Analysis

Grinding the Already Ground: Pakistan’s Inflation Crisis

Published

3 weeks ago

June 17, 2026

Pakistan’s finance minister Mohammad Aurangzeb presented a budget of Rs 18.77 trillion to the National Assembly on June 12, 2026 with claims that it was a people friendly budget . While the Motorcycle-rickshaw drivers in Sohrab Goth, Karachi, a few kilometers distant, were doing more straightforward math: petrol was now priced at Rs 377.81 per litre, up from Rs 266.17 prior to February, against prices that hadn’t changed in four months. Pakistan’s inflation crisis, lit by a war 1,800 kilometres to the west, had already cost commuters and small traders more than any tax bracket Aurangzeb was about to unveil.

The headline numbers explain the mood.

The data from Pakistan Bureau of Statistics shows that the consumer prices increased 11.7% year over year in May 2026, the highest level since June 2024. Inflation was only 3.5% in the same month last year. Geopolitics is a vast ocean removed from the immediate cause. The war that ensued after the United States and Israel attacked Iranian military and nuclear-related targets on February 28, 2026, closed the Strait of Hormuz to the majority of tanker traffic and sent Brent crude above $100 a barrel for the first time in over three years. With Tehran retaliating against Gulf states and US Central Command attacking Iranian sites on June 11, merchants were preparing for a protracted period of grinding uncertainty rather than a swift conclusion. For an economy that imports nearly all of its crude, the arithmetic was brutal and immediate.

Pakistan’s inflation crisis is, at its core, an energy crisis wearing a grocery bill. Petrol stood at Rs 266.17 a litre on February 1, 2026. By March 7, the government had raised it by Rs 55 in a single notification — the largest one-off increase on record — taking it to Rs 321.17. Three weeks later, with Brent trading above $115 a barrel and the Strait of Hormuz effectively closed, petrol jumped a further 42.7% to Rs 458.40 a litre and diesel rose 54.9% to Rs 520.35, the steepest two-month run-up the country has recorded. Petroleum Minister Ali Pervaiz Malik said at the time that with no resolution to the war in sight, the government could no longer sustain a blanket subsidy.

Five fortnightly cuts followed as Brent eased back from its peak, but the relief has been partial. Petrol and diesel remain roughly 40% above their February 1 baseline even after those reductions. LPG, the cylinder fuel that millions of households use for cooking where piped gas doesn’t reach, sits at Rs 308.76 per kilogram — every adjustment here lands directly on a family’s stove.

The knock-on effect runs through the entire consumption basket. Pakistan’s freight fleet runs almost entirely on diesel, so every increase at the pump arrives a second time at the vegetable stall, the flour mill and the cement yard. In May 2026, the Sensitive Price Indicator, which measures the weekly cost of necessities for lower-income households, increased 12% year over year. This is quicker than the headline CPI and indicates that the burden is falling most heavily on those with the least capacity to absorb it. In response to the deteriorating data, the State Bank’s Monetary Policy Committee raised its policy rate by 100 basis points to 11.50% in April. This was a hawkish indication that the rate reduction that had provided borrowers with some respite during the preceding two years are now off the table for the foreseeable future.Three years ago, in FY2023, headline inflation reached 30.77%; this spike is smaller in percentage terms but is landing on a price level that had already climbed sharply since then, leaving real incomes nowhere close to recovery.

Budget 2026-27 and Pakistan’s Salaried Class: Relief on Paper, Pressure in Practice

Inflation is running high because a war-driven oil shock hit an economy with almost no fiscal cushion. The US-Israel-Iran conflict pushed global energy prices sharply higher just as Pakistan’s IMF programme required it to pass those costs straight through to consumers via fuel, electricity and gas tariffs, with no room for new subsidies under a primary-surplus target.

On paper, the Rs 18.77 trillion budget Aurangzeb presented does try to soften the blow for one group. The salaried class, whose members paid Rs 605 billion in income tax during FY2024–2025—a 55% year-over-year increase driven solely by withholding that provides no opportunity to conceal income—gets four updated slabs and the elimination of the 9% surcharge that had been imposed on higher earnings. The rate decreases from 23% to 20% for those who earn between Rs 2.2 million and Rs 3.2 million per year, and from 30% to 25% for those who earn between Rs 3.2 million and Rs 4.1 million. The minimum wage increases by 10% to Rs 40,700 per month, while government salaries and pensions increase by 7%.

