The second-largest gold storage in the world suddenly has long lines to withdraw bars
President Donald Trump's tariff threats have created such strong demand for UK-held gold, traders are facing potentially weeks-long queues for a chance to withdraw it.
All existing slots at the Bank of England to withdraw gold bars are booked up as market players race to ship the metal to the United States to take advantage of a surge in gold prices there, an official has said. Gold has become more valuable in the US than in other parts of the world as traders worry supply will plunge if Trump's across-the-board tariffs, both announced and planned, make imports of the metal costlier.
'The US gold market has been trading at a premium to the London market,' Dave Ramsden, deputy governor for markets and banking at the central bank, told reporters Thursday. The owners of the gold bars in its underground vaults have been 'looking to take advantage of that price differential,' he added.
As a result, the Bank of England, which has the second-largest stock of gold in the world, has seen strong demand for gold withdrawals, he noted.
'All of those bodies who ship the gold, they've all got the … slots they need over the next few weeks. If you were coming in new to us, you might have to wait a bit longer because all the existing slots are booked up,' Ramsden said.
The Bank of England, which is second only to the New York Federal Reserve as a top global custodian of the precious metal, looks after more than 400,000 gold bars worth billions of pounds.
That haul has come under some pressure recently. Meanwhile, gold inventories on the US COMEX exchange — a major market for trading gold, silver and other metals — have almost doubled since the end of October, Commerzbank said in a note Friday.
'The fact that gold is significantly more expensive on the COMEX than (in) other trading centers is likely related to the feared US import tariffs, which could possibly also affect gold,' wrote Carsten Fritsch, a commodity analyst at the German bank. 'The deliveries on the COMEX are therefore likely to be primarily driven by concerns about possible supply disruptions.'
The Bank of England's stock of gold has dipped by about 2% since the end of last year, Ramsden said.
Gold prices have risen in recent weeks thanks to the asset's safe-haven status, with investors spooked by Trump's tariff plans. Russia's drawn-out war in Ukraine and heightened geopolitical tensions in the Middle East are also underpinning demand for the metal, according to UBS.
In addition to being a tangible, scarce asset, gold is different from other traded assets in other ways.
'Gold is a physical asset, so there are real logistical constraints and security constraints,' Ramsden said. 'Getting into the (central) bank for me this morning was a bit trickier because there was a lorry in the bullion yard… And the stuff is also quite heavy.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Finning International's (TSE:FTT) 27% CAGR outpaced the company's earnings growth over the same five-year period
When you buy a stock there is always a possibility that it could drop 100%. But on the bright side, you can make far more than 100% on a really good stock. Long term Finning International Inc. (TSE:FTT) shareholders would be well aware of this, since the stock is up 186% in five years. On top of that, the share price is up 37% in about a quarter. Since it's been a strong week for Finning International shareholders, let's have a look at trend of the longer term fundamentals. Trump has pledged to "unleash" American oil and gas and these 15 US stocks have developments that are poised to benefit. There is no denying that markets are sometimes efficient, but prices do not always reflect underlying business performance. By comparing earnings per share (EPS) and share price changes over time, we can get a feel for how investor attitudes to a company have morphed over time. Over half a decade, Finning International managed to grow its earnings per share at 18% a year. This EPS growth is lower than the 23% average annual increase in the share price. This suggests that market participants hold the company in higher regard, these days. And that's hardly shocking given the track record of growth. You can see how EPS has changed over time in the image below (click on the chart to see the exact values). We consider it positive that insiders have made significant purchases in the last year. Even so, future earnings will be far more important to whether current shareholders make money. Dive deeper into the earnings by checking this interactive graph of Finning International's earnings, revenue and cash flow. As well as measuring the share price return, investors should also consider the total shareholder return (TSR). The TSR is a return calculation that accounts for the value of cash dividends (assuming that any dividend received was reinvested) and the calculated value of any discounted capital raisings and spin-offs. It's fair to say that the TSR gives a more complete picture for stocks that pay a dividend. In the case of Finning International, it has a TSR of 230% for the last 5 years. That exceeds its share price return that we previously mentioned. The dividends paid by the company have thusly boosted the total shareholder return. We're pleased to report