logo
Armenia reacts to global gold price surge: producers and sellers respond

Armenia reacts to global gold price surge: producers and sellers respond

JAMnews17 hours ago

Armenia reacts to global gold price surge
In April 2025, the global price of gold reached a new record, exceeding $3,500 per troy ounce of 999 fine gold. The Armenian market responded immediately — prices rose. According to the Central Bank's exchange rate, the average price of 1 gram of 999 fine gold in April stood at around 42,000 drams ($110), and for 585 gold — 25,000 drams ($65.50). These prices remain in effect today.
The price increases on the local market over the past year have led to a decline in sales.
A troy ounce — the standard unit of weight for precious metals — is equal to 31.1 grams.
Buyers in Armenia are watching market developments with concern. Even dedicated jewellery enthusiasts are avoiding risky purchases, despite gold traditionally being considered a stable investment.
Producers increase export volumes
Artavazd and Gor Sargsyan, brothers who have been producing gold jewellery for 18 years, admit they did not anticipate such a sharp rise in gold prices.
'Small price fluctuations have always existed. Prices used to vary within $2–5 per gram. But now, just look at what's happening. The market price for one gram of 585 gold has reached 30,000 drams. To compare, in 2024, a gram of the same gold cost 20,000 drams — that's a 30% increase. People blame us for raising jewellery prices, but they don't realise the real cause is the high cost of raw materials,' explains Gor Sargsyan.
Sales volumes have dropped by half. As a result, some jewellery is now produced exclusively for export. According to the businessman, they export to Kazakhstan, Russia, Uzbekistan, and the UAE:
'Unlike our fellow citizens, people in these countries buy gold as an investment. So the price surge hasn't really changed their behaviour. They buy at high prices and sell at high prices too.'
Gor Sargsyan believes that in Armenia, gold jewellery is mostly bought for special occasions — weddings, birthdays, christenings:
'There aren't many buyers who purchase gold jewellery out of love for it or to use it as a financial cushion. Some items we only produce on request — whether for local sale or export. It could be a major financial loss for us if products sit unsold for a long time. Gold jewellery, like clothing or other goods, can go out of fashion.'
He adds that the global gold price hike has significantly impacted sales volumes for all local producers. However, so far, they've managed to offset their costs through exports.
Sellers turn to social media as sales struggle
The situation has proven more difficult for another part of the business chain — those selling gold and gold jewellery.
Naira, who sells jewellery at Yerevan's gold market, says she had to reactivate her Facebook and Instagram pages just to cover basic expenses such as stall rent:
'Of course, most of my customers are regulars, but I do get some new ones too. Right now, we have a few trendy models that we've started offering in lighter weights — those are selling.'
According to her, buyers are now typically spending around 100,000 drams ($260):
'More expensive pieces are only of interest to very specific clients. We had strong sales right after the COVID-19 pandemic — 2023 was a record year for us. Now, we're just trying to keep our spot at the market, cover costs, and earn at least a little income. But we're hopeful.'
Sellers at the market declined to make any forecasts. Instead, they appealed to the government to consider their situation and, at the very least, stop 'squeezing' them with taxes. They noted that in other countries, steps are being taken to support production and sales amid the global price surge.
'Gold price rise won't shake Armenia's economy'
Economist Armen Ktoyan attributes the record surge in global gold prices to the weakening of the US dollar amid a trade war launched by President Donald Trump — and the resulting increase in demand for gold as a reserve asset:
'Globally, gold remains the most stable reserve asset. Today, the winners are those states, entrepreneurs, and individuals who chose gold as an investment. Armenia won't benefit from rising prices for this precious metal, as it holds no gold reserves.'
According to Ktoyan, Armenia served as a transit country over the past two to three years for gold exports from Russia to the UAE:
'This generated additional income in the country. But recent statistics show a drop in Armenia's foreign trade turnover in gold — although it's hard to directly link that to the price surge.'
He emphasises that jewellery is a priority sector for Armenia's economy. Rising prices could have brought in more revenue — but only if purchasing power and export volumes had remained unchanged.
On the question of whether it is wise to invest in gold, Ktoyan notes that behaviour varies depending on expectations:
'There's a logic to it: if prices are expected to rise, investors move their spare funds into gold as an asset — leading to increased buying. Conversely, if prices are expected to fall, they divert funds elsewhere.'
He believes fanatical jewellery buyers follow a different logic. Most are simply hoping prices will drop again so they can return to buying appealing items.
Rather than offering forecasts, Armen Ktoyan advises keeping a close eye on global trends and external factors influencing gold prices.
In any case, he is confident that no serious shocks to Armenia's economy are expected in this sector.
Armenia reacts to global gold price surge

