Citi expects gold price to consolidate around $3,100-$3,500 in third quarter
"We expect continued price consolidation ... and highlight our view that we may have already seen the highs at $3,500/oz in late April as the gold market deficit is peaking soon if not already," Citi said in the note.
It added that gold prices have dropped by over $100 per ounce since the bank lowered its 0-3 month price target from $3,500 per ounce to $3,300 per ounce in its mid-June third-quarter outlook, with the metal now trading just below that revised target.
The bank expects the gold market deficit to peak during the third quarter. And the market should fundamentally weaken thereafter, driven by lower investment demand.
Citi expects gold prices to fall back to $2,500 to $2,700 per ounce by the second half of 2026 and said it "strongly (recommends) gold producers take insurance against downside in prices from current levels."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
.jpeg%3Ftrim%3D1%2C0%2C3%2C0%26width%3D1200%26height%3D800%26crop%3D1200%3A800&w=3840&q=100)
The Independent
2 hours ago
- The Independent
Ryanair were forced to cancel more than 800 flights last month
Ryanair has said it cancelled more than 800 flights last month, attributing the significant disruption to the ongoing conflict in the Middle East. The Irish carrier is among several airlines that have been forced to reroute or halt services amid escalating tensions between Israel and Iran, alongside continued attacks in Gaza. The widespread impact on air travel was underscored last week when flights were temporarily halted at Dubai airport in the United Arab Emirates (UAE), with passengers advised to anticipate further delays and cancellations across the region. On Wednesday, Ryanair said it still operated more than 109,000 flights in total in June, indicating that fewer than 1% of flights were affected. The Ireland -based business said it carried 19.9 million passengers over the month, representing a 3% increase on the same month last year. It said this means it has carried 202.6 million passengers over the past 12 months, up 7% year-on-year. Elsewhere, rival London-listed airline Wizz Air also reported a significant rise in passenger numbers. It said it carried 5.88 million passengers in June, up 10.8% against the same month last year. Its seat capacity was 10.4% higher year-on-year as a result. Wizz said it has carried around 65 million passengers over the past 12 months rolling, up 4.7% year-on-year.
The Independent
3 hours ago
- The Independent
Ryanair cancels more than 800 flights due to conflict in Middle East
Ryanair has said it cancelled more than 800 flights last month due to the conflict in the Middle East. The Irish airliner is among those to have cancelled and rerouted flights amid the conflict between Israel and Iran, as well as continued attacks in Gaza. Last week, flights were halted at Dubai airport in the United Arab Emirates (UAE) as passengers were told to expect further delays and cancellations. On Wednesday, Ryanair said it still operated more than 109,000 flights in total in June, indicating that fewer than 1% of flights were affected. The Ireland-based business said it carried 19.9 million passengers over the month, representing a 3% increase on the same month last year. It said this means it has carried 202.6 million passengers over the past 12 months, up 7% year-on-year. Elsewhere, rival London-listed airline Wizz Air also reported a significant rise in passenger numbers. It said it carried 5.88 million passengers in June, up 10.8% against the same month last year. Its seat capacity was 10.4% higher year-on-year as a result. Wizz said it has carried around 65 million passengers over the past 12 months rolling, up 4.7% year-on-year.
Telegraph
5 hours ago
- Telegraph
If Reeves wants to risk our pensions, she should start with her own
When does the Pensions Regulator cross the line between acceptable cheerleading for government policy, and setting up a potential conflict with its fundamental duty to protect workplace pensions? Last week, one of the directors of the Pensions Regulator – who recently joined after 25 years as a fund manager – made a tub-thumping speech, which, I believe, crosses this line. He said: 'As regulator, we are embracing a new regulatory philosophy. One that sees growth and saver outcomes not as competing priorities, but as mutually reinforcing goals… We are actively encouraging schemes to adopt long-term investment strategies that support both member outcomes and national growth.' What does this mean in practice? The Government has set out its plans to consolidate assets in both the public sector local government pension scheme, and in private sector defined contribution workplace pensions. Local government pensions are, of course, defined benefit, guaranteed by taxpayers and don't depend on investment performance. But the value of defined contribution pensions, with no guarantees, depends entirely on investment performance. Rachel Reeves has left no doubt that she wants to get more of our pension savings into UK 'private assets' – venture capital and infrastructure – to supercharge the UK's lacklustre investment and to power economic growth. As part of all this, the Government has just published a lengthy Pension Schemes Bill with 12 different policies – a hotchpotch of the good, the bad and the indifferent. Last month, the Chancellor also strong-armed 17 of the largest pension providers into extending the existing voluntary code for defined contribution pensions – The Mansion House Accord – and commit to investing 10pc of pension savings in private assets by 2030, with half in the UK, amounting to a possible £50bn. Of all the pension providers, Scottish Widows (part of Lloyds Bank) chose not to sign. The Government has included 'reserve' powers in the Pensions Bill which could compel pension providers, and therefore pension savers, to put 10pc in private assets, whether they want to or not. This 'reserve' power looks like muscle flexing from a government weakened by about-turns on winter fuel payments and welfare benefits. Why choose to spend limited political capital threatening to introduce any form of pension compulsion? In any case, how would this fit in with the fiduciary duties of pension trustees to act in the 'best interests' of their members? Rather than 'soft' or 'hard' compulsion, pension providers should offer the choice of holding private assets, and then, along with the Government, put the positive case to pension savers. Investing in private assets is supposed to generate higher pensions, but detailed analysis by the Government Actuary's Department published last year (see page 26), shows this is just wishful thinking. The analysis models the likely returns if 15pc of defined contribution pension assets are switched from US and international equities (now 70pc of assets) to infrastructure and private equity. After 30 years of regular pension saving, the supercharged private portfolio is expected to outperform the current portfolio by 2pc. That's not an annual figure, it's 2pc in total after 30 years – less than a tenth of 1pc a year, basically a rounding error. The real difference with private assets is not performance, it is fees, which the Government Actuary assumes will be a whopping 1pc a year, plus a 10pc performance fee, versus just 0.25pc a year on other assets. Private assets are notoriously difficult to value, and are much harder to sell than public assets, a problem many private equity funds are now seeing. Returns in recent years have also been boosted by ultra-low interest rates – let's see how private equity copes with much higher borrowing costs. If the investment case really is so strong, then shouldn't the Government be prepared to guarantee pension savers a minimum return on any UK private assets they are obliged to hold? All MPs, including Ms Reeves, enjoy a very generous defined benefit pension, guaranteed by taxpayers, regardless of asset performance. Again, if the investment case is so strong, then shouldn't she and all the Cabinet set a good example by moving their own pension to a defined contribution plan, largely invested in private assets? Pension investment for people on modest earnings should be laser-focused on low costs, low risk and simplicity, which means passively managed public assets, not private assets with high costs, high risk and complexity. Sadly, the new Pensions Schemes Bill, and now apparently the Pensions Regulator, ignores this.
