In recent weeks, gold has returned strongly to the spotlight, recording one of the most brilliant performances among all asset classes. Since the beginning of the year, the precious metal has gained over 24% YTD, consolidating its position as a safe-haven asset par excellence in a particularly unstable macroeconomic and geopolitical context.
According to the Gold Return Attribution Model (GRAM) of the World Gold Council, the main drivers of the rally have been:
Looking at the long-term trend, it is evident that the current rally, while impressive, has not yet surpassed in intensity either that of 2011 or the post-pandemic rally of 2020, as clearly shown in the following chart.
In terms of duration and magnitude, the major rallies of the past have delivered returns far superior to the current one, suggesting that — should the macro conditions persist — there could still be room for further upside.
Turning to technical analysis, the GC contract (Gold Futures, expiry 06-2025) recently marked a high around $3,509/oz, then retraced and is currently consolidating in the $3,350/oz area.
Based on the volume profile map (see chart), the following key areas are identified:
The technical structure remains positive, but the outlook is heavily influenced by macro dynamics.
The market environment still appears favorable for a continuation of gold’s bullish trend, thanks to a combination of macroeconomic, geopolitical, and technical factors. However, from a strictly operational standpoint, buying at current levels could be risky, given the evident overbought condition of the precious metal. The best approach might be to wait and observe price behaviour at the identified support levels before considering long entries.
Moreover, it will be crucial to monitor:
From an operational standpoint, maintaining a cautious approach anchored to the volume structure seems to be the most sensible strategy in the current market phase. A breakout above the all-time high could mark the beginning of a new structural bullish leg. A breakdown below $3,000, however, would put the trend into question.