valuation of gold:
In late 2024 and early 2025, the United States experienced an extraordinary surge in gold imports, a movement that not only disrupted the usual balance of trade figures but also raised questions about how economic data is classified and reported. A key focal point for this trend is reflected in the FRED International Transactions Accounts (ITAs) and the National Income and Product Accounts (NIPAs). The sharp rise in this data can be attributed to a confluence of market-based, regulatory, and geopolitical forces all of which collectively shaped one of the most notable spikes in non-monetary gold trade in recent decades.
One of the primary drivers of the surge was a price arbitrage opportunity between major global gold markets, particularly between London’s spot gold market and the futures market operated by the COMEX exchange in New York. Toward the end of 2024, a sustained and unusual premium emerged, where futures prices on COMEX were trading as much as $50 per ounce higher than comparable spot prices in London. This differential presented a lucrative arbitrage opportunity for market participants: gold could be purchased in London at a lower price, shipped to the U.S., and sold or delivered into COMEX futures contracts at a profit. As a result, traders moved rapidly to import large volumes of physical gold into the U.S. market to exploit this pricing discrepancy. – COMEX gold inventories rose by more than 120% between November 2024 and early 2025 levels not seen since the early 1990s.
From a strategic perspective, this trend reveals the impact of cross-market pricing inefficiencies and how global commodities respond quickly to arbitrage opportunities. Investors and traders should be mindful of such dislocations, especially when they occur between physically settled and financially settled markets.
Gold is glittering for good reasons. Here’s why it still fits in your portfolio. | Morningstar
Trade shifts:
A second contributing factor was the anticipation of potential trade policy shifts by the U.S. government. Although gold was not directly targeted by any announced tariffs, broader discussions surrounding trade barriers and protectionist measures led to a precautionary reaction by importers and traders. Many sought to front-load shipments of gold into the U.S. in order to avoid any sudden regulatory shifts that might restrict or tax future imports.
This phenomenon underscores how forward-looking behavior, driven by policy speculation, can shift trade flows well ahead of actual regulatory enforcement. Another layer of complexity involved the physical form and regulatory eligibility of the gold being imported.
Much of the gold acquired by U.S. traders in this period originated from London, where standard bars typically weigh 400 ounces. However, the COMEX futures market in New York requires delivery in 100-ounce bars. To comply with these delivery standards, the gold had to be sent to Switzerland for refining and recasting into smaller, COMEX-eligible bars before being shipped to the United States. This additional step explains the spike in gold imports not only from the United Kingdom but also from Switzerland. It demonstrates how the logistics of commodity conversion and compliance with market standards can generate secondary flows in trade data, which may not correspond directly to primary production sources.
This processing requirement highlights the often-overlooked role of intermediaries in international trade. Economists and data analysts should be cautious when interpreting bilateral trade statistics, as large trade volumes between certain countries (such as the U.S. and Switzerland) may represent refining or processing activity rather than end-user demand or final production. Meanwhile, global macroeconomic uncertainty contributed to a surge in investor demand for physical gold as a safe-haven asset.
Gold has a shot at more record highs, thanks to Trump’s preference for a weaker dollar | Morningstar
Speculation:
Concerns about continued inflation, volatility in equity markets, and geopolitical instability including tensions in Eastern Europe and fluctuations in interest rate policy led institutional and individual investors alike to increase their allocations to tangible, crisis-resistant assets.
This rising demand translated into higher physical gold inflows into the U.S., where vaulting and storage infrastructure are robust and investor demand is deep. The most noticeable economic effect of this surge was seen in the U.S. trade deficit. In January 2025, total imports of goods into the United States reached a record high of $329.5 billion, with finished metal products including precious metals like gold accounting for nearly 60% of the month’s increase.
On the surface, this spike contributed to a substantial widening of the trade deficit. However, from a GDP accounting perspective, the effect was more muted. Because much of the gold was imported for investment or storage rather than for consumption or production, it did not materially impact gross domestic product. This divergence between the trade balance and GDP points to an important technical distinction: not all imports reduce GDP. Only those used in domestic final demand (e.g., consumer goods, capital goods for production) are counted as detracting from economic output. This disconnection between trade flows and GDP figures serves as a critical insight for policy analysts and macroeconomic forecasters. It reveals how large-value, low-velocity commodities particularly those purchased for investment can distort traditional interpretations of trade statistics. Advisors and analysts must dig beneath the headline numbers to understand the true economic purpose of imports and adjust their forecasts accordingly.
Finally, returning to the FRED data, which tracks statistical differences in gold import reporting between the International Transactions Accounts and the National Income and Product Accounts, we see how the 2024 gold surge amplified existing inconsistencies between two parallel economic reporting systems. The ITAs, which are based on ownership changes across borders, capture non-monetary gold imports as part of goods trade. In contrast, the NIPAs, which focus on how goods are used within the domestic economy, often adjust or exclude gold imports that are stored rather than consumed or invested. The 2024 divergence between these systems underscores how even well-established data sources can diverge significantly in times of market distortion or unusual financial activity.
Imports of gold: Statistical differences, International Transactions Accounts vs. NIPAs (B1243C1A027NBEA) | FRED | St. Louis Fed
Let’s connect and explore how you can build a portfolio of the future of gold today!
JV Global Capital, Inc. Portal
Disclaimer: This content is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute investment advice, a recommendation, or an offer to buy or sell any security, commodity, or financial product. Any companies, securities, or financial instruments mentioned are presented as examples of market trends or innovation and are not investment recommendations. All opinions and market commentary expressed are current as of the date of publication and are subject to change without notice. This content may include speculative views, forward-looking statements, or projections, which are based on assumptions and publicly available information. Such statements are inherently uncertain and should not be relied upon to make investment decisions. Investing involves risk, including the possible loss of principal. Markets can be volatile, and individual investments may fluctuate in value. Past performance is not indicative of future results. Please consult a JV Global Capital qualified investment adviser to determine whether any strategy or investment is appropriate for your personal financial situation.
About the Author
