- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message

Brown’s £2 billion blunder in the gold bullion market
Posted on 9/4/09 at 5:50 am
Posted on 9/4/09 at 5:50 am
There is more to the story of China retreiving it's gold from GB than is apparent at first glance. Buried in this FT story is a hint of what it was that Gordon Brown sold, against the advice of some of the worlds foremost commodities experts and central bankers. Dontcha love a good whodunit?
'The traders present — including senior executives from at least two big investment banks — warned that Brown, who was not at the meeting, could barely have chosen a worse moment.
In the room, just behind the governor’s main office, they cautioned that gold traditionally moved in decades-long cycles and that the price was likely to increase. They added that even if the sale were to go ahead, the timings and amounts should not be announced, as the gold price would plunge.
“The timing of the decision was ludicrous. We told them you are going to push the gold price down before you sell,” said Peter Fava, then head of precious metal dealing at HSBC who was present at the meeting. “We thought it was a disastrous decision; we couldn’t understand it. We brought up a lot of potential problems at the meeting.”
Martin Stokes, former vice-president at JP Morgan, who was also present, said: “I was surprised they had chosen the auction method. It indicated they did not have a real understanding of the gold market.”
According to other sources, however, Bank of England officials told those present they had “little say” about what was going to happen and that they were “doing what they were told”. This was a decision made by Brown and his inner circle, who appeared uninterested in their expert advice.'
...the lies begin...
'“The Treasury intends to sell 125 tons of gold, 3% of the total reserves, during 1999-2000, with the Bank of England conducting five auctions on the Treasury’s behalf. Auctions will be held every other month starting in July.”
The answer was later shown to be wholly misleading as the government actually planned to sell 400 tons before 2002, representing more than half the country’s gold.'
Requests for minutes of meetings, under GBs freedom on information act, about the sale have been repeatedly denied.
...and the money line...
'Hewitt’s figure of 3% referred to “total reserves” which, apart from gold, included tens of billions that the government borrows on the international currency markets, rather than the gold reserves actually owned outright by Britain.'...My question: exactly who's gold was it that Britain sold?
...Greenspan said shortly after the GB sale...
'Following the government’s announcement of the sell-off, other leading economies rushed to the defence of gold as the asset of last resort.
On May 20, Alan Greenspan, then chairman of the US Federal Reserve and the world’s most respected bank governor, said in response to Brown’s decision: “Gold still represents the ultimate form of payment in the world . . . Germany in 1944 could buy materials during the war only with gold. Fiat money paper [a technical term for legal tender] in extremis is accepted by nobody. Gold is always accepted.”'
foshizzle and WHOGAS...are you paying attention?
...Trichet chimed in...
'The day before, Jean-Claude Trichet, governor of the Bank of France who later became head of the European Central Bank, said: “I will simply say that as far as I am aware — and this is not just the position of the Bank of France and our country but also the position of the Bundesbank, the Bank of Italy and of the United States, and these are the four main gold stocks in the world — the position is not to sell gold.”'
...and the winners, as usual, were those with inside information who went short gold...
'“The joke in the market was that Gordon had guaranteed he would get the worst price,” said the former gold dealer Dominic Hall. “The world and his grandmother shorted the market. Other central banks quietly dribbled gold they were selling on the market.” Stokes added: “The auction process raised hysteria and a negative sentiment in the market. Had the government sold a small amount quietly on the market every day, no one would have noticed. The Swiss sold far more without anyone noticing.
“It gave the professionals a chance to boot down the market and then scoop up the gold cheap at the auctions.”'
...but the question remains: Exactly who's gold was it that GB sold? Since China cannot inventory GBs gold reserves perhaps the only way China can find out if they still own gold stored in GB is to recall it?
LINK
Posted on 9/7/09 at 4:09 pm to Rivers
I have no affiliation with TRP, but found a recent article in their investor publication to be of interest:
TRP Investor Mag
Page 22, $100 invested in the S&P 500 compared with $100 invested in gold on 12/31/1980 through 12/31/2008 grew to $1,456 in large firms compared to $150 in gold. How many more AK 47's would that buy an individual? How many more tires for a roadster? All that glitters is not necessarily gold.
Some interesting charts on returns coming out of recessions over the history of the US market as well.

TRP Investor Mag
Page 22, $100 invested in the S&P 500 compared with $100 invested in gold on 12/31/1980 through 12/31/2008 grew to $1,456 in large firms compared to $150 in gold. How many more AK 47's would that buy an individual? How many more tires for a roadster? All that glitters is not necessarily gold.