Set against an FBR revenue target of Rs 15.267 trillion — roughly Rs 1.84 trillion, or 14%, higher than the revised FY26 collection — the relief looks smaller. That gap has to be closed somewhere, and general sales tax applies whether a household earns Rs 40,700 or Rs 4 million a month. Meanwhile, the same budget abolished super tax entirely for businesses with annual sales between Rs 15 crore and Rs 50 crore, and cut the rate from 10% to 8% for firms above that threshold — relief that, unlike the salaried class’s slab adjustments, applies regardless of how the broader cost-of-living squeeze plays out at the till.

The energy side compounds the squeeze rather than offsetting it. As part of the same IMF Extended Fund Facility review, Islamabad has assured the Fund that electricity and gas tariffs will keep rising for all but “protected” consumers, with quarterly tariff adjustments and monthly fuel-charge revisions continuing without delay. NEPRA had already layered an additional Rs 3.82-per-unit surcharge onto bills between March and June 2026 — nearly nine times the Rs 0.43 surcharge it replaced — and a further increase to the basic tariff is scheduled for January 2027. The Central Power Purchasing Agency, meanwhile, has recommended a national power-purchase price for FY27 of between Rs 25.69 and Rs 26.69 per unit, a figure that flows almost directly into household bills if NEPRA approves it. Pakistan’s circular debt — the gap between what distribution companies bill and what they actually collect — had already crossed Rs 2.7 trillion before this round of adjustments, and the programme’s preferred fix runs through tariffs rather than through the theft, line losses and collection failures that built the debt in the first place.

The squeeze isn’t confined to fuel and food. Budget 2026-27 layers a new Environmental Levy onto vehicles above 2,000cc — 10% for engines between 2001cc and 3000cc, and 19.5% beyond that — alongside a Federal Excise Duty revision that pushes the Toyota Corolla’s top variant toward Rs 8 million. Electric vehicles were supposed to be the escape route. Instead, with exemptions under the Automotive Industry Development and Export Policy 2021-26 expiring on June 30, imported EVs face sales tax of up to 25%, even as locally assembled units retain a narrower concession — a distinction that means little to a buyer choosing between a used Civic and an EV that, for most households, remains aspirational.

Smartphones tell a similar story. A proposal to cut the PTA’s regulatory duty on premium imported phones from 25% to 18% — championed publicly by IT Minister Shaza Fatima Khawaja, who raised placards on the floor of the National Assembly — was dropped from the final budget after pushback from domestic assembly plants. The total effective tax burden on a $700 smartphone in Pakistan now exceeds 50%, among the highest of any market in the region.

Then there’s solar, the one technology that let households partially opt out of an unreliable and expensive grid. Budget 2026-27 proposes an 18% general sales tax on imported solar panels, reversing years of exemptions that had driven a boom in rooftop installations. The timing compounds an earlier blow: in February 2026, NEPRA replaced unit-for-unit net metering with “net billing,” cutting the buy-back rate for surplus solar power from roughly Rs 26-27 per unit to Rs 10-11, and adding a Rs 1,000-per-kilowatt connection fee for new on-grid systems. For middle-class families who borrowed to install panels specifically to escape Karachi’s Rs 65-per-unit K-Electric tariff and routine 12-hour load-shedding, the rules changed after the investment was already made.

The contrast with the region sharpens the picture. Between February and May 2026, Pakistan’s petrol price rose 64%, even as India kept retail fuel prices frozen and cut its own fuel duties — slashing the petrol levy from Rs 13 to Rs 3 per litre and scrapping the diesel duty altogether — while Bangladesh limited itself to a single roughly 16% increase in April before freezing rates again. Of Pakistan’s immediate neighbours, none absorbed the shock as directly as Islamabad did.

Against that backdrop, the growth numbers look modest. The government’s own FY27 target is 4% GDP growth, itself a step down from the 4.2% goal set for the year now ending — a target the economy missed, expanding by 3.7% instead. The Asian Development Bank projects 4.5% growth for FY27, but notes that downside risks remain significant — language that, with an active regional war still unresolved, may understate the exposure.

