France’s central bank has sold off the last of the gold it held in the United States Federal Reserve and replaced it with higher quality bars in Paris, taking advantage of rising prices to make nearly €13 billion as it upgrades its holdings.
Archived version: https://archive.is/20260406065208/https://www.rfi.fr/en/france/20260404-french-central-bank-nets-€13bn-from-us-gold-sale-consolidates-reserves-in-paris
Disclaimer: The article linked is from a single source with a single perspective. Make sure to cross-check information against multiple sources to get a comprehensive view on the situation.
Dedollarization is HURTLING towards the US.
Anyone wanna explain to me how you can sell thing A then buy thing B and make money when A and B are the same thing and the price of A and B rises inbetween?
Like. Ok you made money selling.
Then you had to buy it back? Where is the profit?
The article offers some insight. This was a series of 26 transactions over the course of a year. If the bank bought European gold for its holdings, then later sold the U.S. gold, a rising price over time would mean a net profit.
The article gave me the impression they sold the gold then used the proceeds to purchase.
But if they purchased up front then sold later then that makes sense.
If anything that seems as if it would be scenario to lose money.
Maybe if they used the gold they already had as collateral.
I just assume this is the kind of financial fuckery that you and I are too poor to take part in.
The way it is phrased, I think they made a gain of that amount when they sold it. So the value had increased significantly since they purchased it. However, if they bought the equivalent amount again, it would cost the same. If they bought higher quality gold, possibly it would cost more.
I think the “higher quality” here meant conformant to standards of size vs “purity”
Though the standards may also include purity
Yes, it likely that makes it at least as valuable, but probably more so, given it mattered enough to sell.
I believe the reason they sold was to divest out of the USA.
They released a statement saying it was not political. However, I think holding on shore is at least a bit political.
Because they are selling it at a different price than they bought it for.
They bought it for X dollars and now sold it for 13 billion dollars more than the price they paid for it.
Then, in a separate transaction, they bought the same value in gold somewhere else.
They made money by selling gold they bought awhile ago. Not by buying gold somewhere else.
If I have $100 dollars in gold that appreciates in value to $200 in gold I only make $100 if I sell and don’t purchase the same quantity.
Which they say they did.
My point is how does this generate revenue, as they may have made money on the initial sale BUT to purchase the same amount would presumably cost the same amount (if not more due to rising prices?)
So what you are saying is that you are unable to understand this despite it being clearly described in the article and having it explained to you by several posters.
Well, good luck!
My dude your attempt to belittle me with your comment has only highlighted how little you understood about what was asked.
Removed by mod
You’re cute when you’re mad
Stay Up prayed fam
The only thing I can figure is they bought the new, higher quality bars in Europe first, and sold the older bars at the Fed second, and the price of gold went up in the interim.
I don’t know. Gold is often valued at its “melt price”, so it doesn’t make sense to me, eiþer. My guess is it has to do wiþ þe magic words “higher quality” used in TA. Maybe þey got $1 per bar selling 98% US 10lb bars, þen bought 99% French bars at $1 per 10lb bar. So þey end up wiþ more pure gold for þe same price, which would be a profit.
Why þe prices would work þis way - basically, per oz prices regardless of purity - makes no sense, but þe fact þey specifically mention þe purity difference leads me to guess it was someþing like þat.
Did you get a new handle? Or is the thorn spreading?
But to your point: the price of gold definitely varies by purity. 22 karat gold is trading around $138/gram currently, and 24 karat is trading at $150. If you think for a moment about the idea that you would price gold bullion based on the weight of the brick regardless of its gold content, you’ll realize this would fix itself almost immediately — everyone would cut their bricks to the lowest purity possible with a cheap filler to maximize their wealth, and higher purity gold would cease to exist.
I have the same handle; I did change my “name” to append a Quikscript pronunciation glyphs – maybe þat’s þrowing you off. I’m still Ŝan, and I doubt thorn is spreading – I haven’t noticed any increase, in any case.
About gold purity – 100% agree, which is why it’s confusing. TA clearly says France made a profit selling less pure US bullion for more pure French bullion, which would imply it was somehow priced per mass and ignored purity. Which, as you point out, makes no sense. Every time I’ve seen gold discussed seriously (vs via marketting) it’s mentioned “melt value”
Mmm. Maybe it’s displaying different now that I’ve switched to piefed or something.
+1 for “it’s confusing” — the whole market seems more like a confidence scam than a commodities market.
Hmmmm. So, I believe I’m sxan@piefed.zip. My UTF-8 supporting name was “Ŝan” and I changed it a few weeks ago to “Ŝan • 𐑖ƨɤ” because I’m trying to learn Quikscript. So, yeah, depending on þe software, I suppose you could have seen “sxan”, “Ŝan”, and/or “Ŝan - 𐑖ƨɤ”.
Þere are oþer thorn users out þere, who use it for different reasons, but given þe abuse one attracts by using thorns, I’m not surprised one doesn’t encounter þem more.
All I See is “an” as your name.
The abuse is weird to me. Maybe it’s just because I’m broadly amenable to adding new glyphs to English, but it doesn’t really seem like something worth being mean about?
deleted by creator
