Why Isn't Gold Acting Like a Safe Haven—Yet? Part III: Is This Gold's Next Leg Up?

 

First of all there is need to remember that the gold standard did not collapse. Governments abolished it in order to pave the way for inflation. The whole grim apparatus of oppression and coercion—policemen, customs guards, penal courts, prisons, in some countries even executioners—had to be put into action in order to destroy the gold standard. Solemn pledges were broken, retroactive laws were promulgated, provisions of constitutions and bills of rights were openly defied. And hosts of servile writers praised what the governments had done and hailed the dawn of the fiat-money millennium.—Ludwig von Mises 

In this issue: 

Why Isn't Gold Acting Like a Safe Haven—Yet? Part III: Is This Gold's Next Leg Up?

I. Introduction: From Finding the Bottom to Explaining the Reversal

II. The Gold Cycle: Cyclical bear, Secular bull

III. The New Plaza Accord: Intervention and Its Shrinking Half-Life

IV. Deepening Interventions Becomes Gold's Catalyst

V. When Former Headwinds Become Tailwinds

VII. Central Banks as Dip Buyers, and the Fund-Flow Tailwind

VI. Risk-Off, Inflationary, and Fiscal Signals Converge

VII. Central Banks as Dip Buyers, and the Fund-Flow Tailwind

VIII. Bottom line: Gold Is Pricing the Limits of Intervention 

Why Isn't Gold Acting Like a Safe Haven—Yet? Part III: Is This Gold's Next Leg Up? 

Intervention was supposed to stabilize currencies and bonds. Instead, each attempt is exposing the imbalance underneath—and gold is beginning to price it.

I. Introduction: From Finding the Bottom to Explaining the Reversal 

Figure 1 

This piece started as an attempt to answer whether gold had found a bottom. Events overtook the question. In the space of a week, gold cleared its 200-day moving average at $4,501, broke above $4,600, surpassed the 38.2% retracement of its decline from March's record, and confirmed the rounding-bottom pattern that had been forming since June. It was gold's third straight weekly gain—and its third strongest week of the year. 

The question of the bottom is no longer the interesting one. 

What's worth asking now is whether this is the start of gold's next leg toward its late January record near $5,400-$5,600, and — more importantly for this series — why it's happening.

Part I and Part II of this series argued gold's early-2026 weakness was a liquidity-stress phenomenon, not a failure of its safe-haven role — the gold-oil ratio compressing as energy-importing economies scrambled for dollars, gold sold because it remained liquid enough to fund margin calls, not because confidence in it had broken. Gold peaked above $5,500 intraday in late January, fell in a rounding top that hardened into a roughly 28% decline into late June, then based and turned. That much was covered in the earlier articles. 

What has changed is the pace and the trend—and, as the following analysis shows, the trigger. 

II. The Gold Cycle: Cyclical bear, Secular bull 

Gold's advance since the Nixon shock of August 15, 1971, has never moved in a straight line. It has progressed through a series of secular cycles, with cyclical bear markets occurring within the larger structural trend. Those corrections have varied considerably in both depth and duration.

Figure 2

The shortest cyclical bear market under a secular bullmarket was the 2008 decline, at roughly 26%, which resolved within about eight months. The deepest was the 2011–2015 decline, at roughly 48%, which lasted four years and marked the hiatus before the current cycle. February–June's roughly 28% decline over four months therefore looks much closer, in depth and duration, to the 2008 cyclical correction than to the 2011–2015 secular break. (Figure 2, topmost pane) 

Importantly, the structural forces behind the current advance have not disappeared. Central-bank de-dollarization, fiscal dominance, a geopolitical order drifting toward blocs, a deepening war economy, asset bubbles, and persistent inflation remain part of the monetary and institutional environment supporting gold. 

A liquidity-driven correction can therefore interrupt a secular advance without terminating the forces that produced it. If the current reversal holds, the February–June decline may prove to have been another cyclical bear market nested within the larger secular bull—not the end of the cycle itself. 

