High-Debt Nations Eye Gold Reserve Profits for Funding, Fed Note Shows

Governments grappling with high debt are exploring an unusual accounting maneuver – revaluing national gold reserves at current high market prices to generate funds without raising taxes or borrowing more, according to a Federal Reserve analysis.

Global Precedent Exists for Tapping Gold Reserves’ Hidden Value, Fed Says

A recent note published by the Federal Reserve Board, authored by economist Colin Weiss, details the rare international use of this tactic over the past three decades. Only five countries – Germany, Italy, Lebanon, Curacao, and Saint Martin, and South Africa – have tapped “revaluation proceeds” from gold or foreign exchange reserves since the mid-1990s.

The process involves changing how gold reserves are valued on a central bank’s books. Many central banks, including the U.S. Federal Reserve, still value their gold at the historic price paid decades ago – often far below today’s market value. For example, U.S. gold is valued at a statutory $42.22 per troy ounce, while the market price is near $3,300.

Revaluing the gold to the current market price creates a large, unrealized gain on paper. Governments or central banks can then transfer these gains to generate usable funds, without physically selling the gold. Think of it like increasing the estimated value of your home on your personal net worth statement – it creates “paper equity” you might borrow against, but you haven’t sold the house.

Weiss notes this idea “has been floated in the U.S. and Belgium recently,” meaning policymakers have publicly discussed it as a potential option. Belgium enacted a small-scale version in 2024, selling some gold to fund defense. U.S. proposals involve revaluing its massive 261.5-million-ounce reserves, potentially freeing funds equivalent to about 3% of GDP.

The report explains that central banks, like those in Italy and Curacao/Saint Martin, used these proceeds to cover their own operating losses. Central governments, like South Africa (2024), Lebanon (2002), and Germany (proposed 1997), used them to pay down existing debt, often during fiscal stress.

However, the Fed note highlights significant limitations. The amounts generated were generally modest relative to GDP, except in Lebanon (11%). Critically, Weiss found these revaluations provided only temporary relief and “may not address larger structural challenges.” Lebanon’s debt-to-GDP ratio continued rising despite the move. Germany’s 1997 plan faced fierce opposition and was scaled back.