Last week, gold and silver fell sharply after a rapid ascent, and the familiar moralising quickly followed, with the ensuing price action treated as evidence of speculative excess and the correction framed as an overdue lesson in gravity. While it is true that markets punish crowded positioning and that silver, in particular, has always behaved like a higher-volatility derivative of gold, it is also true that corrections can be misread when commentary chooses to see only the froth and not the structure beneath it, because price volatility, by itself, is not a diagnosis. It tells you very little about why the market was willing to pay such elevated prices in the first place.
What added an interesting note to the week was not a new chart pattern or an insightful post-mortem, but a set of remarks from Christine Lagarde of the European Central Bank. During a press conference, Lagarde offered a compact reminder of what makes a currency powerful over time, and the implication, whether she intended it or not, is relevant to why gold remains central to the reserve conversation even when its price behaves in ways that make traders and commentators uneasy.
UK’s Money On Trial Ahead of Financial Collapse
Lagarde was asked about the nomination of Kevin Warsh to succeed Jerome Powell as chair of the US Federal Reserve. She was openly supportive, leaning on professional familiarity and institutional continuity rather than political commentary, but when the questioning moved to the international role of the euro, she shifted tone. She explained that global reserve status is not the same thing as currency strength, that international usage does not guarantee appreciation and that what underpins monetary power is an accumulation of credibility that depends on something more basic than liquidity, and more fragile than habit. It rests on an environment in which the rule of law is known and respected and in which the system’s promises can be relied upon without the constant need for reassurance.
The point is not that Lagarde was making an argument for gold, because she was not, and it would be a stretch to read central banker press conferences as coded signals to the bullion market, but her remarks help situate the week’s price action within a broader question about trust. The institutions tasked with managing currencies are now openly acknowledging that credibility is conditional, cumulative and exposed to political strain, which is precisely the context in which gold tends to attract long-term institutional interest.
This is where the data on central bank reserves proves useful, because it is evidence of how reserve managers behaved during a year when prices were already high and volatility was rising.
Central banks bought a net 863 tonnes of gold in 2025, a figure that fell short of the exceptional accumulation seen in the previous three years but remained well above the long-term average from the period before central banks became consistent net buyers. So it was about continuity rather than capitulation, I believe this reflects a broader reassessment of balance sheet risk that has been unfolding for several years.
That reassessment is persistent, with buying spread across a wide range of institutions rather than concentrated in a single bloc, and with only limited selling in 2025 despite the year being marked by record prices. This complicates the current media narrative that gold demand is merely the residue of speculative enthusiasm spilling over from retail markets into official ones.
What this official activity does, taken as a whole, is make it harder to treat last week’s correction as a verdict on gold’s relevance, because if the rally were driven primarily by sentiment at the margin, then one would expect the longer-term holders to retreat decisively when volatility increases, and that has not been the pattern, which in turn suggests that price weakness and strategic allocation decisions are operating on different time horizons.
This brings the discussion back to the environment Lagarde described, in which the strength of a currency depends less on its ubiquity and more on the legal, political and institutional framework that supports it. In such an environment, assets that sit outside those frameworks are not held for excitement or return maximisation, but for their capacity to function when assumptions are questioned and correlations fail.
The recent correction, then, looks less like a change in direction than a reminder of how markets behave when leverage, liquidity and positioning collide, particularly in assets that now attract a broader mix of participants than they once did, ranging from reserve managers with multi-decade horizons to traders operating on much shorter time frames. When those groups interact it can be the case that price stability is rarely the outcome.
The broader question raised by the week is not about whether or not gold and silver became too popular too quickly, but whether the monetary system itself has become more prone to abrupt reassessments, because when trust is conditional and policy uncertainty is persistent, markets tend to oscillate between complacency and alarm, and assets that exist to hedge systemic risk will inevitably occassionally reflect that tension in their price behaviour.
We need to seriously pay attention to the distinction between market mechanics and institutional intent, because while the former can produce violent short-term moves, the latter changes slowly and shows up in reserve data and policy language than in daily charts. It is in that slower, less theatrical domain that gold’s role continues to be debated, solidified and, in practice, reinforced.
Buy Gold Coins
Buy gold coins and bars and store them in the safest vaults in Switzerland, London or Singapore with GoldCore.
Learn why Switzerland remains a safe-haven jurisdiction for owning precious metals. Access Our Most Popular Guide, the Essential Guide to Storing Gold in Switzerland here.
Receive Our Award Winning Market Updates In Your Inbox – Sign Up Here