The government’s defence rests on a genuine turnaround. The State Bank’s policy rate decreased from 22.5% to 11% over about two years; foreign exchange reserves surpassed $17 billion, up nearly 50% year over year; Pakistan reported a primary surplus equal to 3.2% of GDP in the first three quarters of FY26; and inflation, which peaked near 38% in 2023, had dropped to single digits prior to this year’s shock. throughout the budget presentation, Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif thanked the public for their patience throughout years of high prices while bluntly acknowledging the cost and informing his cabinet that the new measures will bring challenges and hardship for the average person.

That acknowledgement is precisely what critics seize on. As one analysis weighing the budget against the preceding Economic Survey put it, stabilisation does not equate to development, it merely removes an impediment. Economists note that much of FY26’s fiscal improvement came from a one-off Rs 2,428 billion profit transfer from the State Bank, not from a broadened tax base — meaning the structural problem persists even as headline numbers improve. Salaried workers are taxed at source down to the rupee, while large segments of retail, wholesale and real-estate income remain lightly documented. Indirect taxes such as GST apply uniformly regardless of income, which means a rupee of relief in the withholding tables can be erased many times over by a single increase in the price of flour, fuel or electricity. For the motorcycle-rickshaw drivers of Sohrab Goth, the distinction between cyclical stabilisation and structural reform is academic. What they know is that the fare hasn’t moved and the pump price has.

Pakistan’s 2026 numbers support two honest readings at once. The macro story — reserves rebuilt, a primary surplus posted, a regional war absorbed without a balance-of-payments crisis — is real, and represents progress that looked close to impossible only a few years ago. The household story — an 11.7% inflation print, a fuel bill still roughly 40% above its February baseline, electricity surcharges layered on by IMF design, and now a solar tax that closes off one of the few workarounds millions of families had found — is equally real. The honest path forward runs through the parts of the economy this budget left largely untouched: a tax base still anchored to salaried withholding and indirect levies while retail and property income stay lightly taxed, and an energy sector where “cost recovery” has so far meant recovery from consumers rather than from the circular debt, line losses and IPP arrears that created the bill in the first place. Until that changes, every fiscal year risks becoming an exercise in grinding flour that was already ground.

Discover more from The Economy

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

Up Next

Oil Prices Plunge: Strait of Hormuz Reopens Following Framework Deal

Don't Miss

The Architecture of Fiscal Strain: Global Debt and the Middle East Crisis

Click to comment

Analysis

Strait of Hormuz 2026: Why Markets Still Don’t Trust It’s Open

Published

54 minutes ago

July 11, 2026

Abdul Rahman

If you’ve followed headlines about the Strait of Hormuz over the past several months, you’d be forgiven for losing track of whether it’s actually open. That confusion isn’t a media failure — it genuinely has opened, closed, and reopened multiple times since the conflict began, and the pattern itself is the real story markets need to understand, far more than any single day’s price move.

A Timeline That Explains the Market’s Persistent Skepticism

The crisis began February 28, 2026, when US and Israeli military operations against Iran triggered Iranian retaliation, including drone, ballistic missile, and small-boat attacks on vessels attempting to transit the Strait (Brookings). By March 4, Iranian forces formally declared the Strait “closed.” Insurance for transiting vessels became unavailable or prohibitively expensive, and seafarers largely refused the journey — meaning the Strait was effectively shut even without a formal blockade in the technical sense (Brookings).

What followed was a genuinely chaotic sequence that explains why traders remain reluctant to fully price in a resolution even now. On April 9, there was no sign an earlier agreement to lift the blockade was actually being implemented — ships were once again prevented from passing. Abu Dhabi National Oil Company’s CEO confirmed the Strait remained closed despite an announced ceasefire, noting 230 loaded oil tankers were waiting inside the Gulf (Wikipedia — 2026 Strait of Hormuz crisis). On April 17, Iran’s foreign minister announced the Strait was open to all shipping — oil prices dropped 11% immediately following the announcement. The very next day, April 18, Iran closed it again, citing the US refusal to lift its own naval blockade in response.

Even the June 17 memorandum of understanding between Trump and Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian to formally end the war and the blockades didn’t hold cleanly: on June 20, Iran said it had closed the Strait again, citing continued Israeli strikes in southern Lebanon as a violation of the broader ceasefire agreement — a claim the US military denied (Wikipedia). By June 27, the US Navy’s Joint Maritime Information Center announced a widened shipping route through the Strait near Oman, an action explicitly framed as challenging Iran’s control over the waterway rather than a clean bilateral resolution.

