3 ms·

Typically they move gold to allies when it’s safer to keep the reserves away (e.g., it’s really hard to imagine the US getting invaded, but that happened to alm

Typically they move gold to allies when it’s safer to keep the reserves away (e.g., it’s really hard to imagine the US getting invaded, but that happened to almost all European countries in the last century or so) or when politics become unstable. They take the gold back when the calculus changes. Famously, France got a chunk of its gold back from the US in the 1979s (and finished that process this year). The rabbit hole goes quite deep: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gold_repatriation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gold_repatriation .

giov4 21d ago
oh thanks! wasn't lazyness but looking for exactly this type of context from somebody else. based on that and the link, we can say that it's a process started long time ago and now simply accelerating and escalating after Ukrainian conflict and confiscation of a european partner assets? shouldn't the risk of confiscation ,when having resources held abroad and in other jurosdiction always be considered? I was pretty much surprised when Bank of England said Venezuelan gold was not Venezuelan gold anymore and took it hostage, then what is the sense of having it abroad if the abroad partner can switch idea of ownership anytime?
- kergonath 21d ago
  > we can say that it's a process started long time ago and now simply accelerating and escalating after Ukrainian conflict and confiscation of a european partner assets? For France, not really. It was De Gaulle and his successors wanting to remove levers that the America government could use against France. It was a sovereignty issue, not really fear that the gold would be seized or frozen. It took decades because it was not really a top priority either. For the Netherlands (which is why the BBC is talking about this), it’s directly a consequence of Trump using underhanded tactics against allies. In the words of the Dutch government, "geopolitical lawlessness". It has more of a sense of urgency, as well. > what is the sense of having it abroad if the abroad partner can switch idea of ownership anytime? There are practical reasons to have some gold abroad. The stuff is heavy and cumbersome, and vulnerable in transit. So, when transactions can be managed by just moving a bunch of ingots from one pile to another in the same facility, it makes transactions easier. Other than that, countries do not do that if they don’t trust the reserves won’t be seized. In practical terms, either they are close allies, or they have some leverage so stealing the gold has a cost. In the end, it’s a risk/reward analysis on both sides.

giov4 21d ago

oh thanks! wasn't lazyness but looking for exactly this type of context from somebody else. based on that and the link, we can say that it's a process started long time ago and now simply accelerating and escalating after Ukrainian conflict and confiscation of a european partner assets? shouldn't the risk of confiscation ,when having resources held abroad and in other jurosdiction always be considered? I was pretty much surprised when Bank of England said Venezuelan gold was not Venezuelan gold anymore and took it hostage, then what is the sense of having it abroad if the abroad partner can switch idea of ownership anytime?

kergonath 21d ago
> we can say that it's a process started long time ago and now simply accelerating and escalating after Ukrainian conflict and confiscation of a european partner assets? For France, not really. It was De Gaulle and his successors wanting to remove levers that the America government could use against France. It was a sovereignty issue, not really fear that the gold would be seized or frozen. It took decades because it was not really a top priority either. For the Netherlands (which is why the BBC is talking about this), it’s directly a consequence of Trump using underhanded tactics against allies. In the words of the Dutch government, "geopolitical lawlessness". It has more of a sense of urgency, as well. > what is the sense of having it abroad if the abroad partner can switch idea of ownership anytime? There are practical reasons to have some gold abroad. The stuff is heavy and cumbersome, and vulnerable in transit. So, when transactions can be managed by just moving a bunch of ingots from one pile to another in the same facility, it makes transactions easier. Other than that, countries do not do that if they don’t trust the reserves won’t be seized. In practical terms, either they are close allies, or they have some leverage so stealing the gold has a cost. In the end, it’s a risk/reward analysis on both sides.