Interestingly, 59 tonnes of gold was sold in USA and bought in London. So that means perhaps "Somebody" transferred 59 tonnes of their gold holdings to the USA.. who was that?
This is similar to what the French did last year.
The other thing I noticed, is that as the article chose to mention:
> Gold that is held with the Bank of England must meet modern international trade standards
with implication being that the gold it previously held in the USA was not meeting those standards, but is that just journalistic fluff? what are those standards? (could be exact weights in g rather than purity?)
NB the Netherlands still has >200 tonnes of gold held in the USA & Canada.
Most of this is googleable but there are thousands of traders that make sure the gold price is the same globally so nobody had to “move” their gold in the reverse for this trade to work.
The difference between London and the US is that the bars are of different size (12.5 vs 1kg).
> there are thousands of traders that make sure the gold price is the same globally so nobody had to “move” their gold
Physical versus contract differences are real and require moving the actual gold. What most users do is sell deliverable where they want it out and then buy contracts or deliverable where they want it and then let the market figure out how to move gold around to settle. (It probably won’t involve moving gold from where you had it to where you want it unless you’re in a cohort.)
Physical gold bars are transferred via plane between London and New York every day. The gold flies in the cargo holds of regularly scheduled commercial passenger flights. The quantity transferred depends on demand, and could be several metric tons daily.
This is nothing unusual. Dubai is another major gold transfer hub, and it operates via the same mechanism.
Regarding the article highlighting differing international standards for gold, London uses standard 400-ounce bars, while the US uses 100-ounce or 1kg bars. Often, the bars need to be remelted (elsewhere) before they can be added to the vaults.
The standards of purity have changed over time, and most of the US gold dates from before the 1930s; and so a lot of US-domiciled gold have different purities that don't follow the current international standard. The purity requirement has been going up over time. A lot of US gold is 90% gold and 10% copper, but gold traded on the international market needs to be at least 99.5% pure. Here [1] is a good breakdown.
Their goal isn't only safe storage, it's also being able to sell when needed.
You can't quickly trade with the gold that's in their own safe storage facility in Zeist, because you would need to physically transport it. The reserve at the Bank of England is put there because there is a large market for gold trading there. So you can use the gold immediately to influence the markets.
Putting it in a safe place in another European country wouldn't have added value over storage in Zeist.
London has an old school gold exchange. Pretty much you can buy and sell by moving a part between vaults (at least that's how I understood it to work in the past). Now I expect it to be just a spreadsheet but who knows.
The biggest chunk is in the Netherlands, but you want your gold also in other countries, so that you can still access is (and don't loose it) in case of an invasion. Hence almost half is in North America, a completely different (and (somewhat) allied) continent.
It's also easier to sell in certain markets, such as London.
Not just so that you don't lose it in case of an invasion, but it is proof that you would be willing to help out the host country in the case they were invaded. Also, that you would not invade them.
In the olden days, the local lords would marry their children together, to create familial groups and ensure that for the forseeable future the local areas would not have a conflict. Modern democracies don't have such valuable family members, we use valuable objects instead.
When it comes to being a financial hub English as a global language is paramount in modern world. You wouldn't expect a C-level executive from other side of the world to speak German. Further, if you've ever been in the financial scene in Frankfurt, it's unfortunately predominantly in German because most of the old people working in the institutions can only speak vacation English and they switch to German as soon possible.
Also from where did you hear that Frankfurt gets the business that's leaving London? What is your source? That was the hope for the Germans with the Brexit, but it never happened. German laws and bureaucracy is still far too hostile and outdated compared to London.
That said, I'm not entirely clear how the exchange's market cap should or shouldn't be thought of in terms of the total market cap of assets that the exchange lets you trade. Or indeed the float of those assets, which is a concept I've only learned about due to SpaceX's nonsense IPO, so take my thoughts with an appropriate pinch of salt.
England is definitely a European country. I'm tired of people constantly making this political abuse of language of conflating "the EU" with "Europe".