And if that interpretation is correct, the current advance would represent the third major leg of gold's post-Bretton Woods secular bull, following the 1970s advance and the 2001–2011 bull market. (Figure 2, middle graph) 

III. The New Plaza Accord: Intervention and Its Shrinking Half-Life 

On July 31, Japan's Ministry of Finance confirmed a coordinated yen-buying intervention with the US—the first joint action since 2011—after the yen slid toward 40-year lows near 163 to the dollar. 

The September 1985 Plaza Accord is the obvious comparison, but the history deserves care. Gold began rising in February 1985, before the Accord, and rallied roughly 50% from the Accord through November 1987—so gold did respond. (Figure 2, lowest image) 

What the Accord did not do was deliver gold's secular low. The dollar devaluation it engineered helped inflate Japan's property and stock bubble, which peaked in 1990 and produced the “lost decades,” with aftershocks plausibly extending through the 1994 Tequila crisis, the 1994 bond crisis (Great Bond Massacre), and the 1997 Asian financial crisis. 

Gold's actual secular bottom wasn't etched until the post-Asian-crisis, post-dot-com years around 1999–2001, symbolically marked by Gordon Brown's UK gold sales near the trough. 

The 1980–1999 gold secular bear was, in effect, the salad days of the dollar standard. 

A Plaza-style intervention can produce a real, tradeable cyclical gold rally without stabilizing the underlying system. Plaza's deeper legacy was several years of instability surfacing elsewhere, not durable currency-regime repair.

Figure 3

The yen's own history since 2022 makes the point more directly. Japanese authorities have repeatedly intervened to support the yen, yet each intervention has ultimately been followed by renewed downward pressure. (Figure 3, topmost pane) 

The pattern has been remarkably consistent: intervention produces an abrupt reversal, but the underlying trend eventually reasserts itself. 

That is the shrinking half-life in practice. The more fundamental forces driving the currency remain in place, so each intervention has to work harder to produce the same effect—and the market increasingly treats the intervention itself as evidence of the underlying imbalance. 

That caution has aged well. It took the bond market almost two weeks to fully erase the initial effect of the Fed-BoJ intervention. Then, on August 19, with 30-year Treasury yields pushing above 5.30%—the highest since 2007—the Treasury unexpectedly doubled its long-end buyback capacity, from a $2 billion to at least a $4 billion cap per operation, effective September 9. Yields fell instantly, equity futures jumped, and gold spiked. 

The Treasury's buyback program had already been operating since May 2024. The August move therefore wasn't the introduction of a new tool, but an expansion of an existing one. The important point is what happened despite that intervention: long-term yields had continued rising, suggesting diminishing returns from efforts to absorb duration and stabilize the long end. (Figure 3, middle image) 

This time the effect lasted one day! By Friday, the 30-year yield had regained the entire drop and then some, closing at 5.27%, while the 10-year sat at 4.74%—a single basis point from its pre-intervention high. 

Wolf Richter's account of the episode is worth noting for its diagnosis: the rise in long-term yields wasn't market dysfunction requiring correction, but the consequence of the government having to sell roughly $1 trillion in new debt over three months to fund the deficit, with buyers demanding compensation for inflation risk, the fiscal trajectory, and the sheer volume of paper that must clear the market every few months. Those pressures cannot be resolved by a signaling exercise from the Treasury secretary. 

Treasury Secretary Bessent himself all but conceded the point on CNBC the following morning, repeatedly describing the move as "signaling." 

Nor is Treasury the only official-sector actor absorbing government debt. The Federal Reserve's balance-sheet reduction ended in December 2025, after which it began purchasing Treasury bills and other short-term Treasuries to maintain an ample supply of reserves. Its outright Treasury holdings have subsequently been rising, reaching roughly $4.54 trillion by August 19, 2026. FRED (Figure 3, lowest visual) 

This may not be technically classified as quantitative easing (QE), but economically it represents renewed official-sector absorption of Treasury securities. And the more revealing point is what has happened alongside it: long-term Treasury yields have continued to rise. 