that Finning International shareholders have received a total shareholder return of 42% over one year. That's including the dividend. That's better than the annualised return of 27% over half a decade, implying that the company is doing better recently. In the best case scenario, this may hint at some real business momentum, implying that now could be a great time to delve deeper. I find it very interesting to look at share price over the long term as a proxy for business performance. But to truly gain insight, we need to consider other information, too. Case in point: We've spotted 2 warning signs for Finning International you should be aware of. If you like to buy stocks alongside management, then you might just love this free list of companies. (Hint: most of them are flying under the radar). Please note, the market returns quoted in this article reflect the market weighted average returns of stocks that currently trade on Canadian exchanges. Have feedback on this article? Concerned about the content? Get in touch with us directly. Alternatively, email editorial-team (at) article by Simply Wall St is general in nature. We provide commentary based on historical data and analyst forecasts only using an unbiased methodology and our articles are not intended to be financial advice. It does not constitute a recommendation to buy or sell any stock, and does not take account of your objectives, or your financial situation. We aim to bring you long-term focused analysis driven by fundamental data. Note that our analysis may not factor in the latest price-sensitive company announcements or qualitative material. Simply Wall St has no position in any stocks mentioned. Error al recuperar los datos Inicia sesión para acceder a tu cartera de valores Error al recuperar los datos Error al recuperar los datos Error al recuperar los datos Error al recuperar los datos
E&E News
an hour ago
- E&E News
Interior advances first offshore mineral lease in decades
The Interior Department on Thursday took a step toward launching what could be the first mineral lease in U.S. waters in more than 30 years. The department announced it plans to publish a request for information and interest in the coming days to mine the deep seas off of American Samoa, a U.S. territory in the Polynesia region of the South Pacific. Upon publication in the Federal Register, the agency will take public comment for 30 days. Interior Secretary Doug Burgum in a statement said the administration is putting 'America first' and moving to unlock vast stores of offshore minerals and ease the nation's reliance on countries like China. Advertisement President Donald Trump in April inked an executive order to boost deep-sea mining, part of a broader push to open the nation's land and waters to more mining and production of minerals.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Trump Wants to Make It More Expensive to Sue Over His Policies
(Bloomberg) -- President Donald Trump and his allies are pursuing an alternative strategy to defend against mounting court orders blocking his policies: Raise the financial stakes for those suing the administration. Shuttered NY College Has Alumni Fighting Over Its Future Trump's Military Parade Has Washington Bracing for Tanks and Weaponry NYC Renters Brace for Price Hikes After Broker-Fee Ban Do World's Fairs Still Matter? NY Long Island Rail Service Resumes After Grand Central Fire Republicans want to force people suing the US to post financial guarantees to cover the government's costs if they win a temporary halt to Trump's policies but ultimately lose the case. A measure in the House's 'big, beautiful' tax-and-spending bill would condition a judges' power to hold US officials in contempt for violating their orders to the payment of that security. A new proposed version of the bill announced by Senate Republicans on Thursday removes the contempt language but would broadly restrict judges' discretion to decide how much of a security payment to order from challengers who win initial pauses to Trump's policies, or to waive it altogether. While the legislation faces hurdles, the push to make suing the government more expensive is gaining steam. Critics say it's part of a broader effort to discourage lawsuits against the Trump administration. In addition to the tax bill provision, Republican lawmakers have introduced a plan to require plaintiffs who lose suits against the administration to cover the government's legal costs. Meanwhile, Trump has directed the Justice Department to demand bonds from court challengers when judges temporarily halt his policies. Trump has also targeted law firms over everything from past work for Democratic rivals to their diversity policies. Courts historically haven't required bonds to be put up in lawsuits against the government. In recent cases, the Trump administration's bond requests included $120,000 in litigation over union bargaining and an unspecified amount 'on the high side'' in a fight over billions of dollars in frozen clean technology grants. Judges in those and other cases have denied hefty requests or set smaller amounts, such as $10 or $100 or even $1. 