(And yes, saying "America" for "US of A" annoys me too. First step towards losing an imperialist state of mind is letting people from Canada and Brazil be in America).
I don't think that's a problem, and it doesn't mean that Britain is not in Europe, IMO. Comes naturally with human perspective. "Where did you go this summer?" A) "I stayed in England"; B) "I travelled around Britain"; C) "I went to Europe". All perfectly understandable, I think..
In the San Francisco Bay Area, the locals refer to SF proper as “The City” (not “Frisco”.)
So, they may live in Cupertino, Palo Alto, or Oakland, but when they say “we’re going to The City for a concert on Saturday!” we can hear them pronounce those capital letters as an unambiguous reference to the one, true City.
I live in a city (a quite small one) and if I say that I'm going into the city, then it means I leave my neighbourhood (it's in the same city) and I'm going to the city centre.
Besides the reasons listed by the others, this also a matter of relationships as there a deep ties between these nations and the Netherlands. Without the Dutch financing the Americans, America would not have been able to become independent from the English. The Dutch were also the first country on earth to acknowledge America's independence [1][2], costing them a war with the pissed England [3].
There are a lot of Dutch people living in Canada.[4]
> I'm curious the reason why it was ever held in the US and Canada
Random Educated Guess; Probably part of some show of mutual trust to cement a treaty or other agreement, made way back when allied governments could mostly trust one another to hold to such agreements somewhat reliably?
Don't forget that the European continent has had wars almost non-stop for centuries. It is a good strategy to place your gold in a location that has not seen much action in the past 250 years.
(another guess) to convert to dollars, the gold would need to be delivered to the custody of the US Fed, which is easiest when the bars are physically in the Fed's vault. in a low-trust situation, you have all the gold in your own country, but then its so much leas liquid bc you need to physically deliver it to trading partners, or they must trust your accounting of their share in your vault.
It was originally payments owed to Dutch interests in America being converted to gold and stored locally on their behalf, as opposed to having to be transported across the Atlantic back to the Netherlands.
Then later the Dutch moved a lot more of their gold over there before/during WWII in order to keep it out of reach of the Nazis.
Share of gold before relocation:
New York: 31.33%
Zeist: 30.83%
Ottawa: 19.72%
London: 18.12%
Share of gold after relocation
New York: 18.52%
Zeist: 30.83%
Ottawa: 18.52%
London: 32.13%
In other words, if you read the headline and thought the Netherlands was just pulling gold out of the US and it was pulling ALL of its gold out, you're not seeing the whole story.
And if you read the whole article, you'll see that all of the anti-Trump framing comes from "experts", not from the actual people moving the gold.
If you'd like to read the actual statement from the Dutch National Bank, it's here:
Of course the bank is not going to make a political statement, they have more important business to do. The article makes it pretty clear right at the top that the bank’s statement doesn’t mention Trump:
> Experts say that rhetoric appears inherently related to the abrasiveness of the Trump administration towards traditional allies.
Also, the “experts” are just right here. Are you gonna say that Trump hasn’t been throwing our allies under the bus?
I mean, if I hear the phrase "geopolitical unrest", I'm far more inclined to think "Iran"/"Russia" than "51st state".
If the point is to get your gold away from the US and its president, why leave ~19% of if there? Why take gold out of Canada? Why is a two-word phrase inherently related to the abrasiveness of the Trump administration towards traditional allies"?
And the bank's stated reason is: "Gold that is held with the Bank of England must meet modern international trade standards and is regarded as the world's most easily tradable gold and will therefore be the most readily available for DNB in a crisis situation. The gold reserves held in New York and Ottawa cannot be utilised as quickly and directly in such a situation." Why is that not the more plausible one, and the basis for the headline?
First paragraph of their statement I think better summarizes their reasoning:
> In view of increasing geopolitical unrest, DNB is strengthening its crisis preparedness. Improving the liquidity and tradability of the Dutch gold reserves is part of these preparations. Moreover, a more balanced distribution of these reserves between North America, the United Kingdom and the Netherlands helps to spread risks and will make them more readily available for use in a crisis situation.
