetoric suggests using the Philippine peso as strategic leverage for trade negotiations, aligning with the Mar-a-Lago goal of weakening the dollar to reduce the U.S.$1.2 trillion trade deficit, including the Philippines’ $5 billion surplus from $14.2 billion in exports.

VII. Breaking Historical Patterns: GIR Decline Amid Peso Strength

Figure 2 

Consider the evidence: When the USDPHP fell in 2012 and 2018, the increase BSP’s Gross International Reserves (GIR) accelerated, evidenced by aggregated monthly inflows. 

As a side note, May’s GIR saw a marginal increase, supported ironically by gold, which has served as an anchor. (Figure 2, topmost and middle images) 

Recall that last February, the BSP dismissed gold’s role, citing the "dead asset" logic: Gold prices can be volatile, earn little interest, and incur storage costs, so central banks prefer not to hold excessive amounts." Divine justice? 

Yet ironically, unlike past trends, the current USDPHP decline has led to a reduction in the GIR. (Figure 2, lowest visual) 

The BSP’s template, repeated in January, March, and April, states: "The month-on-month decrease in the GIR level reflected mainly the (1) national government’s (NG) drawdowns on its foreign currency deposits with the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP) to meet its external debt obligations and pay for its various expenditures, and (2) BSP’s net foreign exchange operations." 

The USDPHP remains far from the BSP’s ‘Maginot Line’ of Php 59—the upper band of its informal ‘soft-peg’ range—so why is its GIR eroding? 

While part of the decline may be due to ‘revaluation effects’ from rising long-term U.S. Treasury yields (falling bond prices) and a softer dollar, this insufficiently explains the GIR’s decline amid an appreciating peso, contrary to historical patterns.

Figure 3

BSP data shows its net foreign assets contracted year-on-year in April 2025, the first decline since July 2023. (Figure 3, topmost diagram) 

This partly reflects changes in the FX assets of Other Deposit Corporations (ODCs), but the primary driver has been the BSP’s dollar-denominated assets. (Figure 3, second to the highest pane) 

Either we are seeing 'revaluation effects' from a GIR heavily weighted in USD assets—given that the BSP was the largest central bank gold seller in 2024, reducing its gold holdings to bolster reserves—or the BSP has been offloading some of its FX holdings to weaken the USD, thereby supporting the peso’s rise. It could be both, distinguished by scale.

VIII. Yield Spreads and Market Disruptions Signal Intervention 

The spread between 10-year Philippine and U.S. Treasury yields has drifted to its widest since 2019, when BVAL rates replaced PDST in October 2018 as the benchmark for Philippine bonds. (Figure 3, second to the lowest and lowest graphs) 

Historically, this was linked to deeper USDPHP declines, but since the BSP adopted its ‘soft-peg’ regime in 2022, its interventions have significantly reshaped this correlation—altering market signals and shifting currency allocations within the financial system

Figure 4

Weak organic FX revenues—contracting FDIs (-45.24% YoY Jan-Mar 2025), tourism (-0.82% Jan-Apr, including overseas Filipino visitors), March 2025 remittances at a 9-month low, and volatile portfolio flows ($923 million Jan-Apr)—don’t support the peso’s strength, except for services exports (+7.2% Q1 GDP). (Figure 4) 

Insufficient FX flows explain the surge in external debt, as the Philippines borrows heavily to bridge the gap, with external debt increasing to support trade, fiscal needs, and the defense of the USDPHP soft peg.

Figure 5 

Philippine external debt surged by a staggering 14% in Q1 2025, driven by a 17.4% rise in public FX debt, which now accounts for approximately 59% of the total! 

The BSP calls a sustained spike in FX debt 'manageable'—color us amazed!

IX. Conclusion: The Hidden Costs of Currency Leverage; Intertemporal Risks and Economic Feedback Loops 

These factors strengthen the case that the BSP is using the peso as leverage for trade negotiations—an implicit bilateral Mar-a-Lago deal. 

These interventions have intertemporal effects—or unintended consequences from pursuing short-term goals—that will likely surface over time. 

The USD’s decline will likely accelerate FX-denominated borrowings, becoming more evident once the peso weakens—similar to the 2018 and 2022 episodes—amplifying currency, interest rate, and other risks through mismatches that could exacerbate market disruptions. 

This poses risks of dislocations in sectors reliant on merchandise trade, remittances, or FX or USD fund flows, potentially triggering feedback loops that could negatively impact the broader economy or lead to economic and financial instability. 

And with escalating risks of a fiscal shock—one that could trigger and amplify unforeseen ramifications—that would translate into a perfect storm, wouldn’t it?