📈 economics

Dual Anchors: China-U.S. Factors Jointly Determining Global Gold and Crude Oil Pricing—Systematic Evidence Based on Exhaustive Testing with VIF Constraints

This study provides systematic evidence that global gold and crude oil pricing have evolved from a U.S.-centric single-anchor regime to a China-U.S. dual-anchor structure, where the China-U.S. yield spread serves as a pivotal, statistically significant factor in both markets, contingent on the existence of domestic currency-denominated benchmark contracts.

Original authors: Shuiping Tang

Published 2026-07-14

📖 6 min read🧠 Deep dive

CC BY 4.0

Original authors: Shuiping Tang

Original paper licensed under CC BY 4.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). ✨ This is an AI-generated explanation of the paper below. It is not written or endorsed by the authors. For technical accuracy, refer to the original paper. Read full disclaimer

Imagine the global market for gold and oil as a giant, high-stakes video game where the price of every item is determined by a secret formula. For decades, the players believed there was only one "Game Master" controlling the scoreboard: the United States. The old rulebook said, "If U.S. interest rates go up, gold goes down. If the U.S. dollar gets strong, oil gets weak."

But a researcher named Shuiping Tang decided to check the code. They ran a massive, exhaustive test—like trying every single possible combination of ingredients in a recipe book—to see if there was a second Game Master hiding in the shadows.

The Big Discovery: Two Anchors, Not One
The study found that the old rulebook is outdated. The global pricing system has evolved into a "Dual Anchor" structure. It's no longer just the U.S. holding the line; China is now a co-pilot, sitting right next to the U.S. in the driver's seat.

Here is how the new formula works for the two biggest commodities:

1. The Gold Game: The "Capital Flow" Shortcut

Gold is like a giant, shiny safety deposit box for the world's money. The study found that the price of gold is now determined by three main ingredients:

The U.S. Real Interest Rate: The traditional "opportunity cost" (if you can earn interest on cash, you might not want to hold gold).
The Gold-Oil Ratio: A measure of how much fear is in the market (if gold is expensive compared to oil, people are scared).
The China-U.S. Yield Spread: This is the new, critical ingredient. It measures the difference between interest rates in China and the U.S.

The "Aha!" Moment: The study proved that the China-U.S. yield spread isn't just a side note; it's a necessary condition. In fact, if you try to build a gold pricing model without this China factor, the model crashes. It explains less than half of the price changes. With the China factor included, the model explains 90.8% of the price movement when using a dynamic, rolling window (which updates every three years to track changing market regimes), and 81.4% over a static ten-year period.

How Sure Are We? The authors are extremely confident. They tested 462 different combinations of factors. The China-U.S. spread appeared in 100% of the top 20 best-performing models. They even ran a "permutation test" (shuffling the data like a deck of cards) 500 times, and the real data still beat the random shuffles every single time. This isn't a lucky guess; it's a statistical fact.

2. The Oil Game: The "Institutional Interface"

Oil is different. It's an industrial fuel, not just a safe haven. For a long time, the U.S. dollar and global demand were the only things that mattered. But the study found a twist: China's interest rates only started affecting oil prices after a specific event.

The "Switch" That Was Flipped:
Before March 26, 2018, the China-U.S. yield spread had zero power over oil prices. It was like a radio with no signal.
But on that date, China launched the Shanghai Crude Oil Futures (SC) contract. This was a game-changer. It created a "translation interface." Suddenly, China's monetary policy could be "spoken" in a language the global oil market understood: a tradable, RMB-denominated contract.

The Result:

Before 2018: The model using the China spread was a disaster (it got the direction of the price wrong).
After 2018: The model flipped. The China spread became a powerful predictor, helping to explain 88.8% of the oil price movement.

The "Iron Anchor": The study found that the Shanghai Crude Oil Futures (SC) factor is incredibly stable. In every single test period, it had a 100% positive sign (it never flipped direction). It acts as a "synchronous anchor," meaning it moves in lockstep with global oil prices, providing a steady reference point.

