PDA

View Full Version : Explain why you sold Britain's gold



Lazy Lob
03-24-2010, 06:48 PM
Explain why you sold Britain's gold, Gordon Brown told
Gordon Brown has been ordered to release information before the general election about his controversial decision to sell Britain's gold reserves.

By Holly Watt and Robert Winnett
Published: 11:55AM GMT 24 Mar 2010
Comments 64 | Comment on this article

Gordon Brown pushed ahead with the of Britain's gold despite serious misgivings at the Bank of England, it is believed Photo: REX/ALAMY
The decision to sell the gold – taken by Mr Brown when he was Chancellor – is regarded as one of the Treasury's worst financial mistakes and has cost taxpayers almost £7 billion.
Mr Brown and the Treasury have repeatedly refused to disclose information about the gold sale amid allegations that warnings were ignored.


Following a series of freedom of information requests from The Daily Telegraph over the past four years, the Information Commissioner has ordered the Treasury to release some details. The Treasury must publish the information demanded within 35 calendar days – by the end of April.

The sale is expected to be become a major election issue, casting light on Mr Brown's decisions while at the Treasury.
Last night, George Osborne, the shadow chancellor, demanded that the information was published immediately. "Gordon Brown's decision to sell off our gold reserves at the bottom of the market cost the British taxpayer billions of pounds," he said. "It was one of the worst economic judgements ever made by a chancellor.

"The British public have a right to know what happened and why so much of their money was lost. The documents should be published immediately."

Between 1999 and 2002, Mr Brown ordered the sale of almost 400 tons of the gold reserves when the price was at a 20-year low. Since then, the price has more than quadrupled, meaning the decision cost taxpayers an estimated £7 billion, according to Mike Warburton of the accountants Grant Thornton.

It is understood that Mr Brown pushed ahead with the sale despite serious misgivings at the Bank of England. It is not thought that senior Bank experts were even consulted about the decision, which was driven through by a small group of senior Treasury aides close to Mr Brown.
The Treasury has been officially censured by the Information Commissioner over its attempts to block the release of information about the gold sales.

The Information Commissioner's decision itself is set to become the subject of criticism. The commissioner has taken four years to rule on the release of the documents, despite intense political and public interest in the sales. Officials have missed a series of their own deadlines to order the information's release, which will now prevent a proper parliamentary analysis of the disclosures.

It can also be disclosed that the commissioner has held a series of private meetings with the Treasury and has agreed for much of the paperwork to remain hidden from the public. The Treasury was allowed to review the decision notice when it was in draft form – and may have been permitted to make numerous changes.

In the official notice, the Information Commissioner makes it clear that only a "limited" release of information has been ordered.
Ed Balls, who is now the Schools Secretary, Ed Miliband, now the Climate Change Secretary, and Baroness Vadera, another former minister, were all close aides to the chancellor during the relevant period.

If the information is not released by the end of April, the Treasury will be in "contempt of court" and will face legal action. A spokesman said last night that the Treasury was not preparing to appeal against the ruling.

HOW AUCTIONS COST TAXPAYER £7BN

The price of gold has quadrupled since Gordon Brown sold more than half of Britain’s reserves.
The Treasury pre-announced its plans to sell 395 tons of the 715 tons held by the Bank of England, which caused prices to fall.
The bullion was sold in 17 auctions between 1999 and 2002, with dealers paying between $256 and $296 an ounce. Since then, the price has increased rapidly. Yesterday, it stood at $1,100 an ounce.
The taxpayer lost an estimated £7 billion, twice the amount lost when Britain left the Exchange Rate Mechanism in 1992.
The proceeds from the sales were invested in dollars, euros and yen. In recent years, most other countries have begun buying gold again in large quantities.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/investing/gold/7511589/Explain-why-you-sold-Britains-gold-Gordon-Brown-told.html

CMNot
03-24-2010, 07:17 PM
It's a dead simple answer, to be fair to Gordo.

Although I'm sure he'll have some enigmatic stats to spout for us plebs.

Mu-Meson
03-24-2010, 11:09 PM
Could someone please explain to this reporter that selling gold 10 years ago, and getting $7 billion less than if you had sold it now, is NOT the same thing as "costing the taxpayers $7 billion".

Flagg
03-24-2010, 11:38 PM
Gordon Brown sold the UK's gold bang on a multi-decade low.

At the same time the smartest folks I follow closely, Eric Janszen and Jim Rogers,went long gold as it began a decade long climb....that is probably FAR from peaking....so the 7 billion pounds now will increase as does the price of gold and the continued implosion of the pound.

Gordon Brown couldn't have timed the sale of UK Gold any worse even if he were a leftover Cold War Soviet mole.

If Gordon Brown's defense is the same often heard from many governments "Gold is a relic." Or "Gold doesn't earn interest income." Or "Gold's value is largely intrinsic." Then one needs to ask why it's been used for a couple thousand years as a store of value, and why many central banks have retained their gold holdings and are actively increasing their holdings.

When you add up the many other fiscal and monetary debacles under Brown's watch one is actually compelledto ask the question with a bit less humour and a bit more seriousness.....IS Gordon Brown actually a leftover KGB Mole? :)

Kilgor
03-24-2010, 11:48 PM
If Gordon Brown's defense is the same often heard from many governments "Gold is a relic." Or "Gold doesn't earn interest income." Or "Gold's value is largely intrinsic." Then one needs to ask why it's been used for a couple thousand years as a store of value, and why many central banks have retained their gold holdings and are actively increasing their holdings.


At least Gold can't be inflated like a Fiat currency to solve temporary problems. Financial discipline? not in today's world !

Flagg
03-25-2010, 12:03 AM
At least Gold can't be inflated like a Fiat currency to solve temporary problems. Financial discipline? not in today's world !

