Platinum prices have recently surged, reaching a near 11-year high at $1,350 per troy ounce, before slipping back below $1,300. The price difference between platinum and gold narrowed to less than $2,050 per troy ounce, the lowest in three months.

Recent trading activity shows warning signs that the price increase may be stalling. Bloomberg-tracked Platinum ETFs have experienced considerable outflows, with holdings dropping by almost 190,000 ounces in a week, nearly negating inflows since the year’s start.

ETF holders appear to be capitalising on the elevated prices by selling their positions. The author of this analysis provides market data and insights for informational and research purposes only and advises thorough research before any investment decision.

That recent run-up in platinum was fast and sharp—perhaps too sharp for its own good. Prices briefly touched a high we hadn’t seen since mid-2013, just shy of $1,350 per troy ounce, but very quickly retreated under $1,300. While that level still represents a substantial gain in a short span, the speed of the reversal suggests the move lacked longer-term support from demand fundamentals or sustained buying pressure. The narrowing gap between platinum and gold, now less than $2,050 per ounce, also hints that the jump may have been overdone relative to broader market dynamics. Historically, this spread serves as a rough proxy for relative value across the precious metals complex; in this context, it’s worth noting that this spread is now the tightest it has been in three months.

The outflow from exchange-traded funds is particularly telling. In just a week, around 190,000 ounces were offloaded. Considering those redemptions nearly erase all the inflows we’d seen since January, the message from ETF holders seems consistent: they’ve seen what they were looking for in the rally—and they’re heading for the exit. This isn’t necessarily about abandoning belief in platinum’s longer-term potential. It’s about locking in gains after a fast move and stepping aside while the dust settles.

The fact that such considerable selling occurred while prices remained elevated suggests there’s limited conviction behind the recent spike. This is reinforced by the pattern of trading we’ve observed: momentum pushed the price higher, not sustained buying interest across industry or investment channels. We’ve noticed volumes thinning slightly on the upswing too, which isn’t what you’d want to see if this were the beginning of a larger push upward. That type of behaviour—rapid increase followed by light volume and fresh selling—normally leads to volatility as we try to settle on a new level where both buyers and sellers are more comfortable.

In this environment, we shouldn’t be overly aggressive. Instead, consider taking a more reactive stance. Wait for further confirmation before assuming this correction is over. Should we see prices rebounding again but failing to take out the recent high, that would strengthen the case that the top is in for now. And if ETF redemptions continue this week, particularly as prices hover in the $1,280–$1,300 band, that might serve as another nudge to the downside.

Let’s also not overlook the broader macro backdrop. Key inflation data and central bank signals are still making waves across commodities markets. If US or European inflation expectations shift meaningfully, especially impacting the dollar or real yields, near-term direction in platinum could be heavily influenced.

We’re watching closely for open interest changes in options markets tied to platinum. If derivative premiums start climbing without a matching move in spot prices, it may indicate hedging rather than fresh directional positioning. That’s often when price tends to drift or correct as traders reduce exposure instead of building on it.

Rather than chasing price here—and considering the aggressive exiting by ETF participants—it makes more sense to maintain a balanced stance, monitor positioning, and see whether the $1,250–$1,280 zone holds as a floor. There may be opportunities setting up, but current signals don’t yet favour leaning heavily one way or the other.