Why This Chokepoint Matters More Than Any Other Piece of Global Infrastructure

Approximately 20 million barrels of oil per day move through the Strait of Hormuz — roughly 20% of global seaborne oil trade and about 27% of the world’s maritime crude oil and petroleum product trade combined (Congressional Research Service). At its narrowest point, the Strait is just 33-34 kilometers wide, split into two unidirectional two-mile-wide shipping lanes separated by a two-mile buffer zone sitting entirely within Iranian and Omani territorial waters (Congressional Research Service).

Critically, no rerouting option exists that can replace this volume at comparable cost. An extended full closure would remove 17-21 million barrels from daily global supply against total world consumption of roughly 100 million barrels per day — a supply shock with no readily available substitute (Ziro Market).

The Damage Already Done, Even With Partial Reopening

The International Energy Agency characterized the disruption as the largest supply disruption in the history of the global oil market (Wikipedia — Economic impact of the 2026 Iran war). At peak conflict intensity in February-March 2026, Brent crude surged well above $120 per barrel. As ceasefire talks progressed through May and June, prices retreated significantly — falling to around $95-100 per barrel by early June, and briefly dipping to $78.24 per barrel by mid-June, the lowest level since March 3, before the framework agreement was formally signed (Al Jazeera).

But the ripple effects extend well beyond crude oil pricing. The Strait closure disrupted roughly 45% of global sulfur supply — critical for fertilizer production, copper industry metal leaching, and sulfuric acid manufacturing — and constrained helium supply, a commodity essential to semiconductor manufacturing (Wikipedia — Economic impact). Shipping companies including Maersk, CMA CGM, and Hapag-Lloyd suspended transits through the Strait and related routes like the Red Sea entirely, forcing rerouting around the Cape of Good Hope that added two to three weeks to journey times and increased per-shipment costs by 30-50% (Ziro Market).

Europe’s Quieter But Deeper Crisis

While oil price headlines dominated coverage, Europe faced an arguably more severe parallel crisis through the suspension of Qatari liquefied natural gas exports combined with the Strait closure — hitting at the worst possible moment, with European gas storage sitting at just 30% capacity following a harsh 2025-2026 winter. Dutch TTF gas benchmarks nearly doubled to over €60/MWh by mid-March (Wikipedia — Economic impact).

The European Central Bank responded by postponing planned interest rate reductions on March 19, simultaneously raising its 2026 inflation forecast and cutting GDP growth projections, with UK inflation specifically projected to breach 5% during 2026. Chemical and steel manufacturers across the UK and EU imposed surcharges of up to 30% to offset surging electricity costs, and the ECB explicitly warned that a prolonged conflict risked pushing major energy-dependent economies, including Germany and Italy, into technical recession by year-end.

Why OPEC+ Couldn’t Simply Fill the Gap

A natural question is why Saudi Arabia and the UAE — the two largest Gulf Cooperation Council producers with meaningful spare capacity — didn’t simply increase output to compensate. The answer is logistical rather than a lack of willingness: the Strait closure itself limited their ability to actually export any increased production volumes, even when pumping more oil, because the export bottleneck was the same chokepoint causing the broader crisis (Ziro Market). Total OPEC country production fell more than 30% since the start of the war, and the region’s spare capacity — the traditional shock absorber for global oil markets — proved largely irrelevant when the actual export route itself was under attack (Brookings).

US shale producers, meanwhile, responded more slowly to the price signal than historical patterns would predict. Rig counts stayed largely steady through April 2026, though well-completion activity in the Permian Basin did rise roughly 20% over several weeks as previously drilled wells came into production — still below pre-pandemic activity levels overall (Brookings).

The Market Is Still Pricing a Discount for Uncertainty, and Analysts Say That’s Correct

Vandana Hari, founder of Singapore-based Vanda Insights, offered perhaps the most useful framing for understanding current market behavior: crude’s slide following the memorandum of understanding is “entirely sentiment-driven,” with markets front-running the prospective reopening and likely pricing in a best-case scenario for normalized flows — meaning potential hiccups, from logistics to renewed geopolitical tensions, aren’t being adequately factored in (Al Jazeera).