Some interesting charts on returns coming out of recessions over the history of the US market as well.
Posted on 9/7/09 at 4:52 pm to tirebiter
Be careful my friend..... The dow took til 1954 to get back to even after the depression of the 1930s . Adjusted for inflation it took till almost 1970 to get back to even!! I recommend you read Alan Greenspans 1966 Gold essay ...
Posted on 9/7/09 at 4:54 pm to Goose Lives
quote:
I recommend you read Alan Greenspans 1966 Gold essay ...

Posted on 9/8/09 at 12:42 am to Goose Lives
I believe that they could read it if we made it available to them. Of course, WHOGAS (known by the uninformed as LSURussian), is unable to come up with a rational response to Greenspans essay so he uses derision instead of logic...I have yet to see WHOGAS use logic when confronted with a real debate. I have linked the entire essay and quoted the last two paragraphs.
'Gold and Economic Freedom'
'In the absence of the gold standard, there is no way to protect savings from confiscation through inflation. There is no safe store of value. If there were, the government would have to make its holding illegal, as was done in the case of gold. If everyone decided, for example, to convert all his bank deposits to silver or copper or any other good, and thereafter declined to accept checks as payment for goods, bank deposits would lose their purchasing power and government-created bank credit would be worthless as a claim on goods. The financial policy of the welfare state requires that there be no way for the owners of wealth to protect themselves.
This is the shabby secret of the welfare statists' tirades against gold. Deficit spending is simply a scheme for the confiscation of wealth. Gold stands in the way of this insidious process. It stands as a protector of property rights. If one grasps this, one has no difficulty in understanding the statists' antagonism toward the gold standard.'
'Alan Greenspan
[written in 1966]
This article originally appeared in a newsletter called The Objectivist published in 1966 and was reprinted in Ayn Rand's Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal'
LINK
"Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value -- zero." ...Voltaire
edited to add...
Hey WHOGAS/FOSHIZZLE...Why didn't you address what Greenspan had to say shortly after the GB gold sale...Here it is again...
'...Greenspan said shortly after the GB sale...
'Following the government’s announcement of the sell-off, other leading economies rushed to the defence of gold as the asset of last resort.
On May 20, Alan Greenspan, then chairman of the US Federal Reserve and the world’s most respected bank governor, said in response to Brown’s decision: “Gold still represents the ultimate form of payment in the world . . . Germany in 1944 could buy materials during the war only with gold. FIAT MONEY PAPER [A TECHNICAL TERM FOR LEGAL TENDER] IN EXTREMIS (extremis is politically correct speak for when the shitz hits the fan) IS ACCEPTED BY NOBODY. GOLD IS ALWAYS ACCEPTED." caps mine...
'Gold and Economic Freedom'
'In the absence of the gold standard, there is no way to protect savings from confiscation through inflation. There is no safe store of value. If there were, the government would have to make its holding illegal, as was done in the case of gold. If everyone decided, for example, to convert all his bank deposits to silver or copper or any other good, and thereafter declined to accept checks as payment for goods, bank deposits would lose their purchasing power and government-created bank credit would be worthless as a claim on goods. The financial policy of the welfare state requires that there be no way for the owners of wealth to protect themselves.
This is the shabby secret of the welfare statists' tirades against gold. Deficit spending is simply a scheme for the confiscation of wealth. Gold stands in the way of this insidious process. It stands as a protector of property rights. If one grasps this, one has no difficulty in understanding the statists' antagonism toward the gold standard.'
'Alan Greenspan
[written in 1966]
This article originally appeared in a newsletter called The Objectivist published in 1966 and was reprinted in Ayn Rand's Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal'
LINK
"Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value -- zero." ...Voltaire
edited to add...
Hey WHOGAS/FOSHIZZLE...Why didn't you address what Greenspan had to say shortly after the GB gold sale...Here it is again...
'...Greenspan said shortly after the GB sale...
'Following the government’s announcement of the sell-off, other leading economies rushed to the defence of gold as the asset of last resort.
On May 20, Alan Greenspan, then chairman of the US Federal Reserve and the world’s most respected bank governor, said in response to Brown’s decision: “Gold still represents the ultimate form of payment in the world . . . Germany in 1944 could buy materials during the war only with gold. FIAT MONEY PAPER [A TECHNICAL TERM FOR LEGAL TENDER] IN EXTREMIS (extremis is politically correct speak for when the shitz hits the fan) IS ACCEPTED BY NOBODY. GOLD IS ALWAYS ACCEPTED." caps mine...