'Having to put that money up is going to prevent people from being able to enforce their rights,' said Eve Hill, a civil rights lawyer who is involved in litigation against the administration over the treatment of transgender people in US prisons and Social Security Administration operations. The Trump administration has faced more than 400 lawsuits over his policies on immigration, government spending and the federal workforce, among other topics, since his inauguration. A Bloomberg analysis in May found that Trump was losing more cases than he was winning. White House spokesperson Taylor Rogers said in a statement that 'activist organizations are abusing litigation to derail the president's agenda' and that it is 'entirely reasonable to demand that irresponsible organizations provide collateral to cover the costs and damages if their litigation wrongly impeded executive action.' Dan Huff, a White House lawyer during Trump's first term, defended the idea but said the language needed fixes, such as clarifying that it only applies to preliminary orders and not all injunctions. Huff, whose op-eds in support of stiffer injunction bonds have circulated among Republicans this year, said that Congress wanted litigants 'to have skin in the game.' Some judges have already found in certain cases that the administration was failing to fully comply with orders. Alexander Reinert, a law professor at Cardozo School of Law, said the timing of Congress taking up such a proposal was 'troubling and perverse.' 'Defy Logic' Some efforts by the Trump administration to curb lawsuits have already paid off. By threatening probes of law firms' hiring practices, the White House struck deals with several firms that effectively ruled out their involvement in cases challenging Trump's policies. Other aspects of the effort have been less successful. Judges have overwhelmingly rebuffed the Justice Department's efforts that plaintiffs put up hefty bonds. A judge who refused to impose a bond in a funding fight wrote that 'it would defy logic' to hold nonprofit organizations 'hostage' for the administration's refusal to pay them. Several judges entered bonds as low as $1 when they stopped the administration from sending Venezuelan migrants out of the country. In a challenge to federal worker layoffs, a judge rejected the government's push for a bond covering salaries and benefits, instead ordering the unions that sued to post $10. The clause in the House tax bill tying contempt power of judges to injunction bonds was the work of Trump loyalists. Representative Andy Biggs, a Republican member of the House Judiciary Committee, pushed to include the provision, Representative Jim Jordan told Bloomberg News. Jordan, who chairs the committee, said Biggs and Representative Harriet Hageman, another Republican, were 'very instrumental in bringing this to the committee's attention.' Biggs' office did not respond to requests for comment. Hageman said in a statement that the measure will 'go a long way in curbing this overreach whereby judges are using their gavels to block policies with which they disagree, regardless of what the law may say.' Liberals have slammed the proposed clause in the tax-and-spending bill as an attack on the judiciary, but it may not be the controversy that dooms it in the Senate. Reconciliation, the process lawmakers are using to pass the bill with only Republican support, requires the entire bill to relate directly to the budget. 'Make It Happen' Several Republicans have expressed skepticism the measure can survive under that process. But, Jordan, the House judiciary chair, said Republican lawmakers will seek an alternative path to pass the measure if it's ruled out in the Senate. 'I'm sure we'll look at other ways to make it happen,' Jordan said. The bond fight stems from an existing federal rule that says judges can enter temporary restraining orders and preliminary injunctions 'only if' the winning side posts a security that the court 'considers proper.' The bond is to cover 'costs and damages' if they ultimately lose. University of Notre Dame Law School professor Samuel Bray, a proponent of injunction bonds, said courts should account for whether litigants have the ability to pay. Still, he said, defendants should be able to recover some money if a judge's early injunction — a 'prediction' about who will win, he said – isn't borne out. 'If courts routinely grant zero dollars, what they are doing is pricing the effect of a wrongly granted injunction on the government's operations at zero,' Bray said. Courts have interpreted the rule as giving judges discretion to decide what's appropriate, including waiving it, said Cornell Law School Professor Alexandra Lahav. The bond issue usually comes up in business disputes with 'clear monetary costs,' she said, and not in cases against the federal government. 'It's not clear to me what kind of injunction bond would make sense in the context of lawsuits around whether immigrants should have a hearing before they're deported,' Lahav said. 'I'm not really sure how you would price that.' (Updates with Senate proposal in the third paragraph.) American Mid: Hampton Inn's Good-Enough Formula for World Domination The Spying Scandal Rocking the World of HR Software New Grads Join Worst Entry-Level Job Market in Years As Companies Abandon Climate Pledges, Is There a Silver Lining? US Tariffs Threaten to Derail Vietnam's Historic Industrial Boom ©2025 Bloomberg L.P. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
