Gordon Brown's 10 worst financial gaffes

[ypauly]

jshell said:

AshVX220 said:

Do we know why he sold the Gold? Was it used to fund anything particular or just to inflate the government wallet?

I thought it was to finally settle the the debts we had with the US over WWII...

IIRC it was to put £42 Billion extra into the NHS, It would buy the required equipment and cut waiting lists.

What really happened is the the trusts bought statues,paintings and big fountains with balls that spin around for the main reception area. Waiting lists still there in fact the stats are now just fudged to the point nobody knows the true extent of the problems. try booking an appointment with your doctor 2 or 3 days in advance, you have no chance because if they can't give you an appointment within 24 hrs they don't get the extra money. so will tell you to call back on the day you want to go (and will probably then not have an appointment)

[TonyToniTone]

within months Brown and his aides had decided to offload more than half the country’s gold reserves and reinvest the money in dollars, euros and yen.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/art...

[skwdenyer]

AshVX220 said:

Do we know why he sold the Gold? Was it used to fund anything particular or just to inflate the government wallet?

We know what he did with the money; we don't necessarily know why he did it. There was a suggestion that major (London-based) gold market-makers had got themselves into an enormous pickle by shorting gold heavily only for the price to fail to fall. Since that gold was all borrowed, there would have been hell to pay come settlement time. By announcing a huge gold sale, Brown could single-handedly move the market very quickly downwards, thus allowing the companies concerned to unwind their positions without default and, hence, without destroying the position of those London-based traders. Whether there is truth in this or not I don't know.

[NoelWatson]

Menguin said:

NoelWatson said:

TonyToniTone said:

NoelWatson said:

Does this magic index look into the future and determine that it was indeed the low point?

And can you confirm that it was the all time low please - Bloomberg doesn't show me this

The index along with other events would have stopped me dead in my tracks from selling half the UK's gold reserve at a 20 year low.

All time means up until the current point on the index - please dont tell me you pay for Bloomberg and dont know this.

But it wasn't an all time low, that is my point. Furthermore, how do you know that the price in 1999 was twice what it was going to be in 2009? There appears to be some people that are able to travel into the future on here.

Are you purposely being obtuse? How do you determine the price of anything? By comparing it to past prices. If it has never been lower in real terms then it is an all time low. I don't think the phrase relates to all of time past present and future. Brown sold when it was at a much lower point than it had been, where it had been decreasing for a number of years. Gold is a finite resource, so the price is bound to go up at some point.

I think I must be dumb. You have found a way to make a guaranteed profit from the market. I don't have that ability.

[Menguin]

NoelWatson said:

Menguin said:

NoelWatson said:

TonyToniTone said:

NoelWatson said:

Does this magic index look into the future and determine that it was indeed the low point?

And can you confirm that it was the all time low please - Bloomberg doesn't show me this

The index along with other events would have stopped me dead in my tracks from selling half the UK's gold reserve at a 20 year low.

All time means up until the current point on the index - please dont tell me you pay for Bloomberg and dont know this.

But it wasn't an all time low, that is my point. Furthermore, how do you know that the price in 1999 was twice what it was going to be in 2009? There appears to be some people that are able to travel into the future on here.

Are you purposely being obtuse? How do you determine the price of anything? By comparing it to past prices. If it has never been lower in real terms then it is an all time low. I don't think the phrase relates to all of time past present and future. Brown sold when it was at a much lower point than it had been, where it had been decreasing for a number of years. Gold is a finite resource, so the price is bound to go up at some point.

I think I must be dumb. You have found a way to make a guaranteed profit from the market. I don't have that ability.

Guaranteed profit from market: Sleep with the farmer.

[Eric Mc]

Menguin said:

NoelWatson said:

Menguin said:

NoelWatson said:

TonyToniTone said:

NoelWatson said:

Does this magic index look into the future and determine that it was indeed the low point?

And can you confirm that it was the all time low please - Bloomberg doesn't show me this

The index along with other events would have stopped me dead in my tracks from selling half the UK's gold reserve at a 20 year low.

All time means up until the current point on the index - please dont tell me you pay for Bloomberg and dont know this.

But it wasn't an all time low, that is my point. Furthermore, how do you know that the price in 1999 was twice what it was going to be in 2009? There appears to be some people that are able to travel into the future on here.

Are you purposely being obtuse? How do you determine the price of anything? By comparing it to past prices. If it has never been lower in real terms then it is an all time low. I don't think the phrase relates to all of time past present and future. Brown sold when it was at a much lower point than it had been, where it had been decreasing for a number of years. Gold is a finite resource, so the price is bound to go up at some point.

I think I must be dumb. You have found a way to make a guaranteed profit from the market. I don't have that ability.

Guaranteed profit from market: Sleep with the farmer.

Insider Trading of the worst possible kind.

[Menguin]

Eric Mc said:

Menguin said:

NoelWatson said:

Menguin said:

NoelWatson said:

TonyToniTone said:

NoelWatson said:

Does this magic index look into the future and determine that it was indeed the low point?