The implication is straightforward: despite the labeling, official-sector absorption of Treasury debt is increasing, yet it is not preventing the market from demanding higher yields on longer maturities. That is evidence of diminishing intervention effectiveness, not evidence that the underlying pressure has been resolved.

Figure 4 

And the underlying pressure is not static. The US national debt has now crossed $40 trillion, while interest costs have continued to accelerate. According to the figures cited by ZeroHedge, interest expense had already reached roughly $1.37 trillion in 2026, about 20% above the comparable period a year earlier. (Figure 4, topmost and middle images) 

This is where intervention encounters a structural problem. Deficit spending creates the borrowing requirement; rising yields increase the cost of servicing that borrowing; and higher interest costs, in turn, enlarge the deficit and require still more borrowing. The market is therefore confronting a moving target: official-sector intervention may temporarily absorb Treasury supply or suppress yields, but the fiscal requirement generating that supply continues to expand. 

The effectiveness of intervention consequently diminishes as the underlying imbalance grows. What might once have been sufficient to stabilize the market becomes progressively less effective when the volume of debt, the interest burden, and the compensation demanded by investors are all rising together. 

Two interventions in three weeks have produced only temporary relief, while the fiscal, currency, and bond-market pressures behind them have quickly reasserted themselves. That is the more important signal for gold. Yields of 10 and 30 year treasuries were at milestone highs (Figure 4, lowest diagram)

Figure 5 

Japanese Government Bons (JGB) yields tell a similar story. 

They remain below their immediate pre-intervention spike, but have begun climbing again, touching a fresh three-decade high near 2.94% on August 18 before easing only slightly. Figure 5, topmost image) 

The same pattern is emerging in Japan: intervention can alter market prices temporarily, but it does not remove the underlying pressure on the currency and sovereign bond market. 

IV. Deepening Interventions Becomes Gold's Catalyst 

For gold, however, the significance is different. 

Gold had already been trading around and holding the $4,000 level from late June through early August. 

First, the Fed-BoJ intervention provided the catalyst for the first lift-off from that base, reinforcing $4,000 as the floor. 

Then, Bessent's Treasury backstop came afterward, adding fuel to an advance that was already underway. 

The initial decline in long-term yields quickly disappeared, but gold retained its momentum. 

The result was the sequence described at the beginning of this piece: gold broke its 200-day moving average at $4,501, moved above $4,600, surpassed the 38.2% retracement of its March decline, and confirmed the rounding-bottom pattern that had been forming since June. 

The significance therefore goes beyond the failure of either intervention to suppress yields. The interventions themselves are becoming part of the mechanism driving gold higher. Attempts to contain currency and bond-market pressures are adding to the monetary and financial imbalances that gold is increasingly pricing. 

This is where the comparison with the Plaza Accord becomes more interesting. The 1985 agreement did not simply weaken the dollar; it set in motion adjustments that eventually surfaced elsewhere in the financial system. 

Today's bilateral intervention comes against a far more leveraged fiscal and monetary backdrop, with sovereign debt, currency instability, and official-sector intervention increasingly interacting with one another. 

If history rhymes, the contemporary bilateral Plaza Accord may mean more than a break of the recent high—it may mark the beginning of sharply higher gold prices. 

V. When Former Headwinds Become Tailwinds 

WTI crude was up roughly 5% this week, back above $86, as the US-Iran standoff over the Strait of Hormuz shows no sign of resolving and Washington prepares tighter sanctions. (Figure 5, middle graph) 

That is worth pausing on because oil-driven dollar demand was the mechanism Part I and Part II identified as suppressing gold earlier this year: energy importers scrambled for dollars, and gold was sold for liquidity even as the safe-haven case strengthened. 

The same forces are now coinciding with gold's advance rather than working against it. 