Given the actual track record — multiple announced reopenings followed by renewed closures throughout April and June — that skepticism looks well-founded rather than excessive.

What This Means for Businesses and Investors Going Forward

For companies with Gulf-dependent supply chains: Treat any single reopening announcement as provisional rather than a genuine all-clear, given the pattern of reversals throughout the spring. Maintaining rerouting contingency plans and insurance flexibility remains prudent even after formal ceasefire signings.

For inflation-sensitive investors and central bank watchers: The relationship Ziro Market’s analysis highlights is worth internalizing directly: whether oil settles near $80-85 (supporting rate cuts, lower CPI, stronger oil-importing currencies) or spikes back toward $120 (elevated inflation, delayed rate cuts) functions as a genuine macro regime switch — not a marginal input, but potentially the single largest swing factor for 2026 global monetary policy.

For commodity-exposed sectors beyond energy: The sulfur, fertilizer, and helium supply disruptions are underappreciated second-order effects that specifically hit agriculture and semiconductor manufacturing — sectors not typically associated with Middle East conflict risk but directly exposed through this specific chokepoint.

The Bottom Line

The Strait of Hormuz crisis of 2026 has been less a single supply shock than a recurring pattern of partial resolutions and renewed disruptions, and that pattern itself is the most important thing for markets and businesses to understand going forward. Prices have retreated substantially from their conflict-peak highs, and the June 17 memorandum of understanding represents genuine diplomatic progress. But given that the Strait has been declared “open” and then closed again multiple times within the same several-week windows, treating the current relative calm as a durable resolution — rather than the latest phase in an ongoing negotiation — would be a mistake that both markets and policymakers seem determined not to repeat.

Discover more from The Economy

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

AI

AI Capex Bubble 2026: The Hidden $662B Debt Nobody Reports

Published

1 hour ago

July 11, 2026

Abdul Rahman

Every earnings season now brings a fresh wave of headlines about hyperscaler AI capital expenditure hitting a new record. The “big four” — Amazon, Microsoft, Alphabet, and Meta — are on track to spend roughly $725 billion combined in 2026, a 77% jump from the $410 billion deployed in 2025 (UnboxFuture). That number gets reported constantly. What almost nobody is reporting with the same prominence is a separate figure that may matter more: roughly $662 billion in data center lease commitments that hyperscalers have already signed but not yet begun — obligations that currently sit entirely off balance sheet.

Why the Off-Balance-Sheet Number Changes the Whole Picture

Under GAAP accounting rules governing when a lease “commences,” these signed-but-not-started commitments don’t appear in the capital expenditure figures analysts and investors typically scrutinize when assessing hyperscaler financial health. According to reporting citing Moody’s early-2026 analysis, this shadow liability is larger than the combined on-balance-sheet debt of the same companies (Anomaly Investments).

That detail matters enormously for one specific argument AI infrastructure bulls have relied on: the claim that this buildout is being conservatively self-funded from operating cash flow rather than risky leverage. Once the full picture of committed-but-unrecognized obligations is accounted for, that defense becomes much harder to sustain.

The Debt Is Already Showing Up, Not Just Theoretical

This isn’t a purely hypothetical concern about future liabilities. Big tech companies have already issued more than $100 billion of bonds in 2026 specifically to help fund AI capital expenditure, and investors have responded by demanding record levels of protection against potential defaults through credit default swaps — essentially insurance policies against bond default (IEEE ComSoc).

Individual company examples illustrate the shift toward leverage: Oracle issued an $18 billion bond specifically tied to its data center expansion; CoreWeave secured a $2.6 billion loan alongside a $1.75 billion bond package; and OpenAI and Oracle reportedly entered into a $100 billion vendor financing arrangement (Anomaly Investments). At Amazon specifically, capital expenditure over the trailing twelve months has reached $151 billion — a figure that now exceeds the company’s entire operating cash flow, pushing free cash flow into negative territory.

The Depreciation Assumption Almost No Coverage Questions

Here’s an angle genuinely underexplored across most financial media: the depreciation schedules hyperscalers use for AI hardware assume a five-to-six-year useful life. But given how rapidly GPU generations are turning over and how intensively AI workloads are pushing hardware utilization, critics argue the real economic life of this equipment is closer to two to three years. That gap between assumed and actual depreciation is estimated to understate true asset depletion by roughly $176 billion between 2026 and 2028 alone — a figure that grows as accelerating token consumption pushes hardware utilization beyond the assumptions built into current depreciation schedules (Anomaly Investments).

