SEBI moves gold and silver ETF valuation home: the LBMA-to-MCX shift, read for the practitioner

The decision to move gold and silver ETF valuation from London benchmarks to domestic benchmarks is, on its face, a technical change in valuation policy. Underneath, it is a structural decision about whose price discovery should anchor a product that is sold to Indian investors as exposure to Indian gold and silver markets. The regulatory architecture that had grown up around LBMA benchmarks reflected the practical reality of a global gold market in which London was the price-setting node; the architecture that replaces it reflects a settled judgment that the Indian commodity market has matured to a point where its own price discovery is the relevant reference for an Indian-domiciled, INR-denominated product.

This piece is a practitioner-oriented read on the change — what it does, why it matters for the disclosure and tracking-error practice that surrounds gold and silver ETFs, and what residual questions practitioners should anticipate.

What the SEBI circular does

The circular dated 26 February 2026, with an effective date of 1 April 2026, requires asset management companies operating gold and silver exchange-traded funds to value their physical holdings using polled spot prices published by recognised Indian stock exchanges. The mechanics are tied to existing infrastructure:

• The polled spot prices are those used by MCX and BSE to settle physically delivered gold and silver derivatives contracts on those exchanges. The price discovery infrastructure already exists; the circular reorients ETF valuation to plug into it.
• The change applies to all Indian gold and silver ETFs, not just newly-launched products. Existing schemes have had to recalibrate their valuation policies and NAV computation methods.
• The LBMA benchmark reference is no longer permitted for valuation purposes after 1 April 2026, though it remains relevant as a global reference point in fund documentation and disclosure.

Why the change matters

The rationale for the shift, as articulated in the surrounding regulatory commentary, has three principal threads.

Domestic price reality

An LBMA-anchored gold ETF NAV in India had a structural disconnect from the price an Indian investor would pay or receive for physical gold in the domestic market. Indian gold prices reflect import duties, the goods and services tax framework, regional supply-demand factors, and INR-USD movements — none of which are captured by the London benchmark. Investors in Indian gold ETFs would, on occasion, observe NAVs that did not closely track the price they could obtain at a jeweller's counter on the same day. The domestic-pricing shift is intended to close that gap.

Price discovery maturity

The Indian commodity derivatives market — particularly the MCX gold and silver contracts — has reached a maturity at which it functions as a serious price-discovery venue. Settlement prices for physically-delivered contracts are the market's own consensus about value at a given time. SEBI's judgment in the February circular is that this consensus is now reliable enough to function as the valuation anchor for a regulated investment product.

Disclosure clarity

There is a disclosure dimension. ETF schemes valued against an offshore benchmark required investors to understand a layered chain of conversion — LBMA price in USD, FX conversion, plus or minus various adjustment factors — to reconcile the NAV with the underlying physical asset. The domestic-pricing shift removes a layer from that chain.

The tracking error question

For practitioners advising AMCs, the most immediate operational question is tracking error.

Tracking error — the variance between an ETF's NAV and the price movement of its underlying asset — is one of the central performance metrics for a passive product. Investors and consultants monitor it carefully. The shift in valuation methodology introduces a one-off recalibration of tracking error for existing schemes, and (more importantly) changes the structural sources of tracking error going forward.

Sources of tracking error pre-1 April 2026

Under the LBMA-anchored framework, tracking error came principally from:

• The lag between the LBMA benchmark print and the timestamp at which the Indian ETF's NAV was computed.
• The FX conversion factor used to translate USD-denominated benchmark prices into INR.
• The treatment of import duties, GST, and other Indian-specific cost factors that affected the physical asset but were not reflected in the LBMA benchmark.

Sources of tracking error post-1 April 2026

Under the domestic-pricing framework, tracking error sources shift to:

• The variance between the MCX/BSE polled spot price and the actual physical price the AMC obtains when transacting in physical gold or silver.
• The treatment of any residual LBMA-referenced cost components in the AMC's underlying purchase or sale contracts.
• The timing differential between the spot price reference and the NAV computation timestamp.