The goal is to make these reserves more liquid in the event of a geopolitical crisis. It’s easy to say that Trump was a factor in this decision given that he has been the cause of one geopolitical crisis after another. That hypothetical crisis doesn’t have to directly involve the Netherlands for this to make sense. For example, the price of oil shot way up because Trump decided to poke Iran and having more liquid reserves could make responding to that easier.
> It’s easy to say that Trump was a factor in this decision
I don't disagree with that.
I disagree with "Experts say that rhetoric appears inherently related to the abrasiveness of the Trump administration towards traditional allies" and "Having those reserves in the United States is a potential vulnerability...You can absolutely imagine a scenario where, for whatever reason, the Trump administration decides to hold onto them" etc.
Interestingly, 59 tonnes of gold was sold in USA and bought in London. So that means perhaps "Somebody" transferred 59 tonnes of their gold holdings to the USA.. who was that?
This is similar to what the French did last year.
The other thing I noticed, is that as the article chose to mention:
> Gold that is held with the Bank of England must meet modern international trade standards
with implication being that the gold it previously held in the USA was not meeting those standards, but is that just journalistic fluff? what are those standards? (could be exact weights in g rather than purity?)
NB the Netherlands still has >200 tonnes of gold held in the USA & Canada.
Most of this is googleable but there are thousands of traders that make sure the gold price is the same globally so nobody had to “move” their gold in the reverse for this trade to work.
The difference between London and the US is that the bars are of different size (12.5 vs 1kg).
> there are thousands of traders that make sure the gold price is the same globally so nobody had to “move” their gold
Physical versus contract differences are real and require moving the actual gold. What most users do is sell deliverable where they want it out and then buy contracts or deliverable where they want it and then let the market figure out how to move gold around to settle. (It probably won’t involve moving gold from where you had it to where you want it unless you’re in a cohort.)
You're reading way to much into this.
Physical gold bars are transferred via plane between London and New York every day. The gold flies in the cargo holds of regularly scheduled commercial passenger flights. The quantity transferred depends on demand, and could be several metric tons daily.
This is nothing unusual. Dubai is another major gold transfer hub, and it operates via the same mechanism.
Regarding the article highlighting differing international standards for gold, London uses standard 400-ounce bars, while the US uses 100-ounce or 1kg bars. Often, the bars need to be remelted (elsewhere) before they can be added to the vaults.
The standards of purity have changed over time, and most of the US gold dates from before the 1930s; and so a lot of US-domiciled gold have different purities that don't follow the current international standard. The purity requirement has been going up over time. A lot of US gold is 90% gold and 10% copper, but gold traded on the international market needs to be at least 99.5% pure. Here [1] is a good breakdown.
[1] https://www.bficapital.com/blog/what-is-inside-fort-knox
I am dutch and read the news this week but I found it weird that a part of it went to England. I was expecting a European country.
Their goal isn't only safe storage, it's also being able to sell when needed.
You can't quickly trade with the gold that's in their own safe storage facility in Zeist, because you would need to physically transport it. The reserve at the Bank of England is put there because there is a large market for gold trading there. So you can use the gold immediately to influence the markets.
Putting it in a safe place in another European country wouldn't have added value over storage in Zeist.
London has an old school gold exchange. Pretty much you can buy and sell by moving a part between vaults (at least that's how I understood it to work in the past). Now I expect it to be just a spreadsheet but who knows.
I’m surprised why they don’t just move it back to their own country and put it in a safe in Netherland.
The biggest chunk is in the Netherlands, but you want your gold also in other countries, so that you can still access is (and don't loose it) in case of an invasion. Hence almost half is in North America, a completely different (and (somewhat) allied) continent.
It's also easier to sell in certain markets, such as London.
Not just so that you don't lose it in case of an invasion, but it is proof that you would be willing to help out the host country in the case they were invaded. Also, that you would not invade them.
