Gold is on the move. On September 2, the Dutch central bank, De Nederlandsche Bank (DNB), announced it had transferred roughly 86 tonnes of gold from New York and Ottawa to London.
This relocation took place between March and August 2026, with the aim of improving the liquidity and tradability of DNB's gold reserves and strengthening its capacity to respond to severe crises. At first glance, the move looks like just another case of a central bank shifting its gold holdings closer to home, but there is more to it than meets the eye.
Following the adjustment, the share of Dutch gold stored in London rose from 18.1% to 32.1%, surpassing the 30.8% held domestically. London thus replaced the Netherlands itself as the single largest storage location for Dutch gold, while the shares held in New York and Ottawa fell to 18.5% from 31.3% and 19.7% respectively.
The mechanics of the operation are equally noteworthy. About 59 tonnes of gold were sold in New York and replaced in London with gold meeting international trading standards. A further 27-plus tonnes were physically shipped from North America to DNB's storage facility in Zeist, while a similar volume was moved from Zeist to London. The adjustment was therefore a strategic reallocation of storage locations rather than a simple transatlantic shipment of 86 tonnes of bars.
Even so, the decision highlights a broader shift in how central banks weigh where to keep their gold reserves, focusing on balancing safety, accessibility and liquidity.
From repatriation to allocation strategy
Bringing gold home is nothing new. As early as 2000, Germany moved about 930 tonnes of gold held in London to Frankfurt, and the Bundesbank later confirmed it had completed inspections of that gold, with some bars needing to be recast to meet "good delivery" standards. The issue of repatriation became more prominent after the global financial crisis.
Venezuela brought back 160 tonnes of gold from foreign institutions between 2011 and 2012. Germany then launched a second repatriation programme, moving 674 tonnes held in New York and Paris to Frankfurt between 2013 and 2017. The Netherlands also brought 122.5 tonnes held in New York to Amsterdam in 2014, while Austria repatriated 90 tonnes from London between 2015 and 2018. In the years that followed, Turkey adjusted the overseas custody locations for some of its gold, and both Hungary and Poland moved their physical gold reserves onshore.
Since then, more countries have revisited or adjusted their gold storage arrangements. Serbia reportedly repatriated about 13 tonnes between 2021 and 2022. India has steadily increased its domestic gold holdings since 2022, and the pace of transfers accelerated noticeably after March 2023. France also adjusted the geographic distribution of its gold exposure in 2025 and 2026, selling 129 tonnes held in New York and buying a comparable amount in Europe as a replacement. The Banque de France did not characterise this as a physical gold transfer.
Three waves with different motivations
The developments since 2000 can be read through three broad, overlapping trends. The first was an early reassessment of where official gold reserves were stored. Germany's move of about 930 tonnes from London to Frankfurt back in 2000 shows that the geographic distribution of official gold was already under review well before repatriation became a hot geopolitical topic.
The second wave ran roughly from 2011 to 2019, when questions of national control over gold reserves and public confidence became more prominent. Venezuela announced its repatriation decision on the grounds of strengthening national control. Elsewhere, central banks generally took a more balanced approach: Germany planned to keep half its reserves in Frankfurt, Austria ultimately kept half at home while retaining substantial holdings in London and Switzerland to preserve access to international markets, and Poland chose to combine repatriation with a major expansion of its gold reserves.
The third wave is more complex. Rising geopolitical uncertainty has brought greater attention to jurisdictional issues, access to gold in times of crisis, and exposure to overseas financial infrastructure. Yet the recent actions of the French and Dutch central banks show that keeping gold at home is not the only solution. Central banks are increasingly seeking the optimal balance among custody risk, physical availability and market liquidity.
DNB's decision is a prime example of this evolution. In 2014, it brought gold back from New York to Amsterdam to raise the domestic share of its holdings. In 2026, it shifted gold held in North America mainly to London to make it easier to mobilise. The two decisions moved gold in different geographic directions, but the goal was identical: to strengthen the resilience of the central bank's reserve system through more purposeful reserve placement.
Where do institutions store their gold today?
Our 2026 Global Central Bank Gold Reserves Survey supports this conclusion. The Bank of England remains the most frequently cited storage location among surveyed central banks, with 57% of respondents keeping gold there, while 49% said they hold at least some of their gold domestically. Over the past 12 months, 9% of respondents increased domestic storage, and 10% diversified their overseas storage locations. Looking ahead, 7% plan to increase domestic storage, while 9% expect to further diversify overseas storage locations, up sharply from just 2% in the previous survey.
Have your institution's gold custody arrangements changed over the past 12 months, and if so, how? Do you plan to adjust your gold custody arrangements over the next 12 months, and if so, how? These findings suggest that several central banks are reassessing their gold storage arrangements and further diversifying where they hold it. Some are expanding domestic storage, while others are broadening their range of overseas locations. This points to diversification in gold custody rather than a uniform shift toward domestic storage.
Moving gold does not signal an intent to sell
Moving gold to more liquid markets may sound like preparation for a sale. But the value of liquidity lies precisely in the options it gives holders when extreme events occur. Storing gold in major trading centres can enhance its liquidity and mobilisation efficiency, yet that does not justify concluding that a central bank plans to use its gold reserves in future. DNB has made clear it has no expectation of using this gold. Its goal is to ensure the reserves can be accessed more easily when needed.
Meanwhile, the 2026 survey showed that only 1% of respondents expected their gold reserves to decline over the next 12 months, while 45% expected them to rise, a record high. Recent gold transfers therefore should not be read as a signal that central banks are preparing to sell. Instead, these cases show that storage location has become an important part of active reserve management.
Future adjustments to gold storage locations may involve more hubs: Singapore has announced plans to provide vault services for foreign central banks and sovereign entities, while Hong Kong has been expanding its gold clearing, settlement and storage infrastructure. But the picture gradually emerging is that safety alone is no longer enough. For some central banks, gold must not only be secure but also accessible and tradable, and it must be spread across locations that remain reliable when risks rise.
Comments