For practitioners advising on disclosure documents — particularly Key Information Memoranda and Scheme Information Documents — the tracking-error narrative needs to be rewritten for FY 2026-27 and onwards. The historical numbers continue to be relevant as comparative reference, but they are now numbers computed under a different methodology. Investor communications should make this clear.

Disclosure obligations and SID amendments

The shift in valuation methodology requires Scheme Information Document amendments for affected schemes, and a corresponding revision of the Key Information Memoranda. The SID changes have to identify:

• The valuation methodology change and its effective date.
• The implications for tracking error and NAV computation.
• The continued relevance, if any, of LBMA benchmark references for non-valuation purposes (e.g., for comparative performance disclosure to global benchmark indices).
• Any residual references to the old methodology that survive in fund-of-funds structures or in offshore-feeder fund relationships.

For AMCs operating cross-border structures — feeder funds from international jurisdictions investing into Indian gold ETF schemes — the disclosure framework on the foreign side will continue to engage LBMA-referenced disclosure obligations. The Indian valuation methodology change does not, of itself, alter what is required to be disclosed under foreign-jurisdiction rules.

The litigation surface

A change of this scale, applied to a product class with substantial AUM, opens several litigation surfaces that practitioners should anticipate.

Tracking error disputes. Where an investor compares pre-1 April and post-1 April tracking error patterns and identifies a deterioration that is causally linked to the methodology change, the dispute will engage the AMC's disclosure framework, the investor's expectation of methodology stability, and the regulatory authorisation for the change. AMCs and their counsel should anticipate complaint frameworks at the SEBI level and, in some cases, consumer-forum proceedings.

Valuation methodology disputes. Where the domestic spot price reference does not, in a given trading session, closely track the price at which the AMC actually transacts in physical gold or silver, the question of whether the spot reference is the correct reference for NAV computation may be raised. The architecture of the circular permits this category of dispute, and the bar should be prepared for it.

Disclosure adequacy disputes. Where an SID amendment is challenged for inadequacy of disclosure — particularly on tracking error implications — the question turns on whether the amended SID met the SEBI disclosure standard. Where it did not, the AMC is exposed.

The international comparative

The Indian shift is part of a broader international trend toward domestic-benchmark anchoring for locally-distributed commodity ETFs. The Chinese SHFE benchmarks have served similar functions for the Shanghai-listed gold ETF market for some time. The U.S. and UK markets continue to rely on LBMA benchmarks for the dominant fund products, but with substantial differences in market structure and investor mix.

For practitioners advising Indian AMCs with overseas distribution partners or feeder relationships, the international comparative is the framing on which cross-border disclosure consistency should be built. The Indian methodology change does not, by itself, change anything in the LBMA framework; what it does is reposition the Indian regulatory architecture relative to it.

What remains to be settled

Two questions are likely to evolve over the next several months.

The price-reference question for transactions at the boundaries. Where an AMC transacts in physical gold or silver — for example, in periodic creation or redemption — at a price that materially differs from the MCX/BSE polled spot reference, the question of which price governs the NAV computation at the transaction edge requires further regulatory clarity.

The transitional treatment of existing fund-of-funds structures. Indian fund-of-funds schemes that hold offshore gold ETF units — typically valued against LBMA benchmarks at the underlying level — face a layered valuation challenge. SEBI's circular addresses Indian gold ETFs directly; the fund-of-funds question may need follow-on clarification.

The bottom line

The SEBI circular of 26 February 2026, effective 1 April 2026, is the most substantial change in Indian commodity-fund regulation in a generation. Indian gold and silver ETFs now value against domestic spot prices on MCX and BSE; the LBMA reference is no longer permitted for valuation. The shift improves the alignment between NAV and the Indian physical market that investors actually transact in — at the cost of a one-off recalibration of tracking-error patterns and a substantial body of SID amendments. For the regulatory bar, the change is also a moment to revisit the broader question of how Indian price-discovery infrastructure should be reflected in the valuation architecture of Indian-listed and Indian-distributed investment products.

---

Verify against the SEBI circular dated 26 February 2026 and any subsequent clarificatory directions. SID amendments by individual AMCs are the relevant operational reference for scheme-specific implementation.