← Back to context

Comment by carefree-bob

14 hours ago

Good for France to relocate gold back to their own territory, but, uh, how can this result in a 15 B gain?

"The overall size of France’s gold reserves still remained unchanged at roughly 2,437 tonnes, which are now entirely held at the BdF’s underground vault in La Souterraine."

Is this some special form of French accounting, where the gold becomes more valuable when it returns to French soil?

Over about a year they sold their 'non-standard' (seems to be bars below the modern purity standards) US reserves, and replaced them with new reserves purchased elsewhere which are now stored in France. As the price of gold continued to rise as they did this, they ended up making a bunch of dinero while also centralizing their reserves.

  • The French gold originally deposited by France in US reserves in the 1950s was of the exact same purity as the French gold now, what is meant by "non-standard" just means "not stored in France".

    If it was a lower purity, then when they sold the 129 tons, they would not have obtained 129 tons of "higher purity" gold and still turned a profit. They would have gotten fewer tons of gold. Your logic has the wrong sign.

    Also, the fact that gold prices are rising means when France sold the gold and then purchased it later, the higher price to obtain the same quantity of gold would mean they incurred a loss, not a profit. Here, too, your sign is wrong.

    Finally, at current prices, 129 tons of gold is worth $19 Billion dollars in total. It seems hard to believe that short term price declines (which is what is needed to turn a profit) would be such that gold fell over 80% in value, which is what would be needed to sell 129 tons of gold, then wait a while and buy 129 tons of gold, and end up with a profit equal to over 80% of the price of gold in question.

    Moreover, rising gold prices would cause the French to earn a loss, not a profit

  • > As the price of gold continued to rise as they did this,

    Seems counterintuitive to me. This would only make gains when they bought the new gold before selling the old, or when there's some arbitrage going on between Gold/USD, Gold/EUR and USD/EUR.

    If they first sold the old for USD, then bought the new for USD, with a rising gold price, they'd miss the price-gain during the time between the trades, when they held the USD. It'd be a loss, not a gain.

    If there's some arbitrage going on, then I highly doubt that brings $15B gain. The differences would have to be huge.

    I think the (author (AI)) writing that article is simply mixing up stuff. I think this gain is not a cause-effect of the conversion, merely the gains from rising gold prices on the gold it holds over that period.

    • The source is a press conference where they state the total amount and total value of gold stored hasn't changed. In le figaro they report the profit is due to variation in price between the different transactions. Which seems to be a polite way to say they took exceptional risk.

      5 replies →

    • Well they has 129 tonnes in US which happens to be wroth around $15B or so. Probably the author has no clue what they are talking about and grossly misinterpreted..

They sold the existing holdings and bought new of equivalent weight(?), so somehow they ended on profit on those moves.

  • The profit is just realizing the gains (resetting the cost basis for accounting purpose).

It’s a paper gain created by mark to book accounting treatment of central bank goal reserves. Not a real economic gain.

The US could re-create the same “gain” by selling and repurchasing their gold. Fundamentally doesn’t really matter.

My guess is they buy before selling. An increasing market with a large buy might increase enough to allow for a profitable sell.

On top of this, this is physical gold, so location of the gold must play into it as well.