And can you confirm that it was the all time low please - Bloomberg doesn't show me this

The index along with other events would have stopped me dead in my tracks from selling half the UK's gold reserve at a 20 year low.

All time means up until the current point on the index - please dont tell me you pay for Bloomberg and dont know this.

But it wasn't an all time low, that is my point. Furthermore, how do you know that the price in 1999 was twice what it was going to be in 2009? There appears to be some people that are able to travel into the future on here.

Are you purposely being obtuse? How do you determine the price of anything? By comparing it to past prices. If it has never been lower in real terms then it is an all time low. I don't think the phrase relates to all of time past present and future. Brown sold when it was at a much lower point than it had been, where it had been decreasing for a number of years. Gold is a finite resource, so the price is bound to go up at some point.

I think I must be dumb. You have found a way to make a guaranteed profit from the market. I don't have that ability.

Guaranteed profit from market: Sleep with the farmer.

Insider Trading of the worst possible kind.

One of the Devonshire sayings:
"If you want cheap sheep, you know where to sleep"

[dangerousB]

NoelWatson said:

dangerousB said:

NoelWatson said:

So you are proposing that there is a guaranteed way to make money, using a combination of futures prices, from the gold markets?

Not just gold markets.
Guaranteed is a strong word, but my bro' trades futures and does exactly (for the sake of brevity) what you're alluding to. It's not quite as straightforward as "using a combination of futures prices" to dictate trades, but strategically aligned to that.
And, I may add, he does extremely well at it, so even to a non trader like me, it's evident that he's right a great deal more than he's wrong.
Wish the same could be said about Brown!!!

Are futures not a zero sum game?

Edited by NoelWatson on Tuesday 11th August 19:17

Fundamentally yes. But how do you play the game?
Lick your finger and stick it in the air? Rely on sentiment or gut instinct? Bow to political or peer pressure? Ask yourself every morning how lucky/visionary you think you are today?
Or would your rather assimilate Tb's of historical and live market data, run Monte Carlo simulations over significant periods and develop artificially intelligent algo trading strategies based upon your statistically significant results?
Know what I'd choose. I would have thought that someone with GB's resources (no pun intended) would have been able to do a little more than one of the former with respect to his gold sale.
Run his "sale" question through the scientific method and you would have got a 2 word answer.
"st idea".
But of course, that doesn't sit well with one that ignores good advice, eh?

[NoelWatson]

dangerousB said:

NoelWatson said:

dangerousB said:

NoelWatson said:

So you are proposing that there is a guaranteed way to make money, using a combination of futures prices, from the gold markets?

Not just gold markets.
Guaranteed is a strong word, but my bro' trades futures and does exactly (for the sake of brevity) what you're alluding to. It's not quite as straightforward as "using a combination of futures prices" to dictate trades, but strategically aligned to that.
And, I may add, he does extremely well at it, so even to a non trader like me, it's evident that he's right a great deal more than he's wrong.
Wish the same could be said about Brown!!!

Are futures not a zero sum game?

Edited by NoelWatson on Tuesday 11th August 19:17

Fundamentally yes. But how do you play the game?
Lick your finger and stick it in the air? Rely on sentiment or gut instinct? Bow to political or peer pressure? Ask yourself every morning how lucky/visionary you think you are today?
Or would your rather assimilate Tb's of historical and live market data, run Monte Carlo simulations over significant periods and develop artificially intelligent algo trading strategies based upon your statistically significant results?
Know what I'd choose. I would have thought that someone with GB's resources (no pun intended) would have been able to do a little more than one of the former with respect to his gold sale.
Run his "sale" question through the scientific method and you would have got a 2 word answer.
"st idea".
But of course, that doesn't sit well with one that ignores good advice, eh?

I would like to see the difference in return between sticking my finger in the air and Monte Carlo analysis etc. I'm not convinced that there is anything in it. Otherwise you are suggesting there are low hanging fruit arbitrages, and this would surprise me in a market such as this that I understand is relatively efficient (unlike credit, which is where I work)

[Zod]

Remember how Brown was proclaiming that other European countries, France and Germany in particular, needed to follow his lead to beat the recession? Well, they went their own way and guess what: France and Germany experienced growth in Q2, whereas the UK, led by the Greatest Economic Genius in the History of the World (TM) (even greater than Kim Jong-Il), experienced further contraction.

The man and all of his acolytes are inflicting more damage on the country every day they remain in power.

[Asterix]

TVR Moneypit said:

FourWheelDrift said:

Timesonline said:

It is forecast that total government debt will double to 79 per cent of GDP by 2013

By James Charles

Written in June but not posted on here.

WTF? How is it possable to fk up so comprehensivly unless you are doing it on purpose?

Who says he's not doing it on purpose?

[oyster]

Dare2Fail said:

fadeaway said:

Then there's the fact it was just 2.5%. Companies are discounting by 20% - 50%. 2.5 is neither here nor there.

I don't think it made any difference at all, and has just left us with even more debt to pay off in the future.

Exactly. 2.5% is absolutely bugger all. Take a really expensive purchase like a TV for £1000. Are you telling me that someone would buy the TV now that it 'only' costs £975 instead of it's original price of £1000.

