All those who keep saying 'but he sold our gold' I'm interested in why it bothers you so much, ta muchly.

Quattrocento- Brown was born to be Chancellor not PM; is his problem. Wonder whether he longs to be a DC, TB, NC like figure but never was , never will be. Wonder what his political epitaph will be.

I used tp think that GB was incompetent in many respects - and selling the gold is an example of his incompetence (wrong time, preannouncing it etc). He could have doubled our money by waiting for three months and not preannouncing.

But the investment in the banks was a stroke of real genius in the face of popular opposition. It had to be done, but it is going to make money as well.

Well I have only started learning some papers have slants (innocent soul) but I have to say I have watched PMQs for a few years and he has never impressed me.

He lies (Hutton Inquiry)

I see from another thread you are on that he is well respected abroad, that really helps us uncover what he is up too here.

I digress, it seems we may have to wait until the Telegraph's FOI request is answered.

We could request MNHQ get an Economist on............

megcleary - Of course not....but you could say that the only question is when not whether if....

Thinking about it, the Govt is the regulator, the govt is the principal shareholder,...the govt sets the competition rules, the govt is the insurer...the govt gets to decide if these banks are insolvent....any such entity is in a unique position to eventaully make profit and should NEVER be declared inolvent. So in this sort of market structure, there is only upside !! I kid you not that the purchase of the banks were very good trades for the tax payer...just ask the previous shareholders and they will tell you that they were wiped out

Is the profit guarenteed TDiddy?

Seems like the Murdoch press is conveniently ignoring the nice juicy profit that the next Govt will make in a year or two from RBS and LLoyds?

One of the theories about why the sale was made is in this blog article.

The theory is that central banks were attemting to hold the world gold price down in the wake of the LTCM debacle.

No idea if true or not.

Beachcomber can you accept that there is a question to be asked re selling the Gold?

Interesting that nuLabour created the Freedom of Info Act but they haven't had credit for it as every now and then they get secretive so although we have moved forward, they look bad for trying to hide things

True, Tdiddy/Meg. I suppose my anger and suspicion arises because treasury/GB won't be transparent about this transaction. Really, we don't know...but I'm now on a mission to dig up what info is out there

My second comment was just a rant...not reeaally rooted in fact

Also, I think you have to look at what return he earned from the proceeds in order to measure the true loss. Strictly speaking you should also risk adjust any return for the level of risk taken. Portfolio mgmt is not all about return but also about risk (and liquidity)

Will you all give him credit when he makes tens of BNs from the purchase of RBS and Lloyds as IMO he is on track to do

I see some bright sparks nicked my FOI idea......
WG Earlier posters claimed he bought Yen, Euro & Dollers,
as I have bleated all along I do agree we may never know....
Which hacks me off no end

Meg part of the reason we have such an astronomical deficit is because he didn't make investments. He spent, spent, spent. If he was my financial manager I would have sacked him.

Unfortunately no one knows (except for GB's small circle involved in the decision) what really happened because Treasury has blocked (yes you read right), blocked the release of information pertaining to the sale

Read here about how this decision has cost this country £7bn.

Other than that, I agree with Vesela

He did sell the gold, we don't know why all we say will be speculation which is as good as it gets as he has not answered.

It maybe the investments made with the money obtained are doing will and hindsight says gold would have done better, but we will never know.

Am off to google the Freedom of Information Act to find some bloody answers!

Thanks for this thread, Beachcomber - really interesting. More threads like this would be great!

Beachcomber - imo not that he didn't handle the recession well, or that he was single-handledly responsible (although he bears some responsibility), but the fact that he spent so much during the good times in an ineffective way. What was achieved (although I'm not saying it was nothing) doesn't match up with what was spent.

but that's OT from gold, which is interesting question - thanks.

The pound was at around $1.40 in 1992 and had risen to almost $2 in 2004, weakened a bit after that due to the global recession.

If he put the money into $, did he not make a lot of money for the treasury?

I would just like him to explain why he did it in simple terms I can understand.
All we can do is speculate, awaits his autobiography!

MintHumbug - yes the price was driven even lower than it would otherwise have been by the pre announcement.

Beachcomber - yes the Treasury objectives were probably political the traders objectives were economic.