This post was edited on 9/8/09 at 12:50 am
Posted on 9/8/09 at 7:31 am to LSURussian
how long are you two gonna piss about gold?
Posted on 9/8/09 at 8:21 am to Lord Nelson
As long as it takes....
This post was edited on 9/8/09 at 8:22 am
Posted on 9/8/09 at 9:22 am to Goose Lives
quote:
Be careful my friend..... The dow took til 1954 to get back to even after the depression of the 1930s . Adjusted for inflation it took till almost 1970 to get back to even!! I recommend you read Alan Greenspans 1966 Gold essay ...
I would suggest looking at that time period and what would have happened if someone were a patient investor and was investing near bottoms during the period. I still have yet to find a gold coin that will pay a dividend. It's not like gold has recently appreciated only against the US $. What is going to happen, the currency of every developed country is going to be wiped out?
Posted on 9/8/09 at 10:18 am to tirebiter
'It's not like gold has recently appreciated only against the US $. What is going to happen, the currency of every developed country is going to be wiped out?'
Interesting question and I don't have an answer...but, no one has an answer right now. Here is an interesting bit of not so distant history. After WW2 the US allowed almost all the allied countrys to fix their currencys (peg them) to the dollar. That was a portion of the Bretton Woods agreement that collapsed in 1970-71.
Here is what Wiki has to say about the reason for the collapse of the Bretton Woods agreement...
'The chief features of the Bretton Woods system were an obligation for each country to adopt a monetary policy that maintained the exchange rate of its currency within a fixed value—plus or minus one percent—in terms of gold and the ability of the IMF to bridge temporary imbalances of payments. In the face of increasing financial strain, the system collapsed in 1971, after the United States unilaterally terminated convertibility of the dollars to gold. This action caused considerable financial stress in the world economy and created the unique situation whereby the United States dollar became the "reserve currency" for the states which had signed the agreement.'
IMO, some world currency based on a basket of commodities will have to be adopted at some point. No country will trust other countrys to hold their printing of fiat money in check, especially when funding is 'needed' for wars, famines, natural disasters, economic expansion, etc. In addition, no country wants to peg it's currency to that of another unless it is a big exporter. Why, because to peg a currency to a foreign currency is to give up control of the monetary system in the country with the peg and it definitely limits monetary flexibility.
Maybe you have a solution?
...the entire read is at this Wiki link... LINK
Posted on 9/8/09 at 11:24 am to Rivers
I would like to see that happen, I just don't see what global organization has the power to keep it enforced. When push comes to shove, governments will just unpeg and devalue when they see the need to.
Posted on 9/8/09 at 1:01 pm to kfizzle85
'When push comes to shove, governments will just unpeg and devalue when they see the need to.'
Sometimes govs with pegs have to unpeg or they wind up importing inflation with the currency they are pegged to.
'I just don't see what global organization has the power to keep it enforced.'
There is no global org that has the power to enforce such currency restrictions...Look at the EU. They cannot even enforce there 'debt to gdp' rules among countrys that have signed a binding agreement.
The only possibility that I see is a world currency based on a basket of commodities. Then the commodities/currency act as towmbo. Of course we will not see this world commodity/currency happen because there are wealthy and powerful interests that will go to war, if necessary, to stop it.
Sometimes govs with pegs have to unpeg or they wind up importing inflation with the currency they are pegged to.
'I just don't see what global organization has the power to keep it enforced.'
There is no global org that has the power to enforce such currency restrictions...Look at the EU. They cannot even enforce there 'debt to gdp' rules among countrys that have signed a binding agreement.
The only possibility that I see is a world currency based on a basket of commodities. Then the commodities/currency act as towmbo. Of course we will not see this world commodity/currency happen because there are wealthy and powerful interests that will go to war, if necessary, to stop it.
Posted on 9/8/09 at 1:27 pm to Rivers
I would not be in favor of a global currency backed by a basket of commodities, and I don't see how you could rationally implement one in any shape or form.
This post was edited on 9/8/09 at 1:29 pm
Posted on 9/8/09 at 1:40 pm to kfizzle85
'I would not be in favor of a global currency backed by a basket of commodities, and I don't see how you could rationally implement one in any shape or form.'
Perhaps you have a viable alternative? I certainly don't.
Hypothetical situation: Suppose lots of people with excess capital, frightened about what their govs are doing to their currencies/gov debt issues, flee all markets except commodities? This is probably far fetched but what do you think world govs would do if such a flight happened?
btw, gotta take care of some honeydos, back later.
