Gordon Brown: I made a big mistake on banks

Radiantsoul

Critically, for banks it now gives relatively poor returns and several have been selling off their reserves, including the Australians, Belgians, Dutch and even the Swiss.
The International Monetary Fund is to consider selling off some of its gold to help fund debt relief for poorer countries.
The significance of Switzerland is that its 2,600 tonnes of gold are the third-biggest reserve of holdings in the world, after the US and the eurozone area.

Over the last 20 years bonds and shares have given better returns and many banks and finance institutions are now replacing gold with better yielding investments.
The value of gold has failed to keep pace with inflation, it has underperformed shares and bonds and has been expensive to store.

Banks, like everyone else, are under pressure to improve the returns on their reserves. The European Central Bank has decided to hold only 15% of its reserves in gold, well below the 30% average of most of the countries in the eurozone.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/337685.stm from 1999

WISHIWASRICH_2

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Errr. That happened under labour.

Since the coalition have been in power, it hasn't been anywhere near the low that it was under labour.

Not that it has much to do with the party that's in power anyway.

"Purchasing Power" refers to inflation not devaluation you divy ......

WISHIWASRICH_2

stueyhants wrote: »

And giving our export sector a chance to help re-balance the economy, shame on the Coalition.

Ditto - you are also a divy


I recommend you both read this

Graham_Devon

WISHIWASRICH wrote: »

"Purchasing Power" refers to inflation not devaluation you divy ......

Well if you mean inflation, you should have said so.

However, thats got absolutely nothing to do with the coalition. It's imported inflation. All countries are suffering with it.

tomterm8

Why do the comments from Gordon Brown merit any discussion at all? The British public got rid of him at their first opportunity. He isn't even as credible as John Major.

Thrugelmir

Butterfly_Brain wrote: »

At least he has the balls to admit it.

While in the USA, where the comment wouldn't be questioned.

[Deleted User]

Thrugelmir wrote: »

The issue wasn't the quantity of regulation but the effectiveness of the regulation and the understanding of the risks the banks were taking.

The banks lobbied to have regulation reduced. Remember all that talk about a light touch etc. The banks have also employed people to help avoid existing regulatory rules.

You answer carries with it the the assumption that the banks will get away with whatever they can and need more stringent regulation. I agree with that.

ILW

What he means is that in general, bankers are cleverer than him.

[Deleted User]

ILW wrote: »

What he means is that in general, bankers are cleverer than him.

I don't think much intelligence is required to fail as comprehensively as the bankers did.

pqrdef

Butterfly_Brain wrote: »

At least he has the balls to admit it.

I don't think Balls is admitting anything.