| ▲ | cladopa 3 hours ago |
| This is not gain at all. At least in theory: You own some tons of gold at the start of the process, you have the same tons of gold at the end of the process. The only real gain is that you have gold in the US custody and the US can be tempted to just use it without telling you anything. In other words, you had "paper gold" or "virtual gold" that the US can confiscate anytime, for example after invading Greenland, blackmailing France to do nothing. You gain custody of what is yours. |
|
| ▲ | tgsovlerkhgsel 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| From the full press release: "In 2025 and at the start of 2026, while the volume of gold reserves remained
unchanged, the Banque de France had to align a residual portion (5%) with technical guidelines, resulting in a significant realised currency gain. This exceptional foreign exchange income totalled EUR 11 billion for 2025." -- the keyword here likely being "realized" |
| |
| ▲ | 5 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | [deleted] | |
| ▲ | mort96 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Is the logic that it's "unrealised" while the gold is stored in the US but becomes "realised" once it is stored in Paris? Why? | | |
| ▲ | tonfa 27 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | It's just accounting terms. They have to show it in their annual reports (afaiu they have to take into accounts unrealized losses, and realized gains, it's the case for many companies as well -- eg it came up with some Bitcoin treasury companies). | |
| ▲ | PaywallBuster 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | You bought it once at X price, it's realized when you sell it, it's unrealized while "open" If they held it for 100 years and finally sold it, then profit/loss is realized now | | |
| ▲ | mort96 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | But then they bought it again. They had 129 tons of gold, and now they still have 129 tons of gold. Where does the realised gains come from? | | |
| ▲ | emanueleo 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | They "realized" it just for a short time. | |
| ▲ | AnimalMuppet 10 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Let's say I bought a 100-ounce gold bar in 1965, when gold was $35/oz, for a total price of $3500. Let's say I sold it today at $4700/oz, for a total price of $470,000. That gives me a gain of $466,500. And let's say that I regret it. I decide that I really want to hold some gold, so I take the $470,000 and buy another 100-ounce gold bar. The situation was that I had a gold bar worth $470,000 with a taxable basis of $3500. Now the situation is that I have a gold bar worth $470,000 with a taxable basis of $470,000, and I owe the IRS taxes on $466,500 of capital gains. TL;DR: Selling and re-buying the same asset gives you the accumulated gains, and resets the price basis. | |
| ▲ | fakedang 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | The variation in gold prices in the time they carried out this exchange process. | | |
| ▲ | littlestymaar an hour ago | parent [-] | | So they had 129 tons of gold, and now they have 129 tons of gold and 11 billions of euros? Sounds like a good deal. | | |
| ▲ | sixhobbits an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | They had gold worth X to the market but X minus 11 billion on paper. So when France accounted for its gold in euro terms they would say they have X minus 11 billion Euros worth of gold. Now they still have the same amount of gold but they "realized" a gain of 11 billion. They don't have that much cash left after the repurchase but now they say they have X Euros worth of gold which is 11 billion more than before. So no they didn't make a profit from this as gold is higher on both sides of the Atlantic than last time they did their accounting updates. | |
| ▲ | 6031769 an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | Welcome to the wonderful world of commodities trading. |
|
| |
| ▲ | direwolf20 an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | From paper shenanigans. Don't expect accounting spreadsheets to perfectly mirror real life. Most of the financial economy is kayfabe. |
|
| |
| ▲ | cloudbonsai an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | Bank of France "transported" their reserve by selling the gold held in New York, and subsequently buying the same amount in European market. They opted to do so because it's just more efficient. It takes a lot of efforts to physically move 129 tonnes of gold after all. And as a side effect of this relocation project, they ended up recording a capital gain. It's nothing-burger. | | |
| ▲ | inglor_cz 5 minutes ago | parent [-] | | The transport would likely be quite expensive as well. Lots of armed people needed to move gold around, plus special vehicles. |
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | Rexxar an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| It's probably just a technical accounting update. Old assets are often kept valued at their buy price and not reevaluated every year to avoid taxes (Banque de France is not exempt from taxes). As they swap a type of gold by another and do a sell/buy action, the new gold is valued to current market price while the old one was valued in accounting at an old value. They had a deficit last year, so they can probably avoid to pay tax this year by balancing last year loss with this year profit. |
|
| ▲ | michaelt 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Assets like this are one of the complexities in calculating national import and export figures. For example, imagine there's some German-owned gold in a UK bank vault, the owners sell it to a UK broker who sells it to a Chinese investor? The physical bars don't move, but on paper it's been imported to the UK then exported. But a lot of people looking at export figures are expecting to learn things about the manufacturing industry, and picturing exports as washing machines, cars and computer chips - which imply lots of well paid jobs for skilled labour. So the UK reports import/export figures with 'non-monetary gold' listed separately. (The fact flows of gold are highly volatile allows a classic bit of political sleight-of-hand - if you include gold, UK exports are both up and down since Brexit, depending on the pair of dates you choose) |
|
| ▲ | coldtea 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| As @somenameforme wrote: [] 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. sounds like a gain to me. |
| |
| ▲ | mort96 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | A gain of $15b? That's roughly the value of 100 metric tons of gold, remarkably close to the 129 tons that the article says was moved... did they double the value of their gold? | | |
| ▲ | coldtea 12 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | That's an orthogonal matter (if the gain/loss was calculated correctly). But they didn't just move gold bars around, is my point, and in what they did (sold, rebuy) there indeed was an opportunity to make a gain. | |
| ▲ | mhluongo 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | When something is "realized" is a matter of accounting. It means to make the change, they sold the gold fo currrency, then bought it back. For many of us, realizing a gain is when taxes happen, though I'm not sure what it means for a nation state. https://www.investopedia.com/terms/r/realizedprofit.asp | | |
| ▲ | mort96 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | So they could sell it again and buy it again and realise another $15b? | | |
| ▲ | atombender an hour ago | parent [-] | | No, there wouldn't be any gains to realize — unless the gold price went up since they bought it, of course. If you buy something for $10 and sell at $15, you realized a gain of $5. If you then buy at $15 and sell it at $15, you realized a gain of $0. |
|
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | daneel_w 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Paper/virtual gold perhaps bought ages ago at a far lower price point, now turned into real, solid gold in parity with today's price point. To me this sounds like the implied gain. |
|
| ▲ | echelon_musk 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47659007 |
|
| ▲ | ur-whale 36 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > This is not gain at all. At least in theory: You own some tons of gold at the start of the process, you have the same tons of gold at the end of the process. Correct. A better way to put it is you shorted the USD. Which is a smart move at any rate. So a gain indeed. |
|
| ▲ | 0dayman 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| which can be the difference between losing that entire amount or gaining it, and in this situation with this America, this is a big win if they manage to get it back in fact, if it hasn't been stolen or sold already |
|
| ▲ | bamboozled 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| It's more of a loss for the USA, which IMO is the unwritten point of the article. France upgraded their gold bars to a new standard and as they were doing that, gold has appreciated massively in price, so France has the new shiny easier to trade bars, and the USA has the old harder to trade bars. |
| |
| ▲ | tux3 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | They can be melted and brought to the modern standard, which is what they did with the rest of their holdings on the old continent. They sold these only because it was cheaper than transporting it. |
|