The Vice President of the IMANI Centre for Policy and Education, Bright Simons has sparked debate within Ghana Gold Board’s operations by disclosing that a staggering 98.2% of GoldBod’s export value was concentrated in just two markets i.e India and the United Arab Emirates between July and October 2025.
This revelation, sourced from a critical assessment of the GoldBod prospectus, highlights a profound geographical concentration that may undermine the stability of the state-backed gold aggregator.
By funneling nearly the entire value of Ghana’s gold exports through such a narrow corridor, the entity remains highly susceptible to external shocks that could jeopardize the nation’s broader economic objectives.
“Between July and October 2025, 98.2% of GoldBod’s export value flowed to India and the UAE. One sanctions event or one Gulf corridor disruption, and this elegant short-tenor revolving structure seizes up bigly. The top four buyers took 78.4% of total value.”
Bright Simons
The concentration risk identified by Simons extends beyond national borders to specific corporate entities, with the top four buyers accounting for 78.4% of the total export value.
This “narrow-funnel” trade architecture suggests that GoldBod’s revenue stream is precariously balanced on a handful of relationships.
According to the policy analyst, this lack of diversification creates a structural vulnerability where a single “sanctions event, one payment dispute, or one Gulf corridor disruption” could cause the entire “elegant short-tenor revolving structure” to seize up entirely.
Such a bottleneck is particularly concerning for a project intended to solve the “cedi-timing problem” by providing a reliable flow of foreign exchange through gold monetization.
The Fragility of the 17.87% Profit Margin
Beyond the market concentration, Bright Simons points to a “headline return” of 17.87% annualised that is currently being used to drive investor interest and institutional buy-in.
While this double-digit profit margin appears persuasive on paper, a deeper forensic look at the sensitivity analysis or the lack thereof reveals a structure heavily dependent on foreign exchange spreads.
The projected returns rest almost entirely on a 25-pesewa FX spread that participating banks would “pocket on every dollar cycled.“
Bright Simons warned that if this spread is tightened to 15 pesewas, the return “collapses to 2.3%,” and at a 10-pesewa spread, the entire operation turns into a loss-making venture.
This reliance on favorable FX spreads suggests that the commercial viability of the current proposal is artificial rather than organic.
The absence of a robust sensitivity analysis in the promoters’ prospectus is a glaring omission that obscures the true risks from potential financiers.
In a fraught political economy like Ghana’s, where exchange rate volatility is a constant factor, a model that cannot survive a 10-pesewa shift in margins is viewed by experts as “fraught” with danger.
Bright Simons notes that while the “LVSafrica promoters have superb instincts,” there remains a “wide gap between a smart concept and a bankable deal.”
Collateral Deficiencies and Structural Gaps
The critique further identifies a “thin” collateral story that fails to meet the stringent requirements of international trade finance.
Most sophisticated commodity financing structures rely on Special Purpose Vehicles (SPVs) and “bankruptcy remoteness” to protect lenders, yet these elements are reportedly missing from the GoldBod framework.
Without “perfected security over receivables,” the structure lacks the legal teeth needed to reassure credit committees at major commercial banks.
Bright Simons argued that the guarantees provided are “contradictory” and would likely be “wrung through many cycles” by any serious credit committee before a single dollar is committed.
Furthermore, the lack of an independent SPV means that the assets are not sufficiently insulated from the broader liabilities of the state or the primary promoters. This technical oversight makes the “self-liquidating commodity trade-finance structure” look more like a high-risk gamble than a secure institutional investment.
As it stands, the proposal lacks the “perfected security” over the gold receivables that would typically underpin a revolving credit facility of this magnitude.
Debunking the Private Bank Funding Model
The most damning aspect of these statistics is how they effectively debunk the proposal for private banks to fund GoldBod operations under the current terms.
While Bright Simons acknowledges that a “commercial, revolving, self-liquidating” structure is necessary for Ghana’s gold-for-oil or cedi-stabilization efforts, the current LVSafrica model fails the “bankability” test.
Sophisticated banks are unlikely to sign onto a deal where 98% of the risk is tied to the regulatory and geopolitical whims of India and the UAE, especially when the underlying profit can be wiped out by a minor adjustment in the currency spread.
Instead of providing a low-risk vehicle for private capital, the current structure’s concentration problem acts as a deterrent.
The “sophisticated banks will stretch this hard before they sign anything,” BrightSimons suggests, implying that the current pitch is not yet ready for the rigors of private sector due diligence.
READ ALSO: Brazil Backs Ghana’s Move to Declare Slavery as Gravest Crime
