buying

Central banks’ record, price-insensitive gold buying is a more credible signal of the dollar’s structural trajectory than this year’s currency markets, because FX markets are structurally bad at pricing the discontinuous, wartime-style tail risk central banks are actually hedging — so this autumn’s calmer dollar should not reassure anyone that de-dollarization has stalled.

In June, the European Central Bank made an announcement most people missed: gold has overtaken US Treasuries as the world’s single largest reserve asset. Central banks bought 289 tonnes of it in the second quarter alone — a record for that quarter and five times Q1’s pace — with Poland’s central bank openly telling investors it was “buying the dip.” Here is the part that should stop you: gold’s price fell 22% between January and September. Central banks were never more convinced buyers of an asset than while it was crashing. Either the reserve managers are wrong, or currency markets — which show none of this urgency — are the ones asleep at the wheel.

Gold peaked at $5,589 an ounce on 28 January, the same month the dollar index hit a four-year low of 95.5 and the dollar’s share of global reserves fell toward its lowest level since 1995. Both moves reflected the same story: Fed rate cuts through 2025, a US debt load past $37 trillion, and BRICS states settling more trade outside the dollar. Then the picture split. Kevin Warsh, confirmed as Fed chair in May, signalled a hawkish pivot in August; the Iran war pushed oil and inflation higher through September, and markets began pricing a rate hike rather than a cut. The dollar index clawed back to 99.46. Gold fell to $4,330. Central-bank buying did not follow the price down — Poland alone added 82 tonnes this year toward a 700-tonne target, and a World Gold Council survey found a record 45% of central banks plan to buy more within twelve months.

State the gap plainly. Two signals, same underlying question — is the dollar-centred monetary order changing — and they disagree by a wide margin. The buying signal says yes, decisively: record quarterly purchases, gold displacing Treasuries at the ECB’s own reckoning, 74% of surveyed reserve managers expecting the dollar’s reserve share to keep falling over five years, and buyers adding tonnage through a 22% drawdown rather than fleeing it. The price signal says not yet: the dollar just posted one of its sharper rallies of the year, gold is down sharply from its high, and nothing in currency markets shows the kind of stress a genuine regime shift would produce.

The strongest objection to trusting the buying signal is a good one, and it needs to be taken seriously rather than waved away: foreign exchange is the deepest, most liquid market in the world, turning over more than $7 trillion a day. A few hundred tonnes of central-bank gold buying — perhaps $30–40 billion a quarter — is a rounding error against that. If professional currency traders, sitting on far more capital and far better short-term information than a handful of reserve managers, saw a serious de-dollarization story unfolding, it would already be in the price. Instead the dollar just rallied. On this view, central banks are not seeing something markets are missing; they are pattern-matching off 2022, when Russia’s $300 billion in reserves was frozen overnight, and over-hedging a tail risk that has not recurred and mostly will not.

That objection assumes FX markets and central-bank reserve committees are pricing the same kind of risk, on the same time horizon, and they are not. Currency markets are exceptionally good at pricing continuous, high-frequency variables — rate differentials, growth surprises, this week’s inflation print — because that is what moves flows daily. They are structurally poor at pricing discontinuous, low-probability events until those events occur: equity volatility did not price 2008 in 2007; sovereign spreads did not price the Russia reserve freeze in the weeks before it happened. A reserve freeze, a secondary-sanctions campaign, or exclusion from SWIFT-style settlement infrastructure is exactly that kind of event — binary, rare, and catastrophic for whoever it hits — which is precisely why Poland’s central bank governor, Adam Glapiński, described his buying not as a trade but as insurance: reserves that keep the state secure “under all circumstances, including wartime, which of course we’re not expecting.” That is not the language of someone chasing momentum. It is the language of someone who manages the one asset class that keeps its value if their country is ever cut off from the dollar system, and who would rather hold it and be wrong for a decade than not hold it and be wrong once.

