China Gold Reserves Rise to 74.64 Moz

China increased its official gold holdings to 74.64 million troy ounces at the end of April 2026, the 18th consecutive monthly increase in a pattern of systematic accumulation by Beijing. The reported April holding of 74.64 million oz compares with 74.38 million oz at end-March 2026, an increase of 0.26 million oz or roughly 0.35% month-on-month, and valued at $344.17 billion versus $342.76 billion in March, according to the data published May 7, 2026 (source: PBOC reporting compiled by InvestingLive). That incremental purchase continues a long-running strategic accumulation that has been a consistent feature of China’s reserve management since late 2024 and is material to physical gold market balance at the margin. These purchases come against a backdrop of elevated volatility in global asset markets driven by US policy shifts and geopolitical shocks; gold’s price trajectory—peaking near $5,600 at the start of 2026 before a pullback—remains a core input to central-bank valuation and reserve allocation decisions. In this note we parse the latest numbers, contextualize them against historic trends and other central-bank behaviours, and set out the implications for market participants and commodity strategists.

Context

China’s most recent monthly report, covering end-April 2026, shows reserves of 74.64 million troy ounces, the 18th straight monthly increase in official holdings (source: PBOC via InvestingLive, May 7, 2026). The continuity of purchases—effectively uninterrupted since November 2024—signals an institutional posture that prioritizes diversification away from fiat currency exposures and a greater weighting in tangible assets. That decision calculus is not unique to Beijing: central banks globally increased net gold purchases in recent years as a hedge against inflation and FX volatility, but China’s scale and the consistent cadence set it apart from most peers. For global markets, where physical supply is constrained and recycling flows dominate, even modest monthly additions from a buyer of China’s size exert measurable influence on price discovery and market sentiment.

Gold’s 2026 price path has been unusually volatile. The metal surged to about $5,600 in January 2026 before a rapid correction following leveraged liquidations and geopolitical shocks tied to the US-Iran conflict; as of the most recent session reported by market sources, gold has recovered and is up nearly 3% on the week (source: InvestingLive, May 7, 2026). This interplay between central-bank demand and speculative flows creates a feedback loop: large, predictable official buying helps underpin a price floor, while sudden risk-off episodes can trigger sharp, short-term unwinds in leveraged positions. For institutional investors monitoring systemic liquidity, the key takeaway is that official demand from Beijing is now a recurring structural buyer rather than an episodic shock absorber.

In macro terms, China’s accumulation should be read alongside its broader reserve composition and FX strategy. While Beijing does not publish a full breakdown of reserves by asset class at a granular frequency, the steady increase in gold as part of total reserves implies a tactical tilt toward non-dollar-denominated or non-sovereign-contingent assets. That shift has implications for FX markets and for the allocation strategies of global reserve managers who must compete against a major state actor for scarce physical metal. See topic for a broader view on central-bank reserve evolution and related sovereign strategies.

Data Deep Dive

The headline figures are precise: 74.64 million troy ounces at end-April 2026 versus 74.38 million troy ounces at end-March 2026, translating into an MoM increase of 0.26 million oz (about 7.99 tonnes). On a dollar basis, the reserves' carrying value rose to $344.17 billion from $342.76 billion in the prior month—an increase of $1.41 billion (source: PBOC disclosure compiled by InvestingLive, May 7, 2026). These numbers are important not only for their absolute size but for the rate of accumulation: an 18-month consecutive buying streak implies a persistent liquidity draw from the allocable physical market. Given annual global mined production of roughly 3,000 tonnes and annual recycling flows of a similar order, a programmatic buyer adding 80–100 tonnes per year materially affects available supply for private markets and ETFs.

Month-on-month percent changes are small in isolation—April’s rise equals approximately +0.35%—but the cumulative effect over 18 months compounds into a meaningful shift. If the average monthly increment since November 2024 has been similar to April’s 0.26 million oz, the cumulative addition would approach 4.7 million oz (approximately 146 tonnes) over the period. That estimate is illustrative and depends on varying monthly buys, but it underscores how steady but modest monthly purchases accumulate into a reserve-class allocation that merits attention from physical traders and bullion banks. Importantly, central-bank purchases typically occur via allocated, OTC channels and physical delivery patterns that differ from ETF flows, altering the price elasticity of existing inventories.

Contrast China’s steady accumulation with more sporadic behaviour observed in other large official buyers. For example, some central banks have shown lumpy demand tied to balance-sheet rebalancing or distressed asset sales, whereas China’s approach looks programmatic and consistent. This distinction matters for market participants pricing forward curves and term premia: programmatic buying reduces the expected frequency of large supply shocks but increases the baseline demand, which supports longer-term price discovery in the forwards and futures markets. For traders assessing basis and convenience yields, the nature of demand is as important as its quantum. For further methodological context on how central-bank purchases interact with futures curves, see our research hub at topic.

Sector Implications

For bullion dealers, refiners and the mining sector, China’s persistent buying creates a structural bid that changes the calculus on hedging and production decisions. Miners can see improved pricing power for long-dated hedges given a more stable demand backdrop, while refiners will continue to face tightness in physical allocation during periods of elevated flows. Exchange-traded funds such as GLD and miner ETFs like GDX respond to both cash price moves and expectations about physical availability; sustained official purchasing reduces the likelihood that private holders will liquidate at the first sign of a rally, which in turn supports price resilience. Market participants should incorporate central-bank accumulation scenarios into their supply-demand models rather than treating them as idiosyncratic events.