What the Paper Rules Out (The "Myth Busters")

The paper explicitly argues against a few common ideas:

The "Single Anchor" Myth: It rejects the idea that the U.S. is the only pricing power. The old models (U.S. only) could only explain about 38.7% of gold price changes over 20 years. That's a failing grade.
The "Trade War" Myth: Some might think the China-U.S. spread started mattering for oil because of trade wars around 2018. The study says no. The "switch" was flipped exactly when the Shanghai futures launched, not when trade tensions rose. The data shows the spread was already working for gold years before the trade war, but only worked for oil after the futures contract existed.
The "Random Chance" Myth: The authors ruled out the idea that these results are just luck. They used "LASSO regularization" (a strict mathematical filter) and "Newey-West corrections" (fixing for time-based errors), and the China factors survived every single test.

How the "Dual Anchor" Works in Real Life

Think of it like a two-engine airplane.

The U.S. Engine: Always running, providing the baseline thrust.
The China Engine: Also running, but with a special rule.
- For Gold, the China engine connects directly to the plane's fuel system (capital flows). It's been connected since China opened its financial markets in the early 2000s.
- For Oil, the China engine needed a new cable to be plugged in. That cable was the Shanghai Crude Oil Futures contract in 2018. Once plugged in, the engine roared to life and started helping steer the plane.

The Bottom Line

The study concludes that the world has moved from a "U.S. Unipolar" system (one boss) to a "China-U.S. Dual Anchor" system (two bosses). This isn't just a theory; it's backed by hard numbers.

Gold Model: Explains 90.8% of price changes using a dynamic rolling window (and 81.4% over a static decade).
Oil Model: Explains 88.8% of price changes.
Out-of-Sample Test: Even when tested on new, unseen data, the oil model still explained 61.1% of the changes, proving it's not just memorizing the past.

The paper suggests that if other countries want to become "anchors" in the future, they need to build their own "institutional interfaces"—like a Shanghai-style futures contract—to let their economic signals talk to the global market. Until then, the world is being priced by a team of two: the U.S. and China.

Technical Summary: Dual Anchors: China-U.S. Factors Jointly Determining Global Gold and Crude Oil Pricing

Problem Statement
Traditional frameworks for pricing gold and crude oil have long relied on U.S.-centric variables, systematically excluding China-linked macro-financial factors. For gold, the dominant paradigm (Erb & Harvey, 2013) anchors prices to U.S. 10-year TIPS real yields and the U.S. Dollar Index (DXY). For crude oil, the literature (Kilian, 2009) focuses on global aggregate demand, supply shocks, and precautionary demand. Since 2022, these frameworks have exhibited systematic failures: the correlation between gold and TIPS yields has weakened, and traditional supply-demand factors have lost explanatory power for oil prices. Despite China being the world's largest gold consumer (since 2009) and crude oil importer (since 2017), and having established RMB-denominated benchmark contracts (Shanghai Gold Benchmark Price in 2016; Shanghai Crude Oil Futures [SC] in 2018), these variables have not been formally integrated into global pricing models as independent explanatory factors. This study addresses the gap in determining whether China-linked variables constitute independent pricing factors and how they interact with traditional U.S. factors.

Methodology
The study employs a rigorous, transparent, and replicable factor selection framework designed to eliminate subjective bias and factor mining. The core methodology consists of three pillars:

Exhaustive Factor Selection: The study tests all possible factor combinations from candidate pools (462 combinations for gold; 141 for crude oil) rather than relying on pre-selected subsets.
Variance Inflation Factor (VIF) Hard Constraints: To ensure factor independence and interpretability, models are filtered by strict VIF thresholds (VIF < 5 for gold; VIF < 10 for crude oil). The optimal model is selected based on the highest adjusted $R^2$ among combinations satisfying these constraints.
Rolling Regression and Robustness Checks: A rolling window of 756 trading days (approx. 3 years) is used to capture regime-dependent variations in factor coefficients. The study validates results through:
- Out-of-Sample Backtesting: Fixed-parameter application on testing sets.
- Permutation Tests: Randomly shuffling dependent variables 500 times to rule out spurious correlations.
- Newey-West Corrections: Adjusting for autocorrelation and heteroskedasticity.
- LASSO Regularization: Independent variable selection to verify factor survival.
- Endogeneity Tests: Using one-period-lagged variables, Granger causality, and an instrumental variable approach (using the 2018 SC launch as an exogenous shock) to establish causality.