That is not a contradiction. It means the liquidity-stress channel has been overtaken by the larger fiscal-currency-risk channel this piece has been tracking. The same energy shock that once forced gold sales for dollar liquidity is now compounding, rather than competing with, the debt and currency concerns driving the bid for gold. 

There is another important change in the relationship between gold and Treasury yields. Earlier in the year, rising 30-year Treasury yields appeared to place a ceiling on gold's advance. Now the relationship appears to be changing: gold is rising even as the 30-year yield pushes above the level at which the Treasury's intervention sought to stabilize it. 

The market is therefore no longer responding to higher yields simply as an opportunity cost for holding gold. It is increasingly interpreting those yields as evidence of the fiscal and currency pressures that make gold more attractive in the first place. 

It is also worth noting that rising gold prices and rising 10-year Treasury yields have historically coexisted during the stagflationary periods of the 1970s. (Figure 5, lowest chart) 

The parallel with today is not exact—the degree of systemic leverage is vastly different—but the coexistence of rising nominal yields and rising gold is not unprecedented when inflation, fiscal pressure, and confidence in the monetary regime become dominant forces. 

VI. Risk-Off, Inflationary, and Fiscal Signals Converge 

Gold's rise also came as risk appetite weakened. The S&P 500 fell about 1.4% on the week, its first weekly decline in a month, dragged by a rough five days for technology; the Nasdaq lost roughly 2%. That gives this week's move a stronger risk-off component: equities fell while gold rose. 

But it was not a conventional flight to safety. Oil was rising, long-term Treasury yields were rising, and gold was rising with them. Growth concerns and inflation/fiscal concerns were therefore appearing simultaneously: stocks were pricing weaker risk appetite, while oil and bond yields were pricing inflation, supply, and fiscal pressures. 

That combination is arguably more important for gold than a conventional risk-off episode. Gold was not merely benefiting from falling risk assets; it was responding to the same underlying deterioration that was simultaneously pushing up oil and long-term yields. 

Curiously, Bitcoin also surged more than 22% during the week, briefly moving above $77,000, reflecting both renewed risk appetite in the crypto market and, potentially, a safe-haven bid amid concerns over currencies and the monetary system. Short covering amplified the move. 

Taken together, the week's price action looks less like a simple flight to safety than a convergence of risk-off, inflationary, and fiscal signals—and gold is increasingly responding to all three. 

VII. Central Banks as Dip Buyers, and the Fund-Flow Tailwind

Figure 6

Central banks were buying into the selloff. The World Gold Council's Q2 2026 data showed central banks adding 102 tonnes of gold during the quarter, even as gold prices fell roughly 16%. (Figure 6, upper diagram) 

As of the first half of 2026, Poland remained the largest reported buyer at 82 tonnes, followed by Uzbekistan at 41 tonnes, China at 40 tonnes, and Kazakhstan at 27 tonnes. World Gold Council: Central Bank Gold Statistics, June 2026 (Figure 6, lower graph) 

The significance is not the absolute volume, but the direction of demand during the correction. While more price-sensitive and leveraged holders were liquidating, official-sector demand was increasing. Central banks were therefore absorbing part of the supply released by the selloff, providing an important counterweight to the liquidation pressure that drove gold lower. 

The longer-term demand signal remains equally important. The World Gold Council's survey found that 89% of reserve managers expect official gold holdings to increase over the next 12 months. That suggests the buying is not simply a reaction to short-term price movements, but part of a broader shift in reserve preferences.

Figure 7

Fund flows provide a second layer of support. Gold held the $4,000 area for close to two months as renewed ETF inflows emerged, while the two previous stretches of stronger fund flows—roughly August–October 2025 and November–February 2026—preceded significant advances, including the run into January's record. (Figure 7, upper image) 

The pattern does not mean ETF flows mechanically determine prices, but it does show that renewed investment demand has tended to accompany—and at times precede—the next major leg higher.  

