Deep inside the vault of the New York Commodity Exchange, gold bars marked “2026” are being registered and stored. Compared to the premium on futures contracts for the same delivery period, traders are more willing to pay extra fees to securely lock this physical gold in safes.
When the International Monetary Fund (IMF) updated its World Economic Outlook report at the end of 2025, global macro analysts saw a set of seemingly contradictory key terms: on one side, “resilience”—the IMF predicted the global economy would still grow by 3.1% in 2026; on the other side, “uncertainty”—IMF Chief Representative in China, Marshall Mills, bluntly stated that this uncertainty has become a “new normal” and will persist long-term.
Entering 2026, the market is adding vivid footnotes to this assertion with unprecedented intense volatility. A geopolitical storm in Iran and a power struggle within the White House over the nomination of the Federal Reserve Chairman have intertwined to form a vivid “Riverside Scene at Qingming Festival” scroll of the global market in early 2026.
In mid-January 2026, the latest statement by U.S. President Trump regarding Iran was like a boulder thrown into a calm lake, stirring a new round of volatility in global markets.
Prior to this, safe-haven sentiment triggered by the situation in Iran had already driven both gold and silver prices to record highs. Trump’s remarks in front of the White House to reporters caused the market to swing instantly between the “brink of war” and “diplomatic resolution.” He claimed that he had “convinced himself” to postpone military action against Iran, which immediately caused a slight easing in the market’s taut nerves, and international oil prices subsequently retreated from their highs.
However, the market’s brief respite was soon replaced by more uncertainty. Trump simultaneously stated that, in order to acquire Greenland, he might impose tariffs on countries that do not support the U.S. plan. This direct linkage of geopolitical objectives with trade weapons once again cast a shadow over the global trade environment.
On the other end of the market, a power game with equally profound implications is unfolding, with its focus on the Federal Reserve’s independence and the selection of its next chair.
This turmoil surrounding the Fed’s independence began in late 2025. At that time, the Federal Reserve had just ended nearly three years of quantitative tightening (QT) and announced that it would launch a new mechanism called “Reserve Management Purchases” (RMP) in January 2026. Although the Fed officially emphasized that RMP was merely a “technical operation” to ensure financial system liquidity, the market widely interpreted it as a form of “stealth easing.” When such a new monetary policy mechanism that could potentially redefine the relationship between central banks and governments is about to be launched, who will helm the Fed becomes critically important.
The market initially expected that White House National Economic Council Director Kevin Hassett was the frontrunner for the next Fed chair. However, on January 16, Trump expressed his desire for Hassett to remain in his current position. This sudden shift led market speculation to turn to former Fed Governor Kevin Warsh, who has a relatively distant relationship with the White House and is considered more hawkish, as the new frontrunner.
In a speech on the same day, Federal Reserve Governor Michelle Bowman clearly depicted a picture of the U.S. economy as “uneven.” On one hand, she believed the economy was still expanding, and inflation was moving toward the 2% target; on the other hand, she unusually and frequently used the word “fragile” to describe the labor market and warned that the unemployment rate might continue to rise. These contradictory signals filled the Fed’s future policy path—whether to continue fighting the remaining embers of inflation or to shift focus to the risks in the job market—with uncertainty.
Analysts believe that if Warsh were to lead the Fed, his dovish stance would be less pronounced than Hassett’s. This implies that, faced with the “fragile” labor market Bowman described, a more hawkish Fed might not be as quick to adopt easing measures like interest rate cuts in response.
The uncertainties of geopolitics and central bank personnel rapidly transmitted to global markets, and the “seesaw” effect between risk assets and safe-haven assets was sharply amplified.
The three major U.S. stock indices in New York opened higher but closed lower on January 16, ending the day in negative territory. Sector performance showed significant divergence: interest-rate-sensitive real estate and industrial sectors rose against the trend, while healthcare and communication services sectors led the declines. This divergent pattern is a direct reflection of the market reassessing the risks and returns of different asset classes amid uncertainty.
Meanwhile, traditional safe-haven assets continued to attract interest. Although spot gold prices experienced a slight pullback on the day, they still accumulated a weekly gain of 2%. Notably, the silver market presented a dramatic scene. Driven by geopolitical risks, silver prices once surged, even reaching a level of around $90 per ounce for fluctuations. The skyrocketing silver prices caused global photovoltaic manufacturers to lament, as silver has officially replaced silicon materials as the largest cost component of photovoltaic modules. This vividly demonstrates how geopolitical risks can ultimately affect the cost and pace of the global green energy transition through the industrial chain.
Entering 2026, the uncertainty facing the global economy is not simply cyclical volatility. As pointed out by Jin Keyu, Director of the Geoeconomic Research Institute at the Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, the deep integration of geopolitics and economics has shifted from background noise to a core proposition dominating national policies and corporate strategies. The future direction of major power relations, whether global trade becomes more open or closed, and whether the new technological revolution represented by artificial intelligence moves toward cooperation or decoupling, will all profoundly reshape the world economic landscape in 2026 and beyond.
In such an era where uncertainty becomes the certainty, perhaps the only certainty is that the market will test the resolve and wisdom of policymakers in various countries through higher-frequency volatility, searching for assets that can maintain their course even in the fog.
发表回复