So they wave headline figures of "£5bn/£7bn/$9bn loss" around when that doesn't allow for the money made on the stuff bought with the gold money and the current value of those assets (if we've still got them) or the profits made when they were sold. Which could reduce the loss substantially. May even be a profit (I very much doubt it). Who knows? As neither article bothered to explore this angle, it makes me extremely suspicious that they're not so much aiming to inform me of the true picture as coming at the whole issue with a massive axe to grind and spinning the stats to suit.
From the BBC article:
The $3.5bn of revenue raised in the sales was invested in interest-bearing assets denominated in dollars, euros and yen to the extent of 40%, 40% and 20% respectively. So to calculate the true net loss to the taxpayer, I would have to adjust for the yield on these assets and movements in the value of those currencies. And I don’t have enough information on precisely what was bought and when to make that calculation. It is probable, however, that the effective net loss on Gordon Brown’s great gold sale would be a bit less than $9bn – but it would still be a very significant loss.
Sterling has lost 25% against the Euro and Yen since those investments were made, about the same against the Dollar.
The only reason they can't give the exact figures is because the Treasury have refused to release the relevant information. I wonder why that is? We should hear more soon though as they have to release it before the end of the month or they'll be in contempt of court.