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Gemma Atkinson turns to crowdfunding to raise £500k to launch her beauty brand, but angry trolls rage she can ‘do one'
Gemma Atkinson turns to crowdfunding to raise £500k to launch her beauty brand, but angry trolls rage she can ‘do one'

Scottish Sun

time26 minutes ago

  • Scottish Sun

Gemma Atkinson turns to crowdfunding to raise £500k to launch her beauty brand, but angry trolls rage she can ‘do one'

GEMMA Atkinson has sparked controversy after turning to crowdfunding to raise £500,000 to launch her own beauty brand. The actress has already attracted an impressive social media following for her skincare company Gem & Tonic, which aims to provide products to "simplify your beauty regime". 5 Gemma Atkinson has sparked controversy after turning to crowdfunding to raise £500k to officially launch her beauty brand Gem & Tonic Credit: Instagram/glouiseatkinson 5 The fundraising effort has already raised nearly £50,000, but investing isn't without risk, which a warning on the Crowdcube page stresses Credit: crowdcube/gemandtonic 5 She shared a look into the company's successes to date, but trolls weren't impressed Credit: Instagram/glouiseatkinson "Every single product combines scientifically-proven ingredients with mineral rich gemstones," she said. As she prepares to "officially launch" the brand in September 2025, Gemma has decided to try and raise funds through Crowdcube - which asks people to "invest in Europe's best startups". On the Crowdcube page, which has already raised £48,296 from 354 different investors, Gemma says: "We're now looking to raise £500,000 to officially launch in September 2025 to continue the movement and the community we've already started. "If you're looking to invest in a brand with a real community in real demand, you've found yourself a real good gem." The page also highlights some of the company's successes to date, including the fact they made £127,000 in pre-order sales in just three weeks. The equity investment has a share price of 90p and a pre-money valuation of £2.25 million. "The Company had already raised £250,000 prior to the Crowdcube raise," the page reads. "For the avoidance of doubt, this has been included in the pre-money valuation displayed in the pitch." And for those investing in the business, there are various 'rewards' for doing so - all of which start from an investment of £50. Investing £50 will get you a signed thank you card from Gemma, while for £25,000 you'll get to "meet Gemma and have lunch with the G&T team", as well as an investor-only lifetime discount of 15%, a product bundle, an invite to the press launch, lifetime early access to new products and Gemma's signed thank you note. Gemma Atkinson reveals her hit CBeebies show has been AXED after just one series However there's also a warning at the top of the Crowdcube page, which reads: "Don't invest unless you're prepared to lose all the money you invest. "This is a high-risk investment and you are unlikely to be protected if something goes wrong." News of Gemma's crowdfunding efforts quickly made its way onto social media, with trolls using the comments section of the videos to have their say on the controversial move. "Why hasn't she used her own money?" one wrote. "I don't want to Invest of your not engaged to the hilt in every financial way." "Crowd funding to make herself rich," another added. What is crowdfunding? Crowdfunding is a popular choice for startups trying to raise money, typically via the internet. It's described as an alternative way to fund projects "without standard financial intermediaries". There are four different ways of crowdfunding: rewards-based, equity-based, debt-based and donation-based. Judging by Gemma's Crowdcube page, it seems she has adopted a reward-based approach to the funding attempt, with investors offered perks in exchange for their financial support. "Ok send me money and I'll start a business!" "So she wants people to help her… doesn't she know about the cost of living crisis us normal people are dealing with?" a third commented. "Over 1/2 mil in her bank - usual rich get richer!" someone else sighed. "Crowd funding? Gemma can do one," another raged. "Bloody hell she has more than most for money!" someone else said. And as another labelled it ridiculous, someone else agreed, writing: "Clearly not confident in her own idea to fully invest herself, putting up her property as collateral. "Guaranteed to fail." "She's got a nerve!" another commented. However, there were those in the comments who came to Gemma's defense. Crowdfunding to make herself rich! Social media commenter "She isn't making you invest!" one wrote. "I say fair play to her and wish her well." "Think she's asking for £10 as a minimum, which is reasonable," another added. "She's kept her community involved from the get go - naming, scents etc so I don't see the issue." "Shame to see so many women tearing other women down regardless of their status or financial situation!!" a third sighed. "So much hate in the world these days already." 5 Some angry commenters even told Gemma to "do one" after hearing about her crowdfunding efforts Credit: Instagram/glouiseatkinson

ASOS bans shoppers for making too many returns
ASOS bans shoppers for making too many returns