Independent ETF data reinforce the change in direction: global gold ETFs returned to inflows in July after May–June redemptions had flushed out leveraged positions, with flows continuing into August. The important development is therefore not simply the amount of money flowing into gold, but the transition from forced liquidation to renewed accumulation. 

India's Dhanteras and Diwali season could provide an additional, though more modest, seasonal catalyst into year-end, alongside whatever short covering remains from a positioning backdrop that has been reduced but does not appear fully washed out. (Figure 7, lower visual) 

The ownership dynamics are therefore changing. Central banks were accumulating while weaker and more leveraged holders were liquidating; as that selling pressure subsided, ETF flows turned positive. The correction consequently did not destroy the underlying demand structure. Instead, it transferred gold from more price-sensitive holders toward buyers with a stronger strategic (non-price sensitive) incentive to own it. 

That matters for the next leg. The same selloff that removed speculative excess also created the conditions for a stronger base: official buyers absorbed supply, leveraged positions were reduced, and investment flows are now returning as gold moves higher. 

VIII. Bottom line: Gold Is Pricing the Limits of Intervention 

The question this piece opened with has effectively been answered by the market: gold has bottomed. What deserves scrutiny now is why, because the explanation is not the conventional one. 

Two interventions in three weeks—one in currencies, one in the bond market—have produced only temporary effects in the markets they were intended to stabilize. Yet their significance for gold has been the opposite. 

The Fed-BoJ intervention provided the catalyst for gold's first lift-off from the $4,000 base; Bessent's Treasury backstop then added fuel to an advance already underway. The interventions did not extinguish the underlying pressures. They exposed them—and, in doing so, reinforced the forces driving gold higher. 

The same energy shock that once forced gold into liquidity sales is now moving with gold rather than against it. This week's equity sell-off adds another layer: stocks fell while gold, oil, and long-term yields rose together. That is not a simple flight-to-safety trade. It is a combination of risk-off, inflationary, and fiscal signals—a more distinctly stagflationary configuration. 

The next leg will not necessarily be linear. $4,600 now needs to establish itself as support rather than prove to have been a temporary spike, while a sustained break below $4,300 would materially weaken the bullish structure. But the more important question is no longer technical. 

Gold is increasingly pricing the widening gap between what governments can credibly promise about their currencies and debt markets and what they can actually deliver. The interventions are themselves becoming part of that price signal: each attempt to contain currency or bond-market pressure produces a temporary market response, while the underlying imbalance quickly reasserts itself. 

And that is ultimately what makes this leg different from the earlier stages of the cycle. Gold is no longer simply rising because investors fear what might happen. It is rising because the market is beginning to price what governments are already doing—and the diminishing effectiveness of their attempts to contain the consequences. 

____

References

-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)—April 5, 2026 

-Why Isn’t Gold Acting Like a Safe Haven—Yet? War, Liquidity Stress, and the Fracturing of the Bullion System (Part I)— March 22, 2026

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. 

Accommodation Is the Policy: Rising Philippine Bank Strains Under the BSP’s Easing Cycle

 

Truth has to be repeated constantly, because Error also is being preached all the time, and not just by a few, but by the multitude. In the Press and Encyclopaedias, in Schools and Universities, everywhere Error holds sway, feeling happy and comfortable in the knowledge of having Majority on its side― John Wolfgang Goethe

 

In this issue

Accommodation Is the Policy: Rising Philippine Bank Strains Under the BSP’s Easing Cycle

Section I — Universal-Commercial Bank Credit Is Stalling Despite BSP’s Aggressive Easing

Section II—Banks Are Reallocating, Liquidity Is Recycling, Not Financing Growth

Section III — BSP Is Accommodating Outcomes, Not Steering the Cycle

Conclusion: Accommodation as Policy, Crisis as Outcome 

Accommodation Is the Policy: Rising Philippine Bank Strains Under the BSP’s Easing Cycle 

Inflation optics, soft-peg constraints, and the mounting cost of balance-sheet preservation.

