By Lawrence Odoom/Phalonzy
Associate Professor of Accounting and Finance and Economic Advisor to the Vice President, Sharif Mahmud Khalid, has advocated for a more dispassionate and technically grounded evaluation of Ghana’s Domestic Gold Purchase Programme, cautioning that the discourse must transcend fixation on headline losses to interrogate substantive economic outcomes.
Speaking on The KeyPoints with Alfred Ocansey, Prof. Khalid commended the Bank of Ghana for its proactive public engagement on the programme’s performance.
“I must commend the central bank for dispatching key officials to engage the public. That level of transparency is important,” he stated.
He observed that prevailing narratives have been unduly anchored on “gold trading losses,” a framing he described as reductive and detached from the intricate mechanics of the operation.
Prof. Khalid underscored the exponential scale-up of the programme, noting that gold acquisitions surged from approximately 56 tonnes in 2024 to over 100 tonnes in 2025.
“The jump from about 56 tonnes in 2024 to over 100 tonnes in 2025 is a very significant leap,” he observed.
He explained that such aggressive expansion within the inherently volatile gold market inevitably engenders operational exposures.
“When you make that kind of aggressive move in a complex market, you are likely to see operational losses. That should not surprise anyone,” he said.
Prof. Khalid identified valuation volatility, timing misalignments, and policy imperatives as the principal catalysts of the reported outcomes. He clarified that under prevailing accounting standards, losses may be registered even absent actual sales, driven by fluctuations in global prices and exchange rates.
“This tells you how sensitive gold trading is. Even without selling, you can incur losses based on valuation,” he noted.
Notwithstanding these technical complexities, he urged analysts and the public to evaluate the programme through the prism of its macroeconomic impact.
“We must ask: are reserves improving? Has import cover increased? Are these policies delivering real impact?” he questioned.
He cited Ghana’s improved import cover from approximately 1.4 months to over five months — as empirical evidence of the intervention’s broader economic dividends.
“These are gains that may not sit directly on the central bank’s balance sheet but are felt across the economy,” he added.
Prof. Khalid emphasized the doctrinal distinction between central banking mandates and commercial operations, insisting that the Bank of Ghana’s actions must be appraised within their proper policy context.
“This is a complex, technical area. We need to approach it dispassionately and not politicise the discussion,” he cautioned.
While conceding that operational refinement remains necessary, he maintained that the current trajectory represents a marked advancement over previous regimes.
“What we are seeing now is a significant improvement, but there is still room to do better,” he said.
He concluded with an appeal for contextualized analysis that privileges systemic impact over isolated metrics.
“We need to contextualise the analysis and look at the real impact of these programmes on the economy,” he emphasised.