Gold. When Jim Rickards says the $10,000 mark is near, it is appropriate to ask: why?

In 2026, gold has already significantly risen in price. Therefore, when Jim Rickards says the $10,000 mark is near, it is appropriate to ask: why? His forecast is not based on guesswork. He uses a pattern that has already proven effective: it is what allowed predicting the 2015 price bottom with an error of only $20 per ounce.

Jim Rickards on gold Why could gold reach $10,000 within a year? Rickards gave this interview to Maggie Lake the day after the Fed raised its target interest rate range to 3.75–4%. According to the expert, if gold does not reach $10,000 at the end of this year, it could well happen in mid-2027.

This is a fairly tight timeline for a price jump of more than $1,000. He supports his forecast with a method he once adopted from commodity trader Jim Rogers. The rule is simple: no commodity asset rises without an intermediate drawdown of about 50%. Rickards applied this logic to the 2011–2015 gold price cycle and predicted a bottom at around $1,070 per ounce. The actual minimum was about $1,050. He subsequently applied the same approach to the recent gold price pullback, from a peak near $5,400 to around $3,900.

His estimate was close to reality, though not absolutely accurate this time. In the interview, he details the entire calculation process and explains why the choice of base year affects the final result. What is the “anchor effect” and why are the next $1,000 easier? This is the essence of his thesis, and it is more about psychology than economics. Investors tend to fixate on the absolute dollar change in price. As a result, they overlook the fact that the percentage increase diminishes as the price rises.

Let’s look at the numbers. A gold price increase from $3,000 to $4,000 means a 33% rise, a serious jump for any asset. However, an increase from $9,000 to $10,000 is only about 11%. Rickards directly says: with current volatility, such growth could occur “in a couple of weeks.” In other words, the dollar increment remains constant, while the effort required decreases. He calls this the “anchor effect,” because investors “anchor” to a $1,000 step without noticing the corresponding percentage decrease.

In the interview, he develops this idea, showing why the rise from $9,000 becomes even easier once gold surpasses the next thousand. What fundamental factors continue to push gold prices up? Rickards carefully distinguishes between psychological aspects and real economic factors.

He highlights three fundamental factors that, he says, remain unchanged. First, central banks continue to be net buyers of gold; China leads, followed by Poland, Kazakhstan, and Uzbekistan. Second, mining volumes remain stable, holding at around 3,600–3,700 tons per year for some time. Third, the geopolitical situation is not improving but rather worsening.

Speaking of geopolitics, he points to issues affecting the Strait of Hormuz, the Saudi pipeline, the Red Sea, and the Black Sea. According to him, these factors collectively lead to higher oil and grain prices. In the full version of the conversation, he links each of these “choke points” to a specific channel of inflationary pressure. He also argues that China’s officially reported gold reserves are understated.

Currently, the People’s Bank of China reports holdings of about 2,380 metric tons (compared to about 600 tons before 2009). Rickards believes the real figure, including reserves held by a separate state entity, could be nearly double the official data. Why is the recent Fed rate hike called a “mistake”?

Rickards draws a clear line between nominal and real rates. The nominal rate is the indicator set by the Fed. The real rate is the nominal rate minus inflation; this is what matters for the gold market. He also claims that the federal funds rate is not the key benchmark many think it is. Since banks hold trillions of dollars in excess reserves, Rickards calls the federal funds market “a market that practically does not exist.”

Instead, he points to the 10-year Treasury yield as the rate determining the cost of mortgages and corporate borrowing. He then identifies three distinct sources of inflation: cost-push inflation (caused by supply shocks, such as current oil disruptions); demand-pull inflation (driven by consumer behavior, rushing to make purchases); and fiscal inflation (linked to budget deficits and government spending). In his view, monetary policy has virtually no effect on any of these factors, and the least impact is on fiscal spending.

This forms the basis of his sharpest statement during the interview. He compares the recent Fed move to two historical episodes where raising rates amid supply-shock inflation only worsened the economic downturn, rather than fixing the situation. He also shares a personal story about his first mortgage, which vividly demonstrates real-rate calculations.