Section I — Universal-Commercial Bank Credit Is Stalling Despite BSP’s Aggressive Easing 

Interest rate cuts have become the by-phrase of the local financial community. 

Authorities continue to signal sustained monetary loosening as economic stimulus, while establishment economists and legacy media have rationalized financial easing—and the resulting rally in the PSEi 30—as a necessary catalyst for market recovery. Ironically, the same narrative also attributes the peso’s record weakness to this easing cycle. 

Either the mainstream genuinely believes that peso depreciation and economic recovery naturally go hand in hand, or market relationships are being selectively blurred or fudged to justify coordinated equity-market pumps.

Recent BSP releases—including the Universal and Commercial (UC) Bank’s November Loans Outstanding, the November Depository Corporations Survey, the November Philippine Bank’s Balance Sheet and Selected Performance Indicators, and the December central bank survey (MAS) indicators—tell a more troubling story beneath the liquidity narrative. 

Since late 2024, the BSP has pursued an extended easing cycle combining aggressive reserve-requirement reductions and repeated policy rate cuts, alongside financial backstops such as the doubling of deposit insurance coverage. 

Reserve requirements for UC banks were slashed from 9.5% to 7.0% in late 2024, and further to 5.0% by March 2025, amounting to a 450-basis-point liquidity release. Over the same period, successive rate cuts brought the policy rate down to 4.5% by December 2025. 

This accommodative stance unfolded against the backdrop of lingering pandemic-era fiscal deficits, whose credibility was further strained by the flood-control corruption controversy that erupted in Q3 2025. 

Yet despite persistent easing signals, private credit growth failed to re-accelerate. 

Figure 1

Universal bank lending peaked in January 2025 and slowed again by November, with both production loans and consumer credit losing momentum. (Figure 1, topmost window) 

UC banks reported a marked deceleration in November 2025, with total loan growth at around 10.7%, the slowest pace since late 2024. This was driven by weakening production loan growth (about 9.0%), while consumer credit, though still elevated in nominal terms, cooled to roughly 23%, its slowest expansion since late 2023. (Figure 1, middle image) 

This slowdown is striking given the macro backdrop: post-4% Q3 GDP growth, moderating inflation, and near-full employment—conditions that should, in theory, have reinforced credit demand. 

Instead, while lending momentum faded, monetary liquidity continued to expand. M1 growth (cash in circulation and transferable deposits) remained positive at just over 7% in November, extending its uptrend even as credit creation slowed. (Figure 1, lowest graph)

Figure 2

At the same time, deposit liabilities grew by only about 7.3%, continuing to underperform loan growth and reinforcing the underlying imbalance. (Figure 2, topmost visual) 

Taken together—slowing production and consumer loans, lagging deposit growth, and rising transactional liquidity—the evidence suggests that monetary easing is no longer transmitting into productive credit formation. 

Rather than catalyzing real investment, it appears to be inflating balance sheets and leverage, heightening systemic fragility without delivering commensurate real-economy gains. 

That is not all. 

Section II—Banks Are Reallocating, Liquidity Is Recycling, Not Financing Growth 

In the BSP’s December central bank survey, currency issuance not only surged to a record Php 3.2 trillion, but its year-on-year YoY growth accelerated to about 17–18%, surpassing the 2018 spike and ranking as the third-highest on record, behind only 2008 and 2020. (Figure 2 middle image) 

Notably, 2018 coincided with the BSP’s baptismal phase of its reserve-requirement (RRR) easing cycle, while 2008 (Great Financial Crisis) and 2020 (Pandemic recession) were both periods marked by domestic economic stress and volatility spikes of the USDPHP. 

History may not repeat—but does it rhyme? 

This liquidity surge, which should be further reflected in the December Depository Corporations Survey, likely contributed to the January-effect euphoria in the PSE, reinforcing asset (equity) price inflation even as credit growth slowed. 

Crucially, this marginal liquidity growth is not coming from private lending. 