Layered on top of that is the energy cost curve: running the current roughly 30-gigawatt installed base of AI infrastructure costs approximately $27 billion annually today, but that figure is projected to climb to between $45 and $90 billion per year as capacity scales toward 2029 — and crucially, these are first charges against revenue, not optional or deferrable costs.

The Revenue Gap: Who’s Actually Paying for All This?

The most commonly cited justification for the capex surge is that the pure-play AI vendors — OpenAI, Anthropic, and others — represent a massive and rapidly growing revenue opportunity. The reality is more nuanced. OpenAI’s roughly $20 billion annualized revenue run rate, while genuinely impressive for a company with barely any consumer products three years ago, represents only about 3% of projected 2026 hyperscaler capex. Anthropic’s roughly $9 billion run rate, despite showing 9x year-over-year growth, occupies a similarly small share. The entire cohort of pure-play AI vendors combined — including Cohere, Mistral, Perplexity, and others — likely accounts for less than $35 billion in projected combined 2026 revenue against a hyperscaler capex figure exceeding $700 billion (Futurum Group).

That gap is the crux of the bubble debate: hyperscalers are betting the infrastructure will ultimately serve enterprise adoption and their own AI services broadly, not just third-party AI vendor revenue — but that bet requires enterprise AI monetization to arrive at a scale that, as of mid-2026, remains largely unproven outside of code generation and basic customer service automation.

The Skeptic’s Case, From Inside Goldman Sachs Itself

The most prominent voice of institutional skepticism doesn’t come from an outside critic — it comes from within Goldman Sachs itself. Jim Covello, the bank’s Head of Global Equity Research, has consistently argued the economics of the generative AI transition are fundamentally flawed, stating in mid-2026 that the industry has moved “further away” from justifying the scale of capital expenditure compared to two years prior (UnboxFuture). Covello has specifically flagged circular capital flows between cloud providers and AI startups — where hyperscalers invest in AI companies that then spend that same capital purchasing compute from those same hyperscalers — as a red flag reminiscent of vendor financing patterns seen in the dot-com era.

The valuation comparison to that era is explicit and increasingly common among strategists: US technology and AI equities carry EV/EBITDA multiples near 25x, close to historical extremes and above the telecom valuations that preceded the 2000 dot-com peak. More specifically, capex is currently expanding roughly 46 percentage points faster than revenue growth — a gap that exceeds the 32-point divergence observed during the 2001 telecom excess cycle (Allianz Research). Separately, Bank of America strategists have pointed out that AI stock concentration has reached levels matching prior bubble peaks, with the “AI Big 10” (Nvidia, Microsoft, Alphabet, Amazon, Meta, Apple, Tesla, Broadcom, Micron, and AMD) now making up 41% of the S&P 500 — comparable to the concentration of tech and telecom stocks during the actual dot-com bubble (Yahoo Finance).

The Bull Case Isn’t Naive Either

It would be inaccurate to frame this purely as informed skeptics versus blind enthusiasm. Goldman Sachs’ own broader research (distinct from Covello’s individual view) models roughly $7.6 trillion in cumulative AI capital expenditure between 2026 and 2031, built on the expectation that token consumption will increase 24-fold by 2030, driven largely by enterprise AI agents becoming embedded in production workflows rather than remaining experimental (Sesame Disk / Goldman commentary). Microsoft has disclosed an $80 billion backlog of Azure orders it currently cannot fulfill due to power constraints — genuine evidence that demand, at least for existing capacity, is outpacing even the current aggressive build-out pace (Futurum Group).

Leverage levels also remain more conservative than headlines suggest in absolute terms: the top five US capex providers reported a combined $385 billion in debt at the end of 2025, with leverage ratios still roughly 20% below the “high spender” cohort from the 2000 dot-com peak, according to Allianz Research analysis — meaning rising debt levels are a trend worth monitoring closely, not yet an acute crisis.