From a cross-asset perspective, increased official gold holdings are a partial answer to concerns about FX reserve diversification and sovereign counterparty exposure. If China continues to shift a modest but steady portion of reserves into gold, that reduces the elasticity of foreign-exchange reserves to conventional tools (e.g., currency swaps) and increases the strategic value of physical metals in portfolio insurance. Equities and fixed income markets may see indirect effects: greater sovereign preference for gold can signal a lower appetite for foreign-duration risk, potentially weighing on long-dated government bonds in the issuing currency. Institutional allocators should therefore consider scenario analyses where gold acts as both a portfolio insurance instrument and a component of state-level reserve strategy.

For commodity strategists, the key practical implication is that marginal physical demand is now more predictable in direction even if timing is opaque. That predictability compresses downside risk for price forecasts while preserving upside sensitivity to geopolitical shocks or supply disruptions. In short, the miners and physical market counterparties benefit from a more stable demand floor, whereas speculative flows will continue to generate short-term volatility around that baseline.

Risk Assessment

China’s programmatic accumulation is not without risks for market participants. First, transparency is limited: Beijing’s announcements typically arrive with a lag and without granular transactional detail, making it difficult to time purchases or quantify directional flows precisely. The opacity introduces execution risk for counterparties and can exaggerate market reactions when new figures are released. Second, concentration risk exists: large, persistent buying by one official entity creates dependency in market structure where a sudden change in policy (e.g., a halt or reversal) could precipitate a notable repricing given limited alternative buyers for large parcels of physical metal.

Third, geopolitical shocks remain a material downside risk to leveraged exposures. The earlier correction from the $5,600 peak—triggered by the US-Iran military episode and attendant liquidity squeezes—illustrates how quickly speculative positions can unwind even when central banks are buying. That episode emphasises the importance of counterparty and funding risk management for institutions with leveraged exposure to gold, including miners’ hedges and ETF arbitrage lines. Practitioners should stress-test balance sheets against scenarios with 20–30% rapid price moves, reflecting historical corrections in stressed markets.

Finally, macro policy shifts could alter the calculus. A rapid change in US monetary policy that re-prices the dollar or real yields could reduce the attractiveness of gold as an inflation hedge and force central banks to re-evaluate allocations. While Beijing’s current trajectory appears steady, asset managers must model regime shifts in both monetary policy and geopolitical risk to quantify potential reversals in official demand. Risk frameworks must therefore include both idiosyncratic (supply-side) and systemic (policy-driven) scenarios.

Fazen Markets Perspective

Fazen Markets views China’s steady accumulation as a strategic rebalancing that reduces the contingent liquidity available to private markets and raises the marginal value of physical metal. A contrarian but plausible scenario is that Beijing’s programmatic buying has the side effect of crowding out smaller sovereign and private buyers from the OTC allocative channels, accelerating the shift of private investors into ETF and futures markets and amplifying short-term volatility in paper markets. That redistributive effect could increase basis volatility between spot and futures, creating trading opportunities for sophisticated liquidity providers but elevating execution risk for less-equipped participants.

Another non-obvious implication is for mining capital allocation. If central-bank demand persists, miners may rationally defer marginal greenfield investment—particularly in jurisdictions with higher project risks—because improved near-term pricing reduces the urgency for incremental supply. That dynamic could paradoxically tighten physical supply further over a 2–5 year horizon, pushing the market into a structurally tighter state. From a portfolio construction standpoint, investors should consider the asymmetric benefits to high-quality producers and underweight high-cost marginal projects in stress scenarios.

Fazen's recommendation for institutional clients is to model central-bank demand as a persistent, low-volatility inflow in long-term supply-demand frameworks, while treating speculative flows as the primary driver of short-run dispersion. This hybrid approach better captures the dual nature of the market where official demand anchors the trend and speculators amplify cyclical moves.

Outlook

Looking forward, if China maintains its current pace of monthly purchases, the cumulative effect through 2026 will be material for global physical balances and supportive for longer-term price levels. The market will watch two variables closely: the cadence of monthly disclosures and any shift in the valuation assumptions that Beijing applies to its holdings. A continuation of even modest monthly buys preserves a bullish structural backdrop, while any protracted pause would re-open the market to downside risk from leveraged unwinds.

Short-term catalysts that could further lift prices include renewed geopolitical tensions affecting risk assets, weaker-than-expected US real yields, or supply disruptions from major producing regions. Conversely, a durable pickup in global mine supply or a coordinated reduction in private demand could mute the price impact of official purchases. For institutional investors, scenario analysis that combines central-bank continuation with macro stress events provides the most robust view for asset allocation and hedging.

Bottom Line

China’s April 2026 report—74.64 million oz, $344.17bn—reaffirms steady, programmatic central-bank buying that materially alters the marginal supply-demand balance for gold. Market participants should treat this accumulation as a structural factor that raises the floor for prices while retaining short-term volatility driven by speculative flows.

Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute investment advice.