Key Contributions

Empirical Validation of China Factors: The study provides systematic statistical evidence that China-linked variables (China-U.S. yield spread, gold-oil ratio, and Shanghai crude oil futures) are independent pricing factors that survive strict VIF constraints and robustness checks alongside traditional U.S. factors.
The "Institutional Interface" Concept: The paper introduces a theoretical mechanism explaining when and how monetary policy signals enter commodity pricing. It posits that a monetary signal (e.g., the yield spread) requires a "tradable benchmark contract denominated in the domestic currency" to activate its pricing function in industrial commodities, whereas monetary assets (gold) may react directly to capital flow channels.
Methodological Framework: The combination of exhaustive testing, VIF hard constraints, and multiple robustness checks is presented as a standardized tool to circumvent common empirical finance biases such as p-value manipulation and factor mining.

Key Results

Gold Market (Dual-Anchor Three-Factor Model):
- Optimal Factors: U.S. 10-year TIPS real yield, China-U.S. 10-year yield spread, and the Gold-Oil Ratio.
- Performance: Achieved a rolling full-sample $R^2$ of 0.908 (2016–2026) and a static full-sample $R^2$ of 0.814. The China-U.S. yield spread appeared in 100% of the top 20 high-explanatory-power combinations.
- Historical Depth: The pricing function of the China-U.S. yield spread in gold traces back to at least 2006, predating the 2016 Shanghai Gold Benchmark Price, suggesting a direct transmission via capital flows.
Crude Oil Market (Dual-Anchor Four-Factor Model):
- Optimal Factors: Shanghai Crude Oil Futures (SC), VIX, Synthetic Time Spread, and the China-U.S. yield spread.
- Performance: Achieved a full-sample $R^2$ of 0.888 and a fixed-parameter out-of-sample $R^2$ of 0.611. The inclusion of SC and the spread transformed the model from "nearly useless" (out-of-sample $R^2$ near 0.05) to "stably generalizable."
- Institutional Activation: The China-U.S. yield spread's pricing function in crude oil strictly began with the March 2018 launch of SC. Before 2018, the spread had no explanatory power or exhibited sign inconsistencies. The instrumental variable test confirmed a causal activation effect (First-stage $F = 2,425.75$ ).
- SC Stability: The SC factor maintained a 100% positive sign across all rolling sub-periods with zero sign reversals, acting as a "synchronous anchor" rather than a leading predictor.
Differentiated Activation Pathways:
- Gold (Monetary Attribute): The China-U.S. spread acts directly through cross-border capital flow channels.
- Crude Oil (Industrial Attribute): The spread requires the SC contract as an institutional interface to translate RMB-denominated macro conditions into arbitrageable market signals.

Significance and Claims
The paper claims that the global commodity pricing regime has evolved from a U.S. single-anchor structure to a China-U.S. dual-anchor structure. This conclusion is based on the empirical finding that the China-U.S. yield spread is the only factor to simultaneously survive exhaustive selection and robustness checks in two independent markets.

The study asserts that China is not merely a substitute for U.S. factors but an "invisible co-anchor" that has been systematically influencing pricing for decades. The "dual-anchor" structure is described as a judgment based on the combined advantages of the two economies in GDP, trade, financial market depth, and institutional infrastructure, rather than geopolitical narratives. The paper concludes that the "institutional interface" concept offers a new analytical perspective for understanding global commodity pricing power, suggesting that the absence of China factors in other commodities (e.g., iron ore, copper) may be due to a lack of domestic currency benchmark contracts rather than a lack of economic influence.

1. The Gold Game: The "Capital Flow" Shortcut

2. The Oil Game: The "Institutional Interface"

What the Paper Rules Out (The "Myth Busters")

How the "Dual Anchor" Works in Real Life

The Bottom Line

More like this