The buying pattern itself supports that reading. Momentum money sells into a 22% drawdown; insurance money adds to it. Central banks did the latter through the first half of this year, which is the behavioural signature of a structural reallocation program with a fixed multi-year target — Poland’s is explicit, 700 tonnes — not speculative flow riding gold’s rally. Meanwhile the dollar’s autumn recovery has an identifiable, largely cyclical cause: a new, more hawkish Fed chair and a war-driven oil shock forcing a rate-hike repricing. Neither event reverses the debt trajectory, the BRICS settlement trend, or the reserve-freeze precedent that pushed the dollar to a four-year low in January. A rally built on this year’s Fed chair and this year’s war is not proof that last year’s structural story is over; it is evidence that a cyclical force is currently strong enough to mask it.

The Scenarios

Base case (55%): The gap persists rather than resolves. The dollar holds most of its autumn gains through the current rate-hike cycle, gold range-trades below its January peak, and central banks keep buying at a steadier, slower pace toward stated targets like Poland’s 700 tonnes. Nobody is “proven right” on any particular Tuesday, because reserve diversification is a decade-scale hedge, not a trade with a catalyst date. This is the least satisfying outcome for anyone wanting a verdict, and the most likely one.

Downside case (for dollar holders): A discrete trigger — a fresh reserve-freeze or secondary-sanctions episode, plausibly connected to the still-live US-Iran war spilling into action against a third country’s assets, or a shock to Fed independence under a more political Warsh chairmanship — crystallizes the exact tail risk central banks have been hedging. Gold spikes back through its January high, the dollar index breaks below its 95.5 low, and the gap closes in weeks rather than years, vindicating the reserve managers all at once and catching FX markets flat-footed exactly as the theory predicts.

Upside case (for the dollar): The Iran war resolves, Warsh’s rate hikes cool inflation without a recession, US fiscal metrics stabilize, and BRICS local-currency settlement growth stalls on friction between its own members. Central-bank gold buying does not reverse but plateaus as reserve managers hit conventional diversification ceilings — most target 15–20% of reserves in gold, not open-ended accumulation. The gap closes gradually as price drifts up toward the buying signal over several years, with no crisis required to force the reconciliation.

The Takeaway

The dollar’s calmer autumn is not evidence the de-dollarization hedge was a mistake; it is evidence that currency markets and central-bank reserve committees are pricing two different things on two different clocks, and only one of those clocks rings in a crisis. Central banks bought through a 22% drawdown because the point of the position was never this quarter’s return.

Watch for: the World Gold Council’s Q3 2026 Gold Demand Trends report, expected in early November. A third consecutive quarter of buying that ignores price direction will confirm this is policy, not opportunism — and the moment currency markets have to agree with that policy will not be a quiet one.

Mike Trout was practically beaming. He dropped the phrase “fresh start” four times in an interview that barely lasted five minutes.

The burden of the Angels’ failures has been disproportionately his to bear. He has insisted that his path to Cooperstown would run through Anaheim and only Anaheim. He has played 16 seasons for an owner that blessed him with half a billion dollars, treated his family like royalty and stranded him in position to conclude a star-spangled career without ever winning a postseason game.

On Tuesday, Trout learned that the Angels would have a new owner: Stan Kroenke. Trout got off the call, looked up Kroenke and has not stopped smiling since.

“What a track record,” Trout said. “Wherever he buys, he wins.”

Rams owner Stan Kroenke has agreed to purchase a majority stake of the Angels on Tuesday. The deal is pending regulatory review and MLB approval.

(Kyusung Gong / Associated Press)

The Rams. The Colorado Avalanche. The Denver Nuggets. Arsenal.

So what if the Angels have baseball’s longest playoff drought? They now have baseball’s richest owner, with a net worth valued by Forbes at $24 billion.

Kroenke bought a controlling share of the Angels at a valuation of $4 billion, a record for a major league team, with current owner Arte Moreno retaining a small stake, a source with knowledge of the deal not authorized to discuss it publicly told The Times. The sale includes the team-owned television and radio outlets, ABTV and AM 830. The deal is subject to customary closing conditions and MLB approval.

In 2009, ESPN put Moreno on the cover of its magazine, proclaiming the Angels delivered the best value of the then-122 teams in the NFL, NBA, NHL and Major League Baseball. In this decade, the experience had been so devalued by 12 consecutive losing seasons that resale tickets for Tuesday’s game against the mighty New York Yankees were available for $5, amid a season of fans regularly chanting “Sell the Team!”