What Happens If the Bubble Skeptics Are Right

Historical infrastructure cycles offer a specific and somewhat counterintuitive lesson: the investors who fund the initial frenzied build-out phase rarely capture the long-term rewards. If the AI capex cycle follows the pattern of the 1998-2001 fiber optic buildout, hyperscalers may eventually be forced to write down the value of data centers and GPUs purchased at today’s prices and utilization assumptions. But that collapse in computing costs, paradoxically, could pave the way for a new generation of leaner, genuinely profitable software companies to build on top of the resulting cheap, overbuilt infrastructure — much as fiber-optic overbuild eventually enabled the 2000s streaming and cloud computing boom, even after the original telecom investors were wiped out.

What This Means for Investors and Businesses

For equity investors, the practical signal to watch isn’t the headline capex number — it’s the widening gap between capex growth and revenue growth, and whether that gap begins narrowing through 2027 as enterprise adoption either accelerates or disappoints. For businesses evaluating AI vendor relationships, the circular-financing pattern flagged by Covello is worth diligence: understanding whether an AI vendor’s revenue depends partly on capital originally supplied by the same hyperscaler providing its compute is a legitimate red flag for assessing that vendor’s underlying financial independence. For fixed-income investors, the rising credit default swap pricing on hyperscaler-linked debt is itself a market signal worth tracking as an early indicator of shifting sentiment, independent of equity price action.

The Bottom Line

The AI infrastructure buildout genuinely is the largest corporate capital expenditure cycle in recorded history, and it’s happening for real, defensible reasons tied to a genuine technology shift. But the debate over whether it constitutes a bubble isn’t really about whether AI technology is useful — it’s about whether the timing of returns can keep pace with public equity markets’ patience, and whether the $662 billion in off-balance-sheet lease commitments, aggressive depreciation assumptions, and circular vendor financing arrangements represent manageable financial engineering or the early architecture of a genuinely serious correction. Both cases have real evidence behind them. What’s clear is that the headline capex figure everyone quotes is no longer the most important number in this story.

Discover more from The Economy

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

Markets & Finance

Gold Overtakes US Treasuries in Reserves: What It Means

Published

1 hour ago

July 11, 2026

Abdul Rahman

Most gold coverage in 2026 has fixated on the price chart — the spectacular run from roughly $2,633 an ounce at the start of the year to fresh record highs above $5,400 by mid-year (Intellectia). That’s a legitimate story. But it’s not the most important one. The more consequential shift is structural, not seasonal: gold has overtaken US Treasuries as the largest share of global central bank reserves for the first time in three decades (BlackRock).

That’s not a headline about a commodity rally. It’s a headline about the architecture of the global monetary system quietly shifting under everyone’s feet.

The Trigger Most Coverage Undersells

The pivotal moment behind this shift traces back to 2022, when roughly $300 billion of Russian central bank foreign exchange reserves were frozen as part of international sanctions following the invasion of Ukraine (ISA Bullion). For reserve managers around the world — not just in Russia — that event functioned as a wake-up call: dollar-denominated assets held abroad are not unconditionally safe from geopolitical sanctions risk. Gold, by contrast, carries no counterparty risk; nobody can freeze a gold bar sitting in a country’s own vault.

That single realization has reshaped reserve management strategy globally. Central bank gold purchases averaged 225 tonnes per quarter between 2021 and 2025 — roughly double the pace seen from 2016 to 2020 (J.P. Morgan Global Research). BRICS+ nations now hold 17.4% of global gold reserves, up sharply from just 11.2% in 2019 (ISA Bullion).

Who’s Actually Buying, and Why the List Matters

Poland has been the standout accumulator, adding 20.2 tonnes in February 2026 alone, another 11.2 tonnes in March, and 14 tonnes in April — extending a rapid buildup that has added more than 360 tonnes to its reserves since 2023 (BestBrokers). China’s central bank maintained consecutive monthly gold purchases for 19 straight months through May 2026, even though much of this buying goes officially unreported to the IMF — analysts widely believe the People’s Bank of China continues accumulating gold “off the books” (ISA Bullion).

China’s motivation appears explicitly strategic rather than opportunistic. Chinese net gold imports jumped to 317 tonnes in the first quarter of 2026 alone — nearly triple the prior quarter — while the People’s Bank of China’s own reported purchases accelerated from roughly one tonne per month through February to eight tonnes in April (J.P. Morgan Global Research). J.P. Morgan’s own analysts frame this as part of a long-term Chinese project to build gold reserves as a foundation for establishing the renminbi as a credible alternative reserve currency.