2.5% was never going to stimulate the market and was never going to result in a noticeable difference to the nations wallets and purses.

Talk about utterly failing to read my point - both of you.

I'm saying that the benefit wasn't for consumers (even though that was its original target), but the benefit was really for retailers.

[dangerousB]

NoelWatson said:

dangerousB said:

NoelWatson said:

dangerousB said:

NoelWatson said:

So you are proposing that there is a guaranteed way to make money, using a combination of futures prices, from the gold markets?

Not just gold markets.
Guaranteed is a strong word, but my bro' trades futures and does exactly (for the sake of brevity) what you're alluding to. It's not quite as straightforward as "using a combination of futures prices" to dictate trades, but strategically aligned to that.
And, I may add, he does extremely well at it, so even to a non trader like me, it's evident that he's right a great deal more than he's wrong.
Wish the same could be said about Brown!!!

Are futures not a zero sum game?

Edited by NoelWatson on Tuesday 11th August 19:17

Fundamentally yes. But how do you play the game?
Lick your finger and stick it in the air? Rely on sentiment or gut instinct? Bow to political or peer pressure? Ask yourself every morning how lucky/visionary you think you are today?
Or would your rather assimilate Tb's of historical and live market data, run Monte Carlo simulations over significant periods and develop artificially intelligent algo trading strategies based upon your statistically significant results?
Know what I'd choose. I would have thought that someone with GB's resources (no pun intended) would have been able to do a little more than one of the former with respect to his gold sale.
Run his "sale" question through the scientific method and you would have got a 2 word answer.
"st idea".
But of course, that doesn't sit well with one that ignores good advice, eh?

I would like to see the difference in return between sticking my finger in the air and Monte Carlo analysis etc. I'm not convinced that there is anything in it. Otherwise you are suggesting there are low hanging fruit arbitrages, and this would surprise me in a market such as this that I understand is relatively efficient (unlike credit, which is where I work)

Well I'm not here to convince you, but if you were to speak to my bruv he could precisely quantify the difference.
To use your analogy, if an arbitrage were "low hanging" you wouldn't have to be particular clever to take advantage. There are others too. Some of them are simply out of reach of those that just stretch their arms out.
Besides and as he'd no doubt say, when the tide goes out it's nice to be reliant on more than just a pair of speedo's

[Zod]

oyster said:

Dare2Fail said:

fadeaway said:

Then there's the fact it was just 2.5%. Companies are discounting by 20% - 50%. 2.5 is neither here nor there.

I don't think it made any difference at all, and has just left us with even more debt to pay off in the future.

Exactly. 2.5% is absolutely bugger all. Take a really expensive purchase like a TV for £1000. Are you telling me that someone would buy the TV now that it 'only' costs £975 instead of it's original price of £1000.

2.5% was never going to stimulate the market and was never going to result in a noticeable difference to the nations wallets and purses.

Talk about utterly failing to read my point - both of you.

I'm saying that the benefit wasn't for consumers (even though that was its original target), but the benefit was really for retailers.

It wasn't. I sat with the CFO of a major retailer (big store in every town) recently to go through their financials and his view was that the effect was overall neutral so far and that the restoration of the higher rate would have a negative effect. He would have preferred the government not to have done this.

[oyster]

Zod said:

oyster said:

Dare2Fail said:

fadeaway said:

Then there's the fact it was just 2.5%. Companies are discounting by 20% - 50%. 2.5 is neither here nor there.

I don't think it made any difference at all, and has just left us with even more debt to pay off in the future.

Exactly. 2.5% is absolutely bugger all. Take a really expensive purchase like a TV for £1000. Are you telling me that someone would buy the TV now that it 'only' costs £975 instead of it's original price of £1000.

2.5% was never going to stimulate the market and was never going to result in a noticeable difference to the nations wallets and purses.

Talk about utterly failing to read my point - both of you.

I'm saying that the benefit wasn't for consumers (even though that was its original target), but the benefit was really for retailers.

It wasn't. I sat with the CFO of a major retailer (big store in every town) recently to go through their financials and his view was that the effect was overall neutral so far and that the restoration of the higher rate would have a negative effect. He would have preferred the government not to have done this.

Very dependent on which retailer that is.
The likes of M&S who made till system changes and then discounted the VAT from day 1 will obviously lose out.
Many fashion chains didn't bother changing till prices as the items are usually pre-priced. They will have made a gain.
Grocery retailers would have a mixed view as large amounts of lines are VAT zero-rated anyway.

[JonRB]

oyster said:

The likes of M&S who made till system changes and then discounted the VAT from day 1 will obviously lose out.

Sorry, what? You do know how VAT works don't you? It is a tax that a retailer collects for HMRC and holds on to for up to 3 months and then passes over to HMRC, deducting VAT that it has paid to other companies so that it isn't collected twice.

Why on earth would a change in VAT rate more greatly affect a company when they have not had to spend out on changing their stickered prices and just refund it at the till? If anything they will have suffered far less than a company who went round repricing everything.

Edited by JonRB on Thursday 13th August 14:53