Instead, net claims on the central government (NCoCG) held by banks surged to a record Php 5.89 trillion, up roughly 11% year-on-year, the fastest pace since mid-2024. 

At the same time, the BSP’s own NCoCG rebounded to around Php 760 billion—its highest nominal level since March 2025, largely due to a sharp decline in liabilities to the national government—despite falling nearly 20% YoY. (Figure 2, lowest chart) 

This decline most plausibly reflects a drawdown of government deposits at the BSP or reduced sterilization vis-à-vis the Treasury, mechanically releasing base money into the financial system. While debt repayment is a theoretical alternative, the persistence of record public debt levels as of November (Php 17.562 trillion) makes that explanation unlikely. 

Despite falling Treasury yields—which have reduced banks’ mark-to-market losses and should have eased balance-sheet pressures—banks continued to accumulate sovereign exposure.

Figure 3

Held-to-Maturity (HTM) securities climbed to a record Php 4.08 trillion in November, underscoring a significant reallocation into government paper. HTMs now account for roughly 70% of banks’ net claims on the central government. (Figure 3, topmost window) 

Banks have also escalated on investments. After a brief pullback in September from unprecedented highs, Available-for-Sale (AFS) securities rebounded by over 7% to Php 3.30 trillion, approaching HTM levels and reinforcing the portfolio shift away from private credit. (Figure 3, middle diagram) 

Yet despite record nominal credit, aggressive securities accumulation, and abundant liquidity, bank liquidity metrics continue to deteriorate. (Figure 3, lowest graph) 

• Liquid assets-to-deposits fell to about 47%, near pre-easing and pandemic-era lows, effectively erasing the BSP’s 2020-21 emergency liquidity buffers. 
• Cash-to-deposits dropped to roughly 9.7% in November, the second-lowest level on record.

Figure 4

While banks have reduced bills payable, bond payables continued to rise, lifting total borrowings to around Php 1.5 trillion, down from the Php 1.906 trillion March 2025 peak but still elevated. (Figure 4, topmost window) 

Liquidity management has increasingly shifted inward: interbank lending surged to a record Php 502 billion, alongside repo transactions exceeding Php 100 billion, signaling intensive liquidity recycling within the banking system. (Figure 4, middle image) 

Taken together, these figures point to a clear pattern. 

Banks are reallocating balance sheets toward sovereign absorption, liquidity management, and interbank cushioning—not expanding productive credit. The BSP, in turn, appears less to be steering outcomes than accommodating them, validating financial system preferences rather than redirecting capital toward growth. 

Section III — BSP Is Accommodating Outcomes, Not Steering the Cycle 

The BSP’s recent policy trajectory reveals a central bank anchored less to credit conditions or balance-sheet health than to inflation optics and system accommodation. 

Reserve-requirement cuts and successive policy-rate reductions have consistently followed periods of CPI deceleration, even amid deteriorating bank liquidity metrics, balance sheets increasingly tilted toward sovereign absorption, and liquidity being recycled within the financial system rather than funding productive expansion. (Figure 4, lowest chart) 

Monetary easing, in this context, has been CPI-conditioned rather than cycle-stabilizing. 

CPI, therefore, becomes highly politicized and susceptible to the policy agendas of political leadership. 

Why this persistence? 

While the BSP’s inflation-targeting framework does not explicitly target asset prices, it cannot ignore collateral values in a bank-dominated financial system. 

Falling collateral values threaten capital adequacy, impair credit transmission, and raise systemic stress. Policy calibration therefore prioritizes preventing balance-sheet rupture, even when that means sustaining distortions and postponing adjustment.

Figure 5

This implicit bias toward continuity has encouraged banks to manage imbalances rather than resolve them—through accounting optics, ratio management, and asset reclassification. 

