upvote
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

reply
> 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.

reply
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.
reply
> 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.

Nah it's just regular realized gain (delta between acquisition price and selling price).

https://www.banque-france.fr/fr/actualites/resultats-2025-de...

(so it's kinda irrelevant, it's just they have to put it in their books)

reply
They repatriated 129 tonnes in total, its was absolutely impossible to make $15B from that since that’s what 129 tonnes are worth in total more or less.
reply
They didn't repatriate the gold in the sense of physically moving it from the US to France. Instead, they sold the gold that was held in the US and used the money raised to buy gold from other sources, which is held in France.

Different gold, and two financial transactions, accounts for the financial gain.

reply
Yes but the article implies that they somehow made 15B in profit by selling the gold in US and buying an equivalent amount which can’t be the case.
reply
What happened was that

a) they bought the gold long time ago for basically nothing and had it on their books valued at basically nothing

b) they sold it now (in the US) for around $15b and thus for accounting purposes realised a $15b gain

c) they bought it back (in France) for around $15b and will have it on the book now valued at $15b.

The fact that the gold price rose over the course of b) selling and c) buying doesn't matter (despite what the article implies). That the gold price rose between a) the original purchase and now b)c), that's what resulted in the profit.

reply
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..
reply
I don't understand this. Did they increase the overall amount of gold they held?
reply
Sold it at the peak, and then bought it locally a few months later.
reply
First sell the gold, then buy same amount at a slightly lower price a bit later (on average)
reply
> the price of gold continued to rise as they did this

This would mean they sold low and bought high, right?

reply
price of gold dropped from $5500 to $4600 in the last few weeks then came back. all is possible
reply
Then they didn't make money as a result of the price rising, which is what the original commenter and article claimed.
reply
It’s because they’re using European mathematics. You wouldn’t understand if you’re American.

In reality the article is attempting to account for a capital gain pnl accounting for taxes.

reply
Usually that's how you want your selling and buying combos to be...
reply
But the gold price has been rising (on average) a lot over the period July 2025 to January 2026
reply
From the annual report, it looks like the headline number (XXB gain) is just because it's realized capital gain (which due to their reporting requirement appears in their annual report, unlike unrealized gains).

They have ~same amount of gold between both years and it doesn't look like they took extra market risk.

reply
Impossible to make anywhere close to that amount since they only sold 129 tonnes
reply