Back to News
Market Impact: 0.25

Goldman sees downside risks to its 2026 gold price target By Investing.com

GSSMCIAPP
Commodities & Raw MaterialsGeopolitics & WarMonetary PolicyCredit & Bond MarketsAnalyst InsightsInvestor Sentiment & Positioning
Goldman sees downside risks to its 2026 gold price target By Investing.com

Goldman Sachs kept its gold forecast at $5,400 per troy ounce by end-2026, but flagged near-term downside risk from further liquidation if Hormuz disruptions persist or if bond and equity markets correct. The bank still sees central bank buying averaging 60 tonnes per month through 2026, though its February nowcast fell sharply to just 2 tonnes, likely a temporary pause. A survey of 29 central banks showed about 70% expect higher global gold reserves over the next 12 months and roughly 70% expect gold above $5,000 per ounce in a year.

Analysis

Gold is increasingly functioning as a macro hedge on two separate fronts: policy easing and balance-sheet distrust. The important second-order effect is that if sovereign and central-bank buying is persistent, it creates an illiquid demand floor that makes gold less mean-reverting than typical commodities; that tends to amplify upside once private holders stop selling. But in the near term, the trade is crowded and path-dependent, so a volatility spike in rates or equities can trigger mechanical de-risking even if the structural case remains intact. For GS, the key issue is not the gold price level itself but the asymmetry in positioning around the bank's own call. When a consensus macro house leans bullish while flagging liquidation risk, the market often punishes the messenger before the thesis plays out, especially if trading revenues disappoint after a volatility-rich quarter. That creates a tactical window to fade strength in the stock unless the upcoming markets and commodities print confirms that clients are re-risking into metals, not de-grossing across the board. SMCI and APP remain high-beta beneficiaries of the broader risk-on AI complex, but they are also the most vulnerable to any spillover from higher real rates or a renewed de-rating of long-duration growth. If the Fed delivers less easing than implied, these names can underperform sharply because their multiples embed a continuation of abundant liquidity and accelerating capex. The contrarian read is that the market may be underestimating how quickly a gold-led safety bid can coexist with a growth-led squeeze: both can be true, but only for a short window before capital rotates out of expensive momentum.