Mobilizing Việt Nam’s ‘People’s Gold’: An Impossible Task Without Public Trust?

During a discussion on the implementation of the state budget on October 30, National Assembly delegate Thạch Phước Bình identified two major underutilized resources: off-budget state financial funds and gold holdings. Gold, he noted, is a major source of accumulated household assets.

According to the delegate, Vietnamese citizens currently hold around 400–500 tons  of gold, equivalent to 35–40 billion USD, which represents nearly 8% of the country’s GDP. [1]

This hoarding is motivated by a psychological need for safety and a lack of transparent investment options. Consequently, the state should focus on reforming the market, creating safe investment channels, and avoiding pressure on the people.

Why Do People Have Gold and Hold on to It?

Understanding why Vietnamese people choose to hold gold is essential for effective policymaking. Studies show gold remains a traditional asset channel, with a comprehensive study titled “Understanding Asset Holdings of Vietnamese Households” revealing its primary use.

Gold and jewelry serve as reserve assets for health emergencies, major family events, or when other savings channels are perceived as risky. Vietnamese households use these assets as a form of precautionary savings. [2]

Other studies and interviews note that Vietnamese people typically hold around 400 tons of gold during times of monetary instability, low savings interest rates, and when financial markets are not strong enough to provide reliable alternatives. For the vast majority, saving in gold is a personal financial strategy for retirement and security against unforeseen circumstances. [3]

This is reinforced by gold’s deep cultural meaning, passed down as “của để dành,” which means savings that can withstand inflation and devaluation. When official investment channels are limited, holding gold is psychologically sound.

The root cause of hoarding, therefore, lies in these cultural and psychological factors. When the state speaks of “mobilizing gold,” it must acknowledge a practical reality: people hold gold because they lack trust in the state’s ability to ensure economic stability.

Hoarding gold should not be seen as inherently negative or as something the state must “take back.” Unless the underlying causes of insecurity are addressed, any mobilization plan will merely treat the symptom, not the cause.

A Risky Proposition

Mobilizing private gold holdings sounds appealing, but it is fraught with risks and limitations. Most gold in Việt Nam is held “outside the system,” beyond state and banking oversight, and not efficiently channeled into business or investment. This market has long operated under tight government control, creating significant price discrepancies between domestic and international markets. [4]

Any state’s demand to mobilize gold without transparent, rights-protecting mechanisms could easily erode public trust. Such attempts may be interpreted as a sign that “the state needs capital,” leading to fears of coercion. This could spark a backlash, prompting people to hide their gold, sell during market turbulence, or move toward underground channels. At that point, such measures would be both impractical and inhumane.

The argument for mobilization also misunderstands the nature of gold. Experts warn, “this enormous quantity of gold will remain inert and ineffective if attempts are made to mobilize a large portion of it… No country in the world has ever succeeded in doing so.” [5] Gold is not “productive capital” that circulates like cash; it is not instantly liquid for high-efficiency economic use. If mobilized improperly, it may simply be “frozen” rather than “yielding returns.”

Despite these risks, the government is reforming the gold market. The State Bank of Việt Nam is finalizing plans for a centralized gold exchange to improve transparency, unlock private reserves, and strengthen state oversight. [6] However, if the underlying public fears are not addressed, the state risks creating new burdens for itself.

Is There a Way Out?

Instead of prioritizing gold mobilization, the core task is to ensure that citizens no longer feel anxious about market and currency instability. Only when these conditions are met should mobilization be considered. This requires several key solutions.

First, public trust in the financial system must be rebuilt through macroeconomic stability and a stable currency. If inflation is low, domestic currency is stable, and investment yields are reasonable, people will be less inclined to hoard gold.

Second, market transparency must be enhanced. Establishing a gold trading exchange, for example, could make prices more transparent and reduce underground trading. This is preferable to current measures like “increasing inspections and oversight of gold trading activities,” which have not been effective and have only generated anxiety among buyers and sellers. [7] The state must prioritize communication and transparency over coercive enforcement.

Third, alternative investment channels—such as the stock market, bond market, and domestic investment funds—must be developed. Efficient, liquid channels with strong investor protections will naturally shift citizens from holding gold to investing.

Finally, if a gold mobilization mechanism is implemented, it must use clearly defined products, such as the recently allowed digital or online gold trading. [8] Any such scheme must be transparent and, above all, protect citizens’ interests.

However, little information has been provided to reassure the public, even as the government urges citizens to release gold. Current actions focus on two aspects: directing the State Bank to “strengthen supervision, inspection, and strict handling of violations, speculation, and price manipulation,” and to “urgently amend Decree 24 on gold trading management, including reviewing the gold bar monopoly mechanism and considering the establishment of a national gold exchange.” [9]

It remains unclear when these revisions will be completed.

Mobilizing gold from the public is an appealing idea that could unlock a vast resource. However, the core issue is not mobilization, but trust and the availability of alternatives. If people hold gold because they lack confidence in cash, banks, or investments, a government call to “give us your gold”—without addressing public insecurity—will merely transfer anxiety, not create economic value.

Before setting a goal of mobilizing “400–500 tons of gold,” the state should first aim to reduce the public fear that drives hoarding. This must be paired with offering safe, convenient, and transparent alternative asset channels.

Only when people no longer view gold as the sole means of preserving their wealth can the state effectively discuss mobilizing it from the public in a truly effective manner.

---

Lý Nhân wrote this article in Vietnamese and published it in Luật Khoa Magazine on Nov. 6, 2025. Đàm Vĩnh Hằng translated it into English for The Vietnamese Magazine.