Nouriel Roubini ("Dr. Doom"), is known for his accurate prediction of the 2008 financial crisis. Ben McMillan (Chief Investment Officer of IDX Advisors) has recently stood out in the market. In early 2024, when gold was around $2,000, he predicted it would reach $5,000 within five years. The market thought it was "almost insane." As it turned out, the price of gold reached that level in just a year and a half. Ray Dalio (Founder of Bridgewater Associates), without giving specific prices, makes qualitative judgments from a macroeconomic cycle perspective. In January 2026, he called gold the "second largest currency" and recommended allocating 5-15% to investment portfolios. After reviewing the data, you might think—some people are quite accurate? Hold on. The above are just their "most famous moments." When I pulled out their **complete record**, the picture changed. What is a lagging forecast? It means that the bull market has already arrived, and they only start raising their target prices; but the adjustment never keeps up with the actual increase. When the bear market arrives, they start lowering their forecasts again, but always too slowly. The LBMA's 28 analysts are the best example. They make a forecast every year, essentially making a small extrapolation of a "trend that has already occurred." In 2024, the price of gold had already risen to $2,700, but their median forecast for 2025 was only $2,735—almost just using last year's closing price as their forecast. The result was an average price of $3,431 in 2025, a 20% error. Goldman Sachs follows the same pattern. At the end of 2024, they only gave a target of $2,700 for 2025, but gold later surpassed $5,000. JPMorgan Chase gave a benchmark price of $5,055, which gold broke through earlier. What these institutions are doing is more accurately called **"trend confirmation"**—telling you that what has happened is indeed happening, but their assessment of the magnitude is always conservative. If you wait for their signals to make decisions, you'll always be a step behind. Peter Schiff has been predicting $5,000 for gold for over a decade. Jim Rickards has consistently predicted $10,000. Kiyosaki directly predicted $35,000. Their strategy is essentially to predict a rise every year; if it rises, it's "I told you so," and if it falls, it's "it's not time yet." The more fatal problem is that these predictions lack time granularity. They don't tell you when to enter or when to exit. If you listened to Schiff in 2011 and went all-in on gold, you would have had to endure five or six years of sideways trading and losses to reach today. Faith, when you've lost 40%, doesn't stop the bleeding. The "legendary" players: Are they really always accurate? This type of person is the most deceptive. Because they have indeed made surprisingly accurate judgments at crucial moments, the market has given them the halo of "prophet." But when I look at their complete record, the picture isn't so perfect. Roubini was right to be bearish in 2013 and right to be bullish in 2023. He caught both turning points, which is truly impressive. But do you know what he missed in between? When gold prices broke through $1,000 in 2009, Roubini publicly stated that "it's impossible for it to rise another 20-30%." The result? Gold prices rose all the way to $1,900 in 2011, an increase of nearly 90%. At the end of 2009, when gold prices reached $1,200, he again said, "It looks very much like a bubble," and "Gold has no intrinsic value." Throughout the entire gold bull market from 2009 to 2012, Roubini repeatedly predicted a downturn, completely missing out on the gains. This part of his history is largely ignored; everyone only remembers his brilliant short-selling in 2013 and his bullish reversal in 2023. Ben McMillan predicted $5,000 in gold within five years in early 2024, and it reached that level in just a year and a half. His logic, based on structural changes in central bank gold purchases, was indeed correct. But the problem is: this is his only widely documented prediction in the gold sector. The sample size is limited to just one instance. Does a single correct prediction demonstrate systematic predictive ability? Ray Dalio seems the most reliable—he doesn't predict prices, only provides allocation advice. But look at his macroeconomic prediction record: in 1981, he firmly believed the US was going to experience a Great Depression, shouting it out in newspapers, on television, and at congressional hearings, only to be utterly wrong. Bridgewater almost went bankrupt, and he had to borrow $4,000 from his father to pay family bills. In 2015, he predicted a repeat of 1937, but it didn't happen. In 2018, he predicted a recession within two years, but that didn't happen either. In October 2022, he proclaimed a "perfect storm"—that month happened to be the bottom of the US stock market. He predicted a financial crisis almost every two or three years, and the vast majority of them didn't materialize. Ironically, his statement, "You don't need to predict prices, you just need to allocate 5-15%," became the most useful statement of all. The 2011 scenario is being repeated in 2026. The report contains a particularly interesting finding. Before gold prices peaked at $1,923 in 2011, market forecasts were wildly inflated: at the beginning of the year, everyone predicted $2,000; by mid-year, that had doubled; and near the peak, Jim Sinclair predicted $12,500, and Rob Kirby predicted $15,000. The most extreme predictions appeared just weeks before the actual peak. Then, in September, gold prices plummeted. What was the forecasters' reaction? First, they called it a "healthy correction," then reluctantly lowered their target prices by 20-30% over several months, and finally postponed the timeline indefinitely. In March 2026, gold prices plunged 25% from their all-time high of $5,600 to around $4,200—the largest single-week drop since 1983. What was the reaction of the vast majority of institutions and celebrities? They maintained their original extremely high target price, even believing the sharp drop was "the best buying opportunity." History doesn't simply repeat itself, but the script is remarkably similar. So how do they view the future now? Since we've already analyzed it, here are their latest predictions for your reference: People / Institutions Latest Predictions Core Logic Roubini Previous target $3,000 achieved, bullish outlook unchanged Inflation expectations return + long-term structural rise McMillan $10,000 within five years Central bank gold purchases + US debt crisis + BRICS de-dollarization Dalio No price given, suggests 5-15% allocation Fiat currency credit structural decline Jamie Dimon May reach $10,000 this year Economic concerns + inflation + asset bubble Peter Schiff $11,400 within three years, says recent decline "illogical" Kiyosaki $35,000 after "the biggest bubble burst in history" JPMorgan Chase at $6,300 believes the plunge is profit-taking; Goldman Sachs at $5,400 believes the bull market is not over; UBS at $6,200 maintains a bullish outlook. See? From $5,400 to $35,000, the highest and lowest differ by nearly seven times. The same market environment, the same data sources, yet these top global minds give such different answers. So, has the "wealth code" been found? My conclusion after reviewing everything: No. Institutions are always chasing, influential figures are always shouting, and even legendary investors aren't always right—they're just right at certain moments, and nobody remembers the times they were wrong. Combining the predictions of these three types of people not only fails to yield a more accurate answer, but also creates more confusion. This is because their predictions often contradict each other at the same point in time. I used to think that "finding the most accurate person and following them" was a viable approach. After conducting this research, I discovered that in the field of gold prediction, there is no such thing as "the most accurate person all the time." There are only "people who just happened to be right this time." In conclusion, a single gold prediction completely dispelled my illusions about so-called financial experts. Whether you can "catch" an ALPHA depends not only on the model and data, but also on your luck. Therefore, in the end, instead of trying to crack the code to wealth, I decided to learn from Dalio—not to predict specific prices, but to acknowledge uncertainty and manage risk through asset allocation. I bought gold last year and will continue to buy more this year. My investment timeframe is calculated on a 10-year cycle.
JinseFinance
Edmund
nftnow
Beincrypto
Bitcoinist