In the olden days, the local lords would marry their children together, to create familial groups and ensure that for the forseeable future the local areas would not have a conflict. Modern democracies don't have such valuable family members, we use valuable objects instead.
Just to be a pedant, 18.5 % in the US and same in Canada so 37%.
I wouldn't call that almost half, it used to be about half before the move (NY at 31.3, 19.7 in Canada).
England is a country in Europe.
Geographically, yes, but that's not very important.
London is still the financial hub in the Europe
Barely. For now
What do you mean for now? There is no other alternative in continental Europe due to language barrier
Why would language matter?
Anyway, Frankfurt is the next biggest financial center after London, and it tend to get the business when a firm wants to move out of London .
When it comes to being a financial hub English as a global language is paramount in modern world. You wouldn't expect a C-level executive from other side of the world to speak German. Further, if you've ever been in the financial scene in Frankfurt, it's unfortunately predominantly in German because most of the old people working in the institutions can only speak vacation English and they switch to German as soon possible.
Also from where did you hear that Frankfurt gets the business that's leaving London? What is your source? That was the hope for the Germans with the Brexit, but it never happened. German laws and bureaucracy is still far too hostile and outdated compared to London.
Why are you excluding Ireland?
Euronext collectively is big, but Euronext Dublin is about 1/27th the size of LSE by its own market cap.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euronext_Dublin
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_Stock_Exchange
That said, I'm not entirely clear how the exchange's market cap should or shouldn't be thought of in terms of the total market cap of assets that the exchange lets you trade. Or indeed the float of those assets, which is a concept I've only learned about due to SpaceX's nonsense IPO, so take my thoughts with an appropriate pinch of salt.
Ireland is a tax-haven, not a financial hub.
London is not a financial center?
Uh? By what metric?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Financial_Centres_Index
England is definitely a European country. I'm tired of people constantly making this political abuse of language of conflating "the EU" with "Europe".
(And yes, saying "America" for "US of A" annoys me too. First step towards losing an imperialist state of mind is letting people from Canada and Brazil be in America).
In all fairness, I deal with British tourists a lot and they always talk about "going to Europe" when they refer to their summer holiday in Benidorm.
I don't think that's a problem, and it doesn't mean that Britain is not in Europe, IMO. Comes naturally with human perspective. "Where did you go this summer?" A) "I stayed in England"; B) "I travelled around Britain"; C) "I went to Europe". All perfectly understandable, I think..
We are nothing, if not needlessly complex!
In the San Francisco Bay Area, the locals refer to SF proper as “The City” (not “Frisco”.)
So, they may live in Cupertino, Palo Alto, or Oakland, but when they say “we’re going to The City for a concert on Saturday!” we can hear them pronounce those capital letters as an unambiguous reference to the one, true City.
I live in a city (a quite small one) and if I say that I'm going into the city, then it means I leave my neighbourhood (it's in the same city) and I'm going to the city centre.
Same. I'm in Berlin, I may say "I'm going to the city/town/village" for different parts of the city-state.
How is the situation with Bitcoin?
Do Europeans have options to hold Bitcoin in ETFs, ETPs etc that are not storing the coins in the USA?
People still buy BTC (let alone central banks)?
I'm curious the reason why it was ever held in the US and Canada
Besides the reasons listed by the others, this also a matter of relationships as there a deep ties between these nations and the Netherlands. Without the Dutch financing the Americans, America would not have been able to become independent from the English. The Dutch were also the first country on earth to acknowledge America's independence [1][2], costing them a war with the pissed England [3].
There are a lot of Dutch people living in Canada.[4]
1. <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johannes_de_Graaff>2. <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_First_Salute>
3. <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Anglo-Dutch_War>
4. <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_Canadians>
Makes trade easier than shifting currency. It’s also more stable and liquid if you need to make things happen in an emergency.
