Ghana reportedly incurred a $1.7 billion loss from gold trading in 2025, compared with about $400 million in 2024, amid a significant increase in the country’s gold trade volumes.
The figures have understandably triggered considerable public debate. However, the conversation should go beyond the headline loss.
The more important question is: What exactly accounted for the $1.7 billion, and what can Ghana do to reduce such losses, if possible?
Gold trading involves several components and associated costs. A proper assessment must therefore examine each component to establish what contributed to the reported losses.
Rather than treating the $1.7 billion figure in isolation, policymakers, economists and stakeholders in the gold industry should break down the numbers and determine whether the losses arose from pricing differences, financing costs, operational expenses, foreign exchange movements, transaction costs or other factors associated with the gold trading programme.
This level of analysis is particularly important because Ghana’s gold sector remains one of the country’s most significant sources of foreign exchange.
The objective should not simply be to establish whether there was a loss. It should be to understand why the loss occurred, whether any portion of it was unavoidable, and what measures can be introduced to prevent a recurrence or significantly reduce the cost.
A transparent and detailed analysis would also help the public distinguish between genuine financial losses and costs that may have been incurred in pursuit of a broader policy objective.
For instance, if part of the reported loss resulted from financing arrangements or a deliberate policy intervention in the gold market, that should be clearly explained. Equally, if there were inefficiencies, poor pricing decisions or avoidable transaction costs, those issues must be identified and addressed.
Ghana cannot afford to have a debate about billions of cedis or dollars without understanding the underlying numbers.
Ultimately, the conversation should move beyond “Ghana lost $1.7 billion” to a more constructive question:
What made up the $1.7 billion, and how can Ghana improve the economics of its gold trade?
That, in my view, is the debate worth having.
