Jim Reid’s provocation is useful precisely because markets have become conditioned to expect drama. When shock becomes the baseline, stability itself turns counterintuitive.

My assessment for 2026, in order of likelihood:

1. U.S. equities hitting new highs

This is the most probable. Earnings growth from productivity gains, AI-driven capex, and resilient balance sheets can still carry indices higher, even if returns are narrower and more uneven. New highs do not require euphoria, only persistence.

2. Gold breaking above US$5,000

Plausible, but conditional. It likely requires sustained real-rate compression, ongoing central bank buying, and geopolitical tension. A spike above US$5,000 may occur, but holding that level is a higher bar.

3. Repeated Fed policy reversals

Less dramatic than it sounds, but quite realistic. Not sharp U-turns, rather fine-tuning as growth, inflation, and labour data oscillate. Markets may interpret this as noise rather than crisis.

4. An AI bubble bursting

Unlikely in a classic sense. Valuations may compress and weaker players may fail, but the underlying demand for compute and automation is structural. This looks more like digestion than a burst.

5. “Nothing happens”

Ironically, this may be the true surprise. A year of range-bound markets, modest growth, and fading narratives would wrongfoot both bulls and bears. In a world addicted to catalysts, dullness would be disruptive.

Bottom line:

The most realistic outcome is a blend. Equity markets grind higher, gold remains structurally bid, policy oscillates mildly, and AI normalises rather than collapses. The real shock in 2026 may be how little actually breaks.