Daily Mirror

time5 hours ago

  • Daily Mirror

ASOS bans shoppers for making too many returns

ASOS hit the press this week with the news that it is shutting accounts of people who return too many items Online shopping has transformed the way we buy goods and services. But we are paying a heavy price for the convenience of having our shopping dropped off at the door? The online retailers have come to dominate the market, decimating the high street in the process. But now that they have taken over, they are starting to change the rules to their own advantage. ‌ Many retailers are beginning to charge for returning goods. While none of the major online shops is charging for each return, many have suggested they are going to do so, only to backtrack after much outrage in the press. ‌ Retailers make these announcements to "soften us up" – in effect scarring us with the prospect of charges that they aren't going to apply just yet, so we are more willing to accept "some" charges. And these are already occurring. ASOS hit the press this week with the news that it is shutting accounts of people who return too many items. This is off the back of the £3.95 charge the retailer has already introduced for people who are returning more goods than they would like. While ASOS has received lots of publicity around these rule changes, they are certainly not the only business that is charging and barring people. So what's going on here? And what can you do about it? Get the best deals and tips from Mirror Money WHATSAPP GROUP: Get money news and top deals straight to your phone by joining our Money WhatsApp group here. We also treat our community members to special offers, promotions, and adverts from us and our partners. If you don't like our community, you can check out any time you like. If you're curious, you can read our Privacy Notice. Why is ASOS in the news? It's been reported in the press this week that some ASOS customers have received emails telling them that their accounts are being closed. This is because the shoppers have apparently breached the retailer's "fair use" policy. Retailers can reserve the right to ditch you if they feel that you are misusing their services. This might include returning items that you've ordered, photographed yourself in on Instagram or TikTok then sent back. ‌ There are a few isolated incidents where people have tried it on and had a night out in a nice frock with the tags on then shipped the clothes back! *Spoilers* retailers will know you've done this. But this is pretty rare. Looking at returns policies for the main online retailers, a cardinal sin is 'returning too many items'. ASOS hit the headlines last year when it began charging a £3.95 return fee per parcel when people returned an excessive number of items. ‌ It has now confirmed that a small number of customers have had their accounts closed for breaching this policy where there has been "unusual or suspicious activity". The ASOS website sets out their fair use policy in which it explains: For the small group of customers who consistently take actions that make providing them with free returns unsustainable, we deduct and retain £3.95 per returned parcel from their refund to help cover the cost of getting the goods back to us. When deciding whether to make this deduction from your future refunds, we apply an objective formula based on your shopping behaviour, taking into account whether you have made particularly excessive returns well beyond the average ASOS customer's returns, as well as the number and value of orders made by you. ‌ If you fall into this group, you will still enjoy free returns when: You keep £40 or more of any order and are a non-Premier customer; or You keep £15 or more of any order and are a Premier customer. Can retailers charge me or bar me if I return too many items? Yes they can. No business can be compelled to have you as a customer. As long as they are not discriminating against you because of a 'protected characteristic' then they are not breaking the law. ‌ The problem with these policies is they very rarely explain how many returns is too many - or how this is being quantified. For example, if you order an item of clothing in three sizes to see which one fits best, you'll regularly be returning two items even if you decide to keep one. If you do this once a month, that's a minimum of 24 returns over a year. Will that mark your card as a prolific returner? We simply don't know. There's no ombudsman or dispute resolution scheme for the entire retail industry, so the courts are the only option for people who feel they've been unfairly treated. In the vast majority of cases, this is not an effective solution for most people. ‌ What about damaged or faulty goods? Your legal rights remain the same when it comes to faulty or misrepresented goods that you buy online. You have 30 days to return these items and you are entitled to a full refund – including postage costs – under these circumstances. If the goods break or turn out to be faulty within the first six months, you must give the retailer one opportunity to repair or replace the item, then if there's still a problem you can have a full refund. I've noticed that some online retailers are making it very difficult to return items within the six month timeframe – including one very big online retailer indeed. Don't give up if you need to send back faulty goods. The law is on your side. ‌ Most of the retailer's terms of use say they will not penalise you for returning broken or damaged goods. Is this fair? The reason why returning items and charging or barring people is so contentious is because we have to send back large numbers of clothes we buy online because we can't try them on before purchase. Online retailers created this 'try and return' market, killing off some of the leading high street retailers in the process. They were able to operate with vastly reduced costs because they didn't have the bills that come with running an actual shop in towns and cities across the land. ‌ So their only losses came from the cost of postage and returning outfits. So it seems deeply unfair that these retailers – who have profiteered at the expense of the high street shops – are now wanting to charge us for returns after driving countless businesses out of business. In addition, I'm infuriated that many online retailers don't even have customer service telephone lines for you to contact if something goes wrong. So I'd encourage anyone who is unhappy with these charges and lack of customer service to ditch the worst offenders and return to the high street. After all, you don't get charged for leaving items that don't fit in a changing room!