Perhaps you have a viable alternative? I certainly don't.
Hypothetical situation: Suppose lots of people with excess capital, frightened about what their govs are doing to their currencies/gov debt issues, flee all markets except commodities? This is probably far fetched but what do you think world govs would do if such a flight happened?
btw, gotta take care of some honeydos, back later.
Posted on 9/8/09 at 1:45 pm to Rivers
No, because as I initially stated, there is no way to enforce any sort of global reserve currency, regardless of what it is made up of.
Posted on 9/8/09 at 6:10 pm to kfizzle85
The who what and why of the so called economic crisis:
What: The Derivative (BIS Bank of International Settlement )
Who: The group of 30/Trilateral commission
Why: Global government / Global currency
IF we had a gold backed dollar this crisis whould never have happened !!
What: The Derivative (BIS Bank of International Settlement )
Who: The group of 30/Trilateral commission
Why: Global government / Global currency
IF we had a gold backed dollar this crisis whould never have happened !!
Posted on 9/8/09 at 6:39 pm to kfizzle85
'there is no way to enforce any sort of global reserve currency, regardless of what it is made up of.'
I strongly disagree. A basket of commodities backed currency would not need a great deal of 'enforcement'. Either you have the commodities or you don't. Without commodities a country would have to borrow at market rate against future crops/oil/minerals/metals/etc.
An arrangement as described above already partially exists in the form of commodities exchanges.
I strongly disagree. A basket of commodities backed currency would not need a great deal of 'enforcement'. Either you have the commodities or you don't. Without commodities a country would have to borrow at market rate against future crops/oil/minerals/metals/etc.
An arrangement as described above already partially exists in the form of commodities exchanges.
Posted on 9/8/09 at 6:40 pm to Goose Lives
Mmmm, no, if insurance and banking regulators had actually done their jobs we would not be in this crisis, along with the dumb arse bankers making trillions of dollars of loans and bonuses which will never be repaid, as well as allowing all forms of institutions to make bets on financial instruments in which they did not hold economic interests, then bailing them out under duress under fear of systemic failure. Gold based currency has nothing to do with that.
Posted on 9/8/09 at 6:49 pm to tirebiter
'Gold based currency has nothing to do with that.'
Let's skip the 'gold based currency' and go with a 'basket of commodities currency'...Please indulge me for a moment.
A basket of commodities backed currency would provide discipline to the markets. Since commodities cannot be printed at will and printed in enormous quantity compared to gdp growth there would not be a huge amount of slosh (excess currency) to be misdirected to inefficient use in an economy. No one would loan a valuable and limited currency to a hair brained business plan. Right now, today, our economy is so fricked up that the price discovery mechanisim is no longer functioning rationally...and barely irrationally.
and...bankers would not be granting $750,000 mortgages to pizza delivery drivers to buy houses. The idiot bankers would quickly be weeded from the banking system...they might become pizza drivers?
Posted on 9/8/09 at 6:53 pm to Rivers
C'mon, the supposed investigators could not even determine whether speculators drove up the prices of commodities last summer, we are supposed to expect valid commodity pricing/currency valuations under this scenario? Then you would have producers withholding output to manipulate commodity values for their own gain. How is that any better than the current system?
Posted on 9/8/09 at 7:12 pm to Rivers
I said that for the individual investor, taking physical ownership of gold is not a particularly good hedge against inflation and that there are better ways to meet that goal. This has nothing at all to do with whether a currency should be backed by gold or any other commodity.
If you want to talk about a gold standard instead of what you as an individual are wise to invest in, fine. That's a legitimate topic too, just not the one we've been talking about. One is a matter of personal investment strategy, the other is a matter of national monetary policy.
I do find it ironic though that you are quoting an article by Greenspan that argues we should trust in certificates. Backed by gold, sure, but still certificates. In other posts you have said this is a *bad* thing.
So I am wondering why you cite Greenspan as an authority when he is arguing for something you explicitly disagree with.

If you want to talk about a gold standard instead of what you as an individual are wise to invest in, fine. That's a legitimate topic too, just not the one we've been talking about. One is a matter of personal investment strategy, the other is a matter of national monetary policy.
I do find it ironic though that you are quoting an article by Greenspan that argues we should trust in certificates. Backed by gold, sure, but still certificates. In other posts you have said this is a *bad* thing.
So I am wondering why you cite Greenspan as an authority when he is arguing for something you explicitly disagree with.
Back to top

1




