Trump, Tariffs, and the Transatlantic Gold Rush

The gold market, long revered for its stability, has recently found itself in an unusual state of flux. The culprit? A widening price disparity between New York and London, an anomaly that has sent shockwaves through the bullion trade and turned normally sedate gold traders into transatlantic logistics experts. What began as a few dollars’ difference per ounce escalated into a $20-$50 price gap, creating an arbitrage opportunity too lucrative to ignore. Since November, hundreds of tonnes of gold have made the voyage across the Atlantic, shifting the balance of one of the world’s oldest financial markets.

To understand the scale of this phenomenon, imagine a scenario where New York’s stock market suddenly priced Apple shares $20 higher than London’s exchange. Traders, sensing an easy profit, would immediately snap up shares in London and sell them in New York, repeating the process until prices equilibrated. Gold operates on a similar principle. Typically, the price gap between London spot and New York futures is a negligible few dollars. But in late 2024, as markets absorbed Trump’s tariff rhetoric and growing U.S. economic nationalism, this gap exploded, creating a classic arbitrage play: buy gold in London, ship it to New York, and cash in on the higher price.

At first, the shift was subtle. November saw only a modest 62-tonne outflow from London’s vaults, a blip in the vast gold market. But by December, as the price divergence persisted, traders ramped up shipments, moving another 29 tonnes. Then came January—the watershed moment. In a single month, 151 tonnes of gold were withdrawn from London’s vaults, the largest monthly outflow on record. The trend continued into February, with another 43 tonnes scheduled for shipment by JPMorgan alone. In total, at least 285 tonnes of gold—worth over $25 billion at current prices—have made the journey since October.

This trade, however, was not without complications. The mechanics of shifting hundreds of tonnes of gold across the Atlantic involve a logistical ballet rivaling any high-stakes financial operation. Unlike stocks, which move at the speed of electrons, gold is a stubbornly physical commodity. It must be withdrawn from high-security vaults in London, transported under armed guard to airports, flown to the U.S. in specially secured cargo holds, and then delivered to COMEX-approved storage facilities in New York. Each step involves costs—transport, security, insurance—all of which nibble away at the profit margin. But with the price gap holding steady above $20 per ounce, traders calculated that the gains outweighed the headaches.

Further complicating matters is the difference in bar sizes. London’s gold market operates primarily with 400-ounce “Good Delivery” bars, the gold standard (literally) for international trade. But New York’s COMEX futures contracts require delivery in 100-ounce bars or kilo bars. This mismatch meant that much of the gold arriving from London had to be melted down and recast before it could be delivered into futures contracts. Swiss refiners, already operating near capacity due to central bank demand, suddenly found themselves inundated with orders for recasting. This added another layer of complexity and cost to an already intricate trade.

Why, then, did this price gap emerge in the first place? The simplest explanation is tariffs—or rather, the mere specter of them. President Trump’s rhetoric about sweeping tariffs on foreign goods, including raw materials, injected uncertainty into global markets. While gold itself was unlikely to be directly targeted, traders feared disruptions in trade flows and supply chains, leading to a rush for U.S.-based gold. Safe-haven demand, already heightened by inflationary concerns and geopolitical instability, compounded the issue. Investors preferred to hold gold in New York rather than London, bidding up U.S. futures prices while leaving London’s spot market comparatively subdued.

As gold streamed out of London, the secondary effects rippled through the market. Lease rates for gold—essentially the cost to borrow bullion—spiked to multi-decade highs as available supply dwindled. Traders seeking to roll over short positions found themselves paying a hefty premium to source gold. Meanwhile, COMEX inventories swelled, reaching their highest levels since 2022. By late January, COMEX-registered gold stocks had doubled in just a few months, reflecting the influx of metal from abroad.

The arbitrage play was straightforward but required deep pockets. To execute the trade, a bank or trading house had to front the capital to acquire physical gold, arrange transport, navigate the recasting process, and manage the timing risk inherent in moving a commodity that doesn’t teleport. Hedging was essential—any shift in the price spread during transit could erode or eliminate profits. The financing costs alone limited participation to the most well-capitalized players, with JPMorgan, HSBC, and a handful of other global banks leading the charge.

Now, as February unfolds, signs are emerging that the arbitrage window is beginning to close. With so much gold having already moved, the supply imbalance is correcting. The price spread, while still elevated compared to historical norms, is narrowing. Some traders are finding that by the time their gold reaches New York, the profit margin has diminished. Others, wary of tying up capital in an increasingly crowded trade, are stepping back. Market forces, as they always do, are restoring equilibrium.

Still, the episode raises broader questions about the modern gold market. The fact that such a significant price divergence persisted for months underscores the challenges of moving physical commodities in a world dominated by electronic trading. It also highlights the outsized role of policy uncertainty in shaping financial markets. The mere threat of tariffs was enough to trigger a massive reallocation of one of the world’s oldest and most stable assets. If gold, the ultimate safe-haven commodity, is this sensitive to political maneuvering, what does that suggest about the stability of other asset classes?

In the end, the transatlantic gold migration of 2024–25 will likely be remembered as a rare and lucrative moment for those who seized the opportunity. For the traders who successfully navigated the maze of logistics, financing, and market timing, the rewards were substantial. For the broader financial world, it serves as a reminder that even in the age of algorithmic trading and instant market access, some opportunities still require an old-fashioned approach: buying low, shipping carefully, and selling high.

If you don't already please follow @amuse on 𝕏.