A World Gold Council survey found a striking 95% of central banks expect to increase their gold holdings in 2026, up from 81% in 2024 and just 52% in 2021 — a trajectory showing accelerating, not plateauing, institutional conviction (BlackRock).

The Part of the Story Most Coverage Misses: Not Everyone Is Buying

Here’s an angle that gets consistently underplayed: this isn’t a uniform global stampede into gold. Several countries, including Singapore, Jordan, Mexico, and the Solomon Islands, actually reduced their gold reserves in 2025 — Singapore in particular emerged as a notable seller, likely driven by portfolio rebalancing decisions and a desire to realize gains after gold’s historic surge, rather than any lack of confidence in the metal (BestBrokers). Germany, for its part, has reduced its gold holdings every year since at least 2002, though its 2024 sale of just 1.1 tonnes was the smallest annual reduction on record.

This nuance matters for anyone trying to build a genuinely accurate picture: the de-dollarization and gold-accumulation trend is heavily concentrated among specific emerging-market and non-aligned economies — not a universal central bank consensus. Understanding which countries are buying and why is more analytically useful than simply citing an aggregate global purchasing figure.

Where Forecasts Diverge — And Why the Spread Is So Wide

Institutional price forecasts for gold currently show a genuinely unusual spread. J.P. Morgan projects gold reaching $6,000 an ounce by the end of 2026, and potentially $6,300 by the end of 2027 (J.P. Morgan Global Research). Morgan Stanley’s more conservative 2026 forecast sits at $4,400 an ounce (Morgan Stanley), while State Street projects a range of $4,750 to $5,500, and DWS targets $5,400 by mid-2027 (Discovery Alert).

A spread exceeding $1,500 per ounce between the most bullish and most conservative institutional forecasts reflects a genuine, unresolved analytical disagreement — not just differing house styles. The bull case rests on the idea that central bank reserve diversification represents a structural, policy-level shift rather than opportunistic market timing, making it fundamentally different from prior gold cycles driven mainly by retail or momentum investors. The more cautious case notes that gold’s roughly 245% rally from September 2022 to January 2026 is the largest percentage advance in modern gold market history — and historically, rallies of that magnitude have eventually triggered significant, multi-year corrections (Discovery Alert).

The Under-Discussed New Buyer: Stablecoin Issuers

One of the least-covered developments in this entire gold story is the emergence of stablecoin issuers as a genuinely new category of gold demand. As crypto markets have matured, some stablecoin issuers have begun holding gold as part of their reserve backing strategy — a development BlackRock specifically flags as part of the “early stages” of a new demand wave that also includes central banks and the broader AI infrastructure buildout’s effect on institutional portfolio hedging behavior (BlackRock).

What This Means for Different Audiences

For everyday investors: Gold ETPs still make up only about 0.17% of total US private financial assets, remaining well below prior peaks seen in the early 2010s, while private wealth gold allocations globally sit roughly 50% below levels seen a decade ago (BlackRock). That suggests meaningful room for incremental Western retail and institutional demand to grow, even after the current rally, if the structural de-dollarization narrative continues to gain mainstream acceptance.

For businesses managing currency exposure: The scale and persistence of central bank gold buying is one of several signals (alongside Fed communication policy changes and fiscal deficit concerns) suggesting continued structural pressure on the US dollar’s long-term reserve currency dominance — a trend worth factoring into multi-year currency hedging strategies rather than treating as a short-term news cycle.

For portfolio allocators: The unusually wide spread between institutional forecasts is itself useful information — it suggests treating any single gold price target as a scenario input rather than a confident base case, and sizing gold allocations based on its role as a portfolio diversifier and inflation/geopolitical hedge rather than as a directional price bet.

The Bottom Line

The gold price chart is the story most people are watching. The reserve-composition shift is the story that actually matters for the long-term structure of global finance. Gold surpassing US Treasuries as the largest share of central bank reserves for the first time since 1996 is a genuinely historic threshold — one triggered specifically by the 2022 Russian asset freeze and now sustained by a broad, if uneven, cohort of emerging-market central banks pursuing deliberate de-dollarization strategies. Whether the price keeps climbing toward J.P. Morgan’s $6,000 target or cools toward Morgan Stanley’s more conservative range matters less, in the long run, than the structural fact that the world’s reserve managers have permanently changed how they think about gold’s role in the global financial system.