> I'm curious the reason why it was ever held in the US and Canada
Random Educated Guess; Probably part of some show of mutual trust to cement a treaty or other agreement, made way back when allied governments could mostly trust one another to hold to such agreements somewhat reliably?
Makes it harder to steal.
Don't forget that the European continent has had wars almost non-stop for centuries. It is a good strategy to place your gold in a location that has not seen much action in the past 250 years.
I would assume WWII and the Cold War?
This is the answer, they moved it out during WWII so the nazi's wouldn't steal it. A number of countries did this, including England.
We brought it over here so that Robert Oppenheimer, Werner von Braun, and Elon Musk could shoot it into space
(another guess) to convert to dollars, the gold would need to be delivered to the custody of the US Fed, which is easiest when the bars are physically in the Fed's vault. in a low-trust situation, you have all the gold in your own country, but then its so much leas liquid bc you need to physically deliver it to trading partners, or they must trust your accounting of their share in your vault.
Could be due to the fact that before 1970s the currency was backed by Gold and they had it in US to easily convert it to USD if needed
It was originally payments owed to Dutch interests in America being converted to gold and stored locally on their behalf, as opposed to having to be transported across the Atlantic back to the Netherlands.
Then later the Dutch moved a lot more of their gold over there before/during WWII in order to keep it out of reach of the Nazis.
Dutch central bank moves share of gold from U.S., Canada to London
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49535526
Related: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49573455
Data from a chart in the article:
In other words, if you read the headline and thought the Netherlands was just pulling gold out of the US and it was pulling ALL of its gold out, you're not seeing the whole story.And if you read the whole article, you'll see that all of the anti-Trump framing comes from "experts", not from the actual people moving the gold.
If you'd like to read the actual statement from the Dutch National Bank, it's here:
https://www.dnb.nl/en/general-news/press-release-2026/dnb-im...
Of course the bank is not going to make a political statement, they have more important business to do. The article makes it pretty clear right at the top that the bank’s statement doesn’t mention Trump:
> Experts say that rhetoric appears inherently related to the abrasiveness of the Trump administration towards traditional allies.
Also, the “experts” are just right here. Are you gonna say that Trump hasn’t been throwing our allies under the bus?
I mean, if I hear the phrase "geopolitical unrest", I'm far more inclined to think "Iran"/"Russia" than "51st state".
If the point is to get your gold away from the US and its president, why leave ~19% of if there? Why take gold out of Canada? Why is a two-word phrase inherently related to the abrasiveness of the Trump administration towards traditional allies"?
And the bank's stated reason is: "Gold that is held with the Bank of England must meet modern international trade standards and is regarded as the world's most easily tradable gold and will therefore be the most readily available for DNB in a crisis situation. The gold reserves held in New York and Ottawa cannot be utilised as quickly and directly in such a situation." Why is that not the more plausible one, and the basis for the headline?
First paragraph of their statement I think better summarizes their reasoning:
> In view of increasing geopolitical unrest, DNB is strengthening its crisis preparedness. Improving the liquidity and tradability of the Dutch gold reserves is part of these preparations. Moreover, a more balanced distribution of these reserves between North America, the United Kingdom and the Netherlands helps to spread risks and will make them more readily available for use in a crisis situation.
The goal is to make these reserves more liquid in the event of a geopolitical crisis. It’s easy to say that Trump was a factor in this decision given that he has been the cause of one geopolitical crisis after another. That hypothetical crisis doesn’t have to directly involve the Netherlands for this to make sense. For example, the price of oil shot way up because Trump decided to poke Iran and having more liquid reserves could make responding to that easier.
> It’s easy to say that Trump was a factor in this decision
I don't disagree with that.
I disagree with "Experts say that rhetoric appears inherently related to the abrasiveness of the Trump administration towards traditional allies" and "Having those reserves in the United States is a potential vulnerability...You can absolutely imagine a scenario where, for whatever reason, the Trump administration decides to hold onto them" etc.
When USA stole assets from Cuba and Venezuela, nobody minded. After they stole from Russia, everybody eyes opened.