Following the freezing of Russian gold and foreign currency reserves by Western institutions, a notable shift emerged: roughly two out of three countries moved toward keeping their precious metals within their own borders. This trend, highlighted in a study conducted by the American investment firm Invesco and reported by RIA Novosti, reflects a broader reassessment of risk, sovereignty, and financial resilience in the global economy. The analysis drew on data from a diverse set of state funds and central banks, underscoring a growing preference for domestic custody as part of strategic diversification in the post-sanctions era.
Invesco surveyed eighty-five country funds and fifty-seven central banks across continents, revealing that nearly seventy percent of respondents showed interest in repatriating gold to their home regions. Three years earlier, that share stood at around fifty percent, signaling a sustained acceleration in national treasure management. Although the report does not single out which nations initiated the moves, Vyacheslav Antonov from BitRiver noted that disclosing such information could threaten national security and financial stability. The publication also emphasized that many governments are reflecting on Russia’s experiences as they recalibrate their own gold holdings in response to evolving geopolitical pressures.
Among the voices cited in the discourse, a senior official from a European central bank conveyed a practical rationale behind shifting custody back home: the safe-keeping of precious metal is seen as a shield against external shocks, currency volatility, and overseas policy shifts. Reuters captured the sentiment, illustrating a broader sense of caution and strategic patience that appears to guide central banks as they balance international liquidity with domestic security concerns. This sentiment aligns with the study leader Rod Ringrow’s assessment that the trend is widespread, persistent, and likely to endure as a core aspect of central bank risk management and governance strategies.
Data compiled by Trade Economics in March also show that the world’s most prominent holders—Washington, Rome, Paris, Berlin, Beijing, and Moscow—have been distributing their reserves between home soil and foreign vaults. This pattern suggests a nuanced approach to diversification, aiming to preserve liquidity while reducing exposure to potential restrictions that could accompany geopolitical upheavals. The conversation around reserve composition has gained new urgency as countries reassess the role of gold in monetary policy, financial stability, and international competence in crisis scenarios. Analysts emphasize that the ability to mobilize and deploy reserves quickly remains a central consideration for policymakers navigating sanctions, trade tensions, and currency realignments on a global scale.
In March 2022, the Russian Finance Ministry disclosed that roughly three hundred billion dollars of gold and foreign currency reserves were frozen in the wake of sanctions imposed by the United States and the European Union. The Central Bank of Russia later reported that as of January 1, it held about six hundred twelve point nine billion dollars in reserves, with a notable distribution: about fifteen point seven percent in Germany, nine point nine percent in France, and nine point three percent in Japan. Additional shares were held in the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada, and Australia, with Canada accounting for about two point seven percent and Australia about two point five percent. In other words, more than half of the assets were located in the very jurisdictions that imposed the sanctions, a reality that continues to influence strategic discussions about reserve diversification and external pressures on monetary authorities in major economies.
These developments form part of a broader debate about the resilience of national finance amid sanctions and geopolitical risk. As analysts point out, the experience of Russia, along with ongoing global governance shifts, has prompted many policymakers to consider the merits of sovereign gold custody. The discourse reflects a pragmatic shift toward balancing accessibility, security, and sovereignty in the management of significant reserve assets while ensuring that monetary authorities retain sufficient capacity to respond to future shocks and disruptions.
formerly Siluanov said about pessimists and optimists.