With the gold price hitting new nominal highs I thought it was a good moment to remind ourselves about the consequences of Gordon Brown’s sale of much of the UK’s gold reserves.
In 1999-2002 he sold 395 metric tons of gold at an average price of $275 an ounce. Today the price stands at $1749 an ounce. No wonder Brown’s sale on the gold price charts is known as The Brown Bottom. He also gave notice to the market that the sales would take place, thereby giving market participants every opportunity to drive the price down in advance.
Here are my calculations of the value which would have accrued if we still held the gold today:
|
Sold then
|
Value now
|
|
|
99 - 02
|
2011
|
|
| Quantity sold tons |
395
|
395
|
| Average price $/oz |
$275
|
$1,700
|
| Sum realised US$m |
$3,477
|
$21,492
|
| Exchange rate avge. |
$1.52
|
$1.63
|
| Sum realised £m |
£2,287
|
£13,185
|
The 2012 Olympics are estimated to cost some £9billion, so we could have paid for the Olympics with the amount of value he surrendered and had over £2billion in change left.
As of December 2010, estimated gold reserves were as follows:
| US |
8,133 tons
|
| Germany |
3,401 tons
|
| Italy |
2,452 tons
|
| France |
2,435 tons
|
| UK |
315 tons
|
The impact of the man’s stupidity is breathtaking.


Sometimes I feel like this blog spends too much time raking up the past - I think everyone knows Brown made a mistake selling our gold reserves by now.
Posted by: James Hunter-Jones | 10 August 2011 at 11:24 AM
Gordon's disciples, Ed Balls, Ed Milliband and Yvette Cooper still "don't get it".
Their rage against the cuts fails to realise we are still spending more than we earn.
A state that rewards indolence and failure through an unaffordable welfare system and allows a self perpetutaing elite to swap jobs, sinecures, EU roles and unfunded, unaffordable gold plated pensions whilst the country continues to inexorably decline is in serious trouble.
Posted by: Paul Canal | 10 August 2011 at 11:36 AM
Terry,
I guess it is always easy to make this kind of comment looking back and having all the data in hands.
Did you ever write an article at the time advising against this move?
What I find surprising is that Gordon sold more than 1/2 the UK reserve of gold. That's a bold move (but unfortunately was a bad one as well).
Posted by: Patrice | 10 August 2011 at 01:05 PM
I'm more inclined to think that it was more an ideological, rather than a bold move.
Posted by: Prohyp | 10 August 2011 at 01:50 PM
Go on Terry, keep reminding us of Gordon Brown's arrogance and complete lack of a business brain. He deserves no less for the mess he's left us in.
William McCracken
Posted by: WILLIAM MCCRACKEN, 2 THE LIMES, LONG ITCHINGTON CV47 9PG | 10 August 2011 at 02:10 PM
To James Hunter-Jones
The reason I sometimes focus on the past is because as someone once said "Those who do not study history are condemned to re-live it". In this instance we need to use events like the new gold price high to remind ourselves what damage Brown and his acolytes did to the UK. After all, some of them like Eb Balls are trying to get back into power and change the UK's policy on debt reduction, so we could have a repeat performance.
Posted by: Terry Smith | 10 August 2011 at 02:18 PM
To Patrice:
I did better than that - I bought some of the gold he was selling. Actions speak louder than words. Brown's mistake was clear at the time and the manner in which he allowed the sales to be executed compounded the fundamental error. You don't see the smarter central banks who have been accumulating gold announce their purchases in advance do you?
Posted by: Terry Smith | 10 August 2011 at 02:21 PM
I love that reply to Patrice.
If I would have had some spare cash at the time, I would have done the same, on the basis that Brown was so inept that if he was selling, I would be buying.
Posted by: James | 10 August 2011 at 03:48 PM
I say Terry Smith for Prime Minister! The UK's only hope.
Posted by: john | 13 August 2011 at 10:25 AM
Read the Treasury's own assesment for yourself and make up your own mind. This wasn't a political move, it was diversification to reduce exposure to a single asset.
http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/d/GoldReserves.PDF
Sounds like a fair strategy to me.
Posted by: Greg | 19 August 2011 at 05:51 PM
The most alarming part of the saga is the fact that the proposed sale was made public, a fact that I hadn't realised. Ed Balls and Co again? I don't think so.
Posted by: Mike Muir | 25 August 2011 at 04:10 PM