Non-performing and related risks (e.g. loan loss provision) are contained not by deleveraging, but by supporting numerator growth (total loan portfolio—TLP—or bank credit growth) relative to denominators, a classic Wile E. Coyote velocity dynamic: balance sheets continue running forward, suspended by liquidity and policy accommodation, even as underlying fundamentals weaken. (Figure 5, top and middle panes) 

The same dynamic appears on the BSP’s external balance sheet. While net foreign assets (NFA) remain elevated, their support increasingly comes from valuation and financing effects rather than organic FX inflows. 

• Rising global gold prices mechanically lift reserve valuations without expanding usable foreign-exchange buffers. (Figure 5, lowest graph) 
• National government external borrowing routed through the BSP temporarily bolsters NFA, but these gains are liability-mirrored, not earned. 
• Bank borrowings similarly augment liquidity while obscuring underlying fragility.

Figure 6

More revealing than the level of NFA is its slowing rate of accumulation, which coincides with persistent USDPHP pressure. (Figure 6, topmost visual) 

This deceleration signals that the BSP’s capacity to manage the exchange rate is increasingly constrained by the very accommodations it sustains. 

Peso dynamics, therefore, are not incidental. Under the BSP’s soft-peg regime, exchange-rate management remains a direct but tacit policy objective, subordinated to liquidity preservation, fiscal dominance, and bailout imperatives. (Figure 6, lowest chart) 

Rather than defending a fixed level, the BSP has been compelled to tolerate managed depreciation, balancing currency weakness against the need to sustain domestic liquidity and support a political economy defined by a widening savings-investment gap. 

USDPHP hit a record 59.46 last week amid declining volume and suppressed volatility, highlighting trade constraints and the footprint of BSP intervention. 

This trade-off is most visible in energy and utility pricing—not through import dependence, but through bailout architecture. Producer subsidies, RPT reliefs, administered pricing, and government-nudged implicit M&A arrangements suppress inflation pass-through while deepening balance-sheet entanglement between the state, the financial system, and regulated corporates. 

CPI relief is achieved, but only by displacing risk elsewhere in the system. 

• In this sense, the regime exemplifies Goodhart’s Law: by targeting CPI, other signals—credit quality, liquidity resilience, capital discipline—are progressively distorted. 
• It also reflects a Heisenberg Uncertainty-style policy problem: intervention alters the system it seeks to stabilize, most visibly in leverage-dependent sectors and currency dynamics. 

Sustained FX intervention further amplifies this fragility, increasing the risk that adjustment, when it arrives, will be sharper and more volatile. 

Viewed together, the pattern is consistent. The BSP is not directing capital toward productive expansion nor pre-empting cyclical deterioration. It is validating outcomes shaped by asset inflation, fiscal dominance, bailout logic, and inflation optics, accommodating systemic constraints in ways that systematically favor incumbents. 

The public is offered stability in appearance, while adjustment is deferred—quietly, repeatedly, and at growing long-term cost. 

Conclusion: Accommodation as Policy, Crisis as Outcome 

The evidence presented does not describe policy error in the conventional sense. It reflects the unintended consequences of an institutional regime constraint operating within a political-economic framework that systematically privileges incumbent interests. 

The BSP and the bank-dominated financial system operate under conditions where inflation optics, fiscal dominance, bailout dependencies, and soft-peg maintenance sharply limit genuine counter-cyclical control. Within this structure, discretion is less about steering the cycle than accommodating existing balance-sheet vulnerabilities. 

What is sold as stimulus is largely balance-sheet preservation; what is promoted as stability is increasingly liquidity- and valuation-driven; and what appears as growth is often internal transactional recycling rather than productive expansion. 

In such a regime, monetary policy does not fail abruptly — it erodes gradually, until markets, balance sheets, or external constraints force destabilizing adjustments. 

The risk is not that the peso weakens, or that interest rates are “too low,” but that accumulated distortions increase the likelihood that eventual correction becomes more volatile, less controllable, and more socially costly. 

This is not an argument about intent or competence. It is an argument about incentives, institutional constraints, and the limits of accommodation once gravity reasserts itself. 

Where political-ideological rigidity suppresses reform, crisis ceases to be an accident and becomes the logical endgame.