“He’s aware of the chants,” Angels president Molly Jolly said. “He knows about them. At the end of the day, this is about having the right next owner more than it is about anything else.”

Jolly wouldn’t say whether Kroenke or Moreno initiated the negotiations. She did say the sale was not conducted through a formal bidding process, but proceeded through face-to-face discussions between Kroenke and Moreno.

“He has a traditional sense about him,” Jolly said. “To be able to sit down with another gentleman and have a conversation and talk about baseball and the franchise, that resonates for how he thinks and looks at things, rather than it being a complex conversation.

“I think that’s what was the ‘Why now?’ It was the right person having the right conversation with him.”

As far as she knew, Jolly said, the conversations had not started when she assumed the team presidency in April, but the possibility of a sale had “always stayed out there” after Moreno invited bids in 2022 and then decided not to sell.

In July, after joining the Angels as interim general manager, John Mozeliak said he had spoken with Moreno for hours and the topic of whether the owner might sell the team “never came up.” On Tuesday, Mozeliak acknowledged that, when he started his position, Moreno “had mentioned that this was a possibility.”

Fans at Angel Stadium hold up signs during a game against the Yankees Tuesday marking Stan Kroenke’s agreement to purchase the Angels from Arte Moreno.

(Mark J. Terrill / Ap Photo/mark J. Terrill)

The sale is not expected to be finalized until early next year. Kroenke has not done the usual due diligence that would precede a sale — meeting with team management and touring the stadium — and has not introduced himself to officials from the city of Anaheim. The city owns the stadium and surrounding parking lots, a 150-acre site that city officials would love to see Kroenke develop.

In the meantime, it’s business as usual for the Angels. Mozeliak, who ran the St. Louis Cardinals when the Rams played in St. Louis, said he never has met Kroenke. He did recall speaking with Kevin Demoff, who oversees all of Kroenke’s teams.

Mozeliak has no idea whether Kroenke might invite him to stay, but for now the plan of rebuilding the team and reorganizing the front office remains on course, in the interest of serving fans weary and frustrated after 12 consecutive losing seasons.

“We’ve been preaching change all along,” Mozeliak said. “Now they’re going to see even more.”

And, he noted, the Padres and Angels had sold at successive record prices for MLB teams, despite the prospect of a lockout and owners’ hopes for a new collective bargaining agreement with a salary cap intended in part to raise franchise values.

“A lot of people thought teams wouldn’t sell until there was a new CBA,” Mozeliak said. “Clearly, that prediction was wrong.”

In the clubhouse, no one was talking about that. Neto was talking about the call Trout made to “some of the Rams guys” for a scouting report on Kroenke.

“I reached out to one Rams player,” Trout said, smiling. “He exaggerates a little bit.”

Still, given the national attention given last winter to the air conditioning not working properly in an Angel Stadium weight room, Neto said the evaluation from the Rams’ locker room was glowing.

“The most important thing they said is, he just wants what’s important for us,” Neto said. “That’s to make the clubhouse better, in the sense of whatever we need, we get, whether that’s amenity-wise, speakers, whatever it is, he’ll make sure we get those.”

Trout was so enthusiastic that, when a reporter asked if he was excited about what the new vision might be, he answered before the reporter could finish asking the question.

“No doubt,” Trout said. “Obviously, when you’re frustrated the last — I don’t know how many years it’s been, but to hear the news like this, I’m super excited to have this change.”

For his part, Neto sounded ready to pitch Tarik Skubal on pitching for the Angels — or, at least, pitching Kroenke on the possibility of recruiting him in free agency.

“Who doesn’t want to be in Southern California?” Neto said. “The weather is beautiful here. We have the best fans, in my opinion. We have a beautiful stadium.

“Who wouldn’t want to be here and play in this organization, in this market? It would be a no-brainer.”

Trout said the ownership change “was needed” and said there was “a good vibe around the clubhouse,” but both he and Neto expressed appreciation for Moreno.

“Arte was very supportive of us, whatever the outside noise was,” Neto said.

“I’ve seen a lot of hate, a lot of love, a lot more hate. But, as a player who has played under him, it was a lot of love. He treated us well, and that’s all you can ask for as a player.”