What with the chaos surrounding Greece, and the uncertaintly surrounding Portugal, Ireland, Italy, and Spain......combined with bullsh!t numbers coming out of both China and the US......who the hell knows what's next.

It looks to me like a reasonable chance of a short-term flight to the US Dollar of all things......the chances of deflation are pretty much zero.....that would be zombies in the streets kind of economic collapse....so stuff inflates once the dust settles.

I reckon we see MAYBE one more decent dip in Gold....then it will be a slow ratchet upwards, possibly combined with a big spike or two upwards when we eventually get Bretton Woods 2.0 and what comes next.

Gold will be important up to, including, and immediately following the time the folks in charge figure out what the next means of exchange is to supplant the US Dollar centric global economy.

Brown was a retard for selling something tangible, and buying hook line and sinker into the hypothetical financial engineering industry.

Brown was the ambassador, advocate, Chief Financial Officer, and/or "buck stops here bloke in charge" for the majority of those responsible for breaking the UK.

Just my 0.02c

rgjbloke
03-25-2010, 09:08 AM
It's the Telegraph again. That well known bastion of political knowledge and truth!

Nano
03-25-2010, 09:59 AM
I thought that knowing about the **** storm coming our way and not being in a position to make money from it was bad. Brown is probably going to go down as the worse prime minister in the history of that country. I'm waiting for the last dip in gold, but given the present situation that dip is not going to be as drastic as the last big dip if the situation even allows for one good dip before it just never returns. I'm saving up for that last nice dip and going all in and cashing out as much as possible long before my dollars are as valuable as the paper I wipe my ass with. Silver is great as well, but it is hell of bulky in large quantities relative to gold.

tluassa
03-25-2010, 11:17 AM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gold_reserve

country tonnes Gold's share
of national
forex reserves (%)[

1. United States United States 8,133.5 68.7%

[...]
however:
16 United Kingdom United Kingdom 310.3 15.2%


this is the really interesting thing:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_exchange_reserves

seasch
03-25-2010, 11:48 AM
Goldprice peaked in 1981 at fell in the following years to a low in 1999 - 2001 after which prices exploded.

Now looking back, it is easy to find the best time to sell gold. But from his position in 1999 when the gold prices had dropped the last ten years, selling didn't sound too bad. A lot of national banks (at least in the west) sold their gold which usually results in even lower prices. Believing that the price of gold will go up for ever, just because it has gone up the last years is no better than blaiming the government for selling at that time.

Nano recommended to buy silver. Something I completly disagree with and see no reason for. Silver is the poor man's gold and therefore worth nothing.

ego docui history
03-25-2010, 12:01 PM
.IS Gordon Brown actually a leftover KGB Mole? :)

Well, he did work for the British government so there is relatively reasonable chance he was/is. However, since he wasn't employed by one of the intelligence agencies it does somewhat mitigate the chance of him being a KGB spy.
Makes you wonder if somewhere in the there will be a billboard advert with a picture of Blair saying "Miss Me Yet?" Though in all seriousness, if he was really a KGB plant he'd had pushed harder for joining the Euro.

CMNot
03-25-2010, 12:07 PM
That's not really the whole point though is it? The whole point of having a 'reserve' is to have something to fall back on. Britain now, doesn't.

Take a look at British public sector debt. It is stable in line with Tory fiscal policy from 97 through to the early noughties then explodes. Yet public sector spending was increasing out of line with public sector debt in the early noughties. Election promises, funded by a firesale.

Sound economics, from The Man Who Saved The World (his words, not mine).


of Blair saying "Miss Me Yet?"

Why? That man is the King of the ****s.

Flagg
03-25-2010, 06:44 PM
Goldprice peaked in 1981 at fell in the following years to a low in 1999 - 2001 after which prices exploded.

Now looking back, it is easy to find the best time to sell gold. But from his position in 1999 when the gold prices had dropped the last ten years, selling didn't sound too bad. A lot of national banks (at least in the west) sold their gold which usually results in even lower prices. Believing that the price of gold will go up for ever, just because it has gone up the last years is no better than blaiming the government for selling at that time.

Nano recommended to buy silver. Something I completly disagree with and see no reason for. Silver is the poor man's gold and therefore worth nothing.

Of course it's easy to look back and play Monday Morning Quarterback around the watercooler.

But the facts are Brown dumped UK gold at the worst possible time in a 30 year period WHILE being privy to excellent state paid financial and economic intelligence.

Also, the evidence of Brown being a whore to The City by actively encouraging the UK's economy to shift from financial services and banking playing a SUPPORTING role in the UK economy(where it belongs) to being THE CENTRAL PLAYER in the UK economy was absolute madness....the long term impact of which is only just starting to be felt.

Bankers and financial engineers hate gold.....it represents a means of exchange that cannot be as easily manipulated and abused as currency being treated like toilet paper.

Brown selling gold at a bottom was no accident...you don't make such a significant decision lightly.....it assisted in the ability to continue playing the financial engineering games in The City for a good while longer.

If silver were worth nothing, it wouldn't currently be valued at $16.50 an ounce on paper....and a significant premium higher if you want it in your hand.

A person who invested X amount in gold/silver in 2000 has done quite well in the last decade compared to a peer group having bought equities, bonds, or property.

Why do you think the equity/bond/property dominated financial services and banking industry keep bashing precious metals and commodities?

Why do you think they always use a comparison between gold and equities starting in 1980 when gold last peaked?

It's a game of 3 card monte to dispel the truth that the equity/bond/property markets over the last 10 years have been absolute rubbish for investors.

There's a lot of truth to be found in the prices of precious metals and energy if one is willing to scratch just beneath the surface.