The dark side of LinkedIn
The dark side of LinkedIn

Spectator

time5 hours ago

  • Spectator

The dark side of LinkedIn

I'd always assumed that LinkedIn is Instagram for people with lanyards. A place for earnest self-congratulation, polite emoji applause, and lightly airbrushed career updates: 'Humbled to be speaking at Davos'; 'Thrilled to have joined Deloitte'; 'Grateful to my incredible team for smashing Q4 targets.' That sort of thing. Sanitised, self-serving and safely anodyne with an easy trade: a like for a like, a 'repost' for a 'funny'. Instead of an apology, I received a torrent of replies ranging from 'you had it coming' to 'stop making a fuss' So when I posted something mildly provocative, I expected at worst a few furrowed brows and an awkward silence in the comments. I did not expect a social media thunderstorm. The provocation? A practical, depoliticised Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI) plan. In light of US president Donald Trump's executive orders and the ensuing legal backlash, DEI has become the HR profession's third rail. Everyone has an opinion; no one wants to get electrocuted. So I thought I'd share a seven-point plan my company had helped a FTSE 30 board adopt: it's a model that replaces ideology with evidence and helps everyone, not just identity groups, to thrive. The plan advised against the lexicon of victimhood: no mention of 'oppressed vs oppressors', 'white privilege', or 'institutional phobias.' Instead, it proposed focusing on universal human truths: that everyone faces different headwinds and tailwinds, many of them invisible, and not all equal; that rather than victims and perpetrators we all have a role in creating a work environment where people succeed based on their talents, rather than their background. We advocated everyday language. 'Bias' was out. 'Good judgment' was in. We called for a duty of care to all, rather than declarations on global political events. It was not radical. In fact, it was built on rigorous behavioural science and tested in various large companies. I thought it might even be useful. But then I had forgotten where I was. This was LinkedIn, supposedly the realm of calm, considerate professionalism. In reality, it is anything but. The backlash came fast. First, a client rang up one of my colleagues to say that unless I publicly retracted my comments, he'd cease working with us. This proved to be prophetic but not, I suspect, for the reasons he'd imagined. Two weeks later, the client was 'let go'. It appears that his world of work had had enough of his woke. A DEI influencer – high on followers, low on nuance – quoted my line about 'headwinds' and added, 'Amazing mental gymnastics for someone who, according to multiple online biographers, is the 'son of socialite Brinsley Black.' I can't even…' Here was a man who claims to champion fairness and inclusion attacking me for something my father may or may not have done fifty years ago. Expecting a few voices from HR's vast choir of speak-up culture to chime in, I posted a polite but firm response: 'You have picked up on something from the web (not well known for its accuracy) and decided to play the person rather than the ball. If I had plucked some slight about your parents from the internet and used it to dismiss your arguments, I suspect you'd be outraged and rightly so. I think you – and the 39 people who liked your comment – owe me an apology.' Instead of an apology, I received a torrent of replies ranging from 'you had it coming' to 'stop making a fuss'. A few kind souls sent DMs in solidarity (thank you), but the public square remained conspicuously quiet. It was as if everyone had decided that speaking out was something they were keen to encourage other people to do, but, when it came to taking on a DEI aficionado, it wasn't worth the risk. Then came my next misstep. I congratulated Barclays for ensuring there were women-only as well as mixed-gender loos after the Supreme Court clarified the legal definition of sex. Cue the mob. The pile-on made the previous furore feel like a warm-up act. This time, I panicked and did something I regret to this day: I deleted the post. But the strangest thing wasn't the rage. It was what happened next. My posts – which previously tended to reach a respectable 10,000 impressions – now struggled to break 500. Posts containing valuable new evidence on productivity, absenteeism and the psychology of high performance languished in obscurity. I had, it seemed, been ghosted by the machine. LinkedIn, for all its talk of inclusion, appears to have the subtle hand of censorship down to an algorithmic art. You're not suspended; just muffled. Not punished; just buried. There's no trial. No court of appeal. No feedback. Just the quiet hum of the system deciding you're no longer quite right for the party. This is a platform that claims: 'We are open, honest and constructive. By seeking the truth and keeping it real, we are more likely to generate solutions to difficult problems.' It's a lovely sentiment. Someone should tell their bots.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store