Proof of gold ownership

Well ‘Bill’ seems to be recovering well enough to write an article stating the obvious so do you think someone at KPMG will have time to prove our gold holding this week??

We really need to put this top priority to bed once and for all with actual legally binding evidence of the gold backing up every single tally in peoples accounts, it’s been well over a month since this was raised and over a year at least since it should have been in place, and should have taken 10 minutes to produce.

The fact this is being disregarded as not important and requests are simply brushed aside and ignored paints an extremely lax and flippant attitude to honesty and integrity in the whole concept.

The time for excuses in this regard are over and it needs addressing. The more it’s ignored the more it looks like something is being hidden. If there’s no proof then there’s no gold. Honestly, I think everyone has been extremely patient and given the benefit of doubt for long enough, don’t you? @cameron-tally


Hi @JonnyE, as stated previously, the physical gold that we buy through LBMA-accredited commodity brokers and that is stored with accredited high security gold storage providers, that is then represented by all the Tally on issue in customers’ banking accounts is the subject of a daily reconciliation by KPMG. We see the details of these amounts internally but do not share that detail externally. I’ll follow up with KPMG again this afternoon to see what they are happy to release regarding this process (no doubt it needs to go through their legal department). This can then sit in our FAQs with our own assurance letter
Thanks for continuing to follow us up on this, and we’ll do the same to try and give the peace of mind Tally users would like.

It’s a pointless exercise repeating what you’ve alread said that you’ve said. We know what you’ve said.
The point is the funds held in this alternative account are not protected by FSCS and if tally can’t provide proof of gold, then theres a problem with that, that points to no gold backing either, even if you say there is.

It’s not a case of you trying to give peace of mind, it’s a necessary piece of information that is the foundation of this business model… I don’t understand why you don’t see that. You might be confident there is gold there because you can see the evidence but that is irrelevant unless you are building this as your own personal bank account and don’t want anyone else to have enough trust in it to use it. If KPMG don’t want to show their work then they need to be replaced with a company that is confident in their own ability and will allow it. You’re paying them so it’s down to you to make sure this evidence available as part of their contract, if they don’t like it, don’t use them, there are plenty of alternatives, big 4 or not.


@kris-tally Any news on this yet or is there likely to be before the end of next week? I’m thinking about putting some more funds into gold, if this is sorted in time then I’ll use tally, otherwise it’ll be bullion vault or physical. Could you let me know asap, thanks.

1 Like

yes @cameron-tally, can we please get clarity on this matter, its way overdue and frankly I cant see why its taking sooooooooo long???

Hi @Tallyfanboynumerouno, I just posted on another part of the community, in answer to this query, as per below.

Hi @JonnyE and @Carolwhiteshusband and everyone else who have rightly been following up about third party assurance that there is a reconciliation process being conducted daily in relation to the vaulted physical gold represented by Tally in Tally customers’ banking accounts.

After two months of trying to sort something out with the “Big-4 accounting firm” that Tally has been using to conduct daily reconciliations and monthly reconciliation reports, we have not been able to receive approval from the firm to identify them publicly (with the relevant disclaimers) with a description of the external reconciliation professional services they have been engaged for (and have been) providing Tally Ltd.

Therefore we will change to a firm that will continue providing those services moving forward, whom we will be able to identify and who can themselves confirm they are providing reconciliation services.

It is frustrating for everyone that it has taken so long only to come to this conclusion. Changeover will take a week and we’ll be able to provide further details then. In the interim, I’ll amend the assurance letter that is accessible in the FAQs section of Tally’s website accordingly.

Regards, Cameron

Hi @cameron-tally
who will the provider be?
and what system will be in place? will it be like bullion vault and the video posted on here a while back or will the new provider just provide a letter that they are engaged with Tally Ltd ?

Hi @Sb990 it’ll be a letter that they are engaged and providing reconciliation services.

Oki Doki :+1:t2:

@cameron-tally who’s doing the audits now EY, PWC or Deloitte.

Is there any proof KPMG have been engaged since June 2019?

1 Like

The saga continues…yawn!

1 Like

and @JonnyE we’re pleased to finally(!) be able to disclose that our auditors, PKF Littlejohn LLP, have been engaged to do Tally’s daily gold reconciliations. Tally’s updated Assurance letter will go up on Tuesday with PKF named. @Sb990 the Big 4 firm that was doing the daily reconciliation was engaged from June 2019 - evidence they were doing the work includes the engagement letter, the monthly reconciliation reports and other correspondences and the invoices we’ve received from the Big 4 firm for that work).
We’re with PKF now.


That’s strange since you announced that you where changing the service provider the assurance letter you had written had been edited and removed KPMG’s name, but still referred to a big 4 firm. Pkf littlejohn are outside the big 4 so why edit the letter at all if it wasn’t going to be done accurately?

Ok like the trustee arrangement was in place from June 19.

At least pkf littlejohn do our financial audits aswell so their is no reason why the letter they provide can be more detailed of the whole process and they can independently confirm customer protection.

Because KPMG asked to have their name removed from the letter. They were still engaged at the time (they are the ‘Big 4’ firm we’re referring to). It has been at our discretion as to when we cease their agreement (i.e. once we had another arrangement in place).

Ok did KPMG give a reason for at first being happy to be named on the letter then suddenly not ?