interestrateripoff

The Bank Of England Clueless Thread

2,680 posts in this topic

Most interesting point made so far IMO - Martin Taylor of the FPC:

"It will be difficult to say what risks occur out of Brexit as opposed to what might have happened anyway".

He knows something is afoot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/01/2017 at 3:03 PM, billybong said:

Indeed - he's played a massive and likely an overwhelming role in that although it's also fair to say that the bankers and politicians and some would also say the corporate sector have played a role in that as well.  They each should take due blame.

It's easier to hang one man and make an example out of him. 

 

So, pick a scapegoat.

 

QE/Low IRs/Unregulated banking sector should not be allowed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Noallegiance said:

Most interesting point made so far IMO - Martin Taylor of the FPC:

"It will be difficult to say what risks occur out of Brexit as opposed to what might have happened anyway".

He knows something is afoot.

The london housing bubble collapse has been apparent for some time. I dont any amount of QE can save it when local wages are where they are

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Noallegiance said:

You mean........ Surely not....... Less than 3 months after headlines proclaiming Carnage as the saviour of Britain he's going to get butt-fooked on live tellybox as scapegoat numero uno?!

I'd still go with the public hanging in order to focus the mind of future central bankers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is housing market sustainable, with prices relative to income back to levels seen in 2008?

Alex Brazier: That rise in level in house prices relative to income has not, as it did in 2008, meant a rise in household debt. It’s not house prices per se, it’s the level of household debt, and [that] shows a completely different picture.

What kind of ****** is that ? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Nabby81 said:

Is housing market sustainable, with prices relative to income back to levels seen in 2008?

Alex Brazier: That rise in level in house prices relative to income has not, as it did in 2008, meant a rise in household debt. It’s not house prices per se, it’s the level of household debt, and [that] shows a completely different picture.

What kind of ****** is that ? 

Bank governor Mark Carney warns on household debt

"We are going to remain vigilant around the issue, because we have seen this shift," he told a press conference at the Bank.

The Bank's Stability Report showed that the overall ratio of household debt to income was 133% in the second quarter of 2016.

The Bank said that was high by historical standards, although it was not as high as in the financial crisis.

http://www.bbc.com/news/business-38155178

The indicator that led to his vigilance warning now touted as the reason not to worry.

Tl;dr of today's hearing: credit is not at crisis levels, banks are able to withstand any shocks, no powers or actions required to contain any issues. Not a single MP is competent enough to challenge these absurd claims. Nobody mentions impact of QE and related measures.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Nabby81 said:

Is housing market sustainable, with prices relative to income back to levels seen in 2008?

Alex Brazier: That rise in level in house prices relative to income has not, as it did in 2008, meant a rise in household debt. It’s not house prices per se, it’s the level of household debt, and [that] shows a completely different picture.

What kind of ****** is that ? 

***** 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've watched the whole thing this afternoon. I have drawn two conclusions.

1. The title for this thread is apt, but only when thinking of it from the point of view of main street. Which leads me onto.......

2. In every assessment made by the BoE, the man in the street is not their concern. Every answer given today was weighted toward protecting the institutions within the financial system. This may be a manifestation of the realisation that the UK financial sector is so vast that a catastrophic failure within it would be hugely detrimental to everyone on our shores, but it means that the impacts of the current system on Mr & Mrs Britain do not feature within their policy making strategies.

Disjointed. And perhaps akin to a football club ignoring it's fans in respect of why they exist in the first place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, darkmarket said:

Bank governor Mark Carney warns on household debt

"We are going to remain vigilant around the issue, because we have seen this shift," he told a press conference at the Bank.

The Bank's Stability Report showed that the overall ratio of household debt to income was 133% in the second quarter of 2016.

The Bank said that was high by historical standards, although it was not as high as in the financial crisis.

http://www.bbc.com/news/business-38155178

The indicator that led to his vigilance warning now touted as the reason not to worry.

Tl;dr of today's hearing: credit is not at crisis levels, banks are able to withstand any shocks, no powers or actions required to contain any issues. Not a single MP is competent enough to challenge these absurd claims. Nobody mentions impact of QE and related measures.

C159IC8XUAEazAZ.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Nabby81 said:

Is housing market sustainable, with prices relative to income back to levels seen in 2008?

Alex Brazier: That rise in level in house prices relative to income has not, as it did in 2008, meant a rise in household debt. It’s not house prices per se, it’s the level of household debt, and [that] shows a completely different picture.

What kind of ****** is that ? 

We're saved!

image006.png

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Noallegiance said:

I've watched the whole thing this afternoon. I have drawn two conclusions.

1. The title for this thread is apt, but only when thinking of it from the point of view of main street. Which leads me onto.......

2. In every assessment made by the BoE, the man in the street is not their concern. Every answer given today was weighted toward protecting the institutions within the financial system. This may be a manifestation of the realisation that the UK financial sector is so vast that a catastrophic failure within it would be hugely detrimental to everyone THE PEOPLE PULLING THEIR STRINGS on our shores, but it means that the impacts of the current system on Mr & Mrs Britain do not feature within their policy making strategies.

Disjointed. And perhaps akin to a football club ignoring it's fans in respect of why they exist in the first place.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, Noallegiance said:

I've watched the whole thing this afternoon. I have drawn two conclusions.

1. The title for this thread is apt, but only when thinking of it from the point of view of main street. Which leads me onto.......

2. In every assessment made by the BoE, the man in the street is not their concern. Every answer given today was weighted toward protecting the institutions within the financial system. This may be a manifestation of the realisation that the UK financial sector is so vast that a catastrophic failure within it would be hugely detrimental to everyone on our shores, but it means that the impacts of the current system on Mr & Mrs Britain do not feature within their policy making strategies.

Disjointed. And perhaps akin to a football club ignoring it's fans in respect of why they exist in the first place.

My highlight.

It's endemic now - and why it's not worth supporting any more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, darkmarket said:

I'd like it if this inquiry was fairly narrowly focussed to be honest, and issues like inflation measurement were dealt with in parallel. I'd like to see a conclusion that the BoE has been acting in direct contradiction of its remit, but that'll remain a nice dream. Nevertheless, it's all a move in the right direction.

Fair enough and no doubt there could be advantages doing it that way - although my view is that their thinking is so disjointed (probably intentionally so) that unless they consider it all holistically then they will never come to a joined up conclusion that benefits the economy/the real economy.

They'll never see the linkages - again probably intentionally.  Those that do see the overall picture will exploit the stupid MPs (maybe the majority?) don't.

Edited by billybong

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, billybong said:

Fair enough and no doubt there could be advantages doing it that way - although my view is that their thinking is so disjointed (probably intentionally so) that unless they consider it all holistically then they will never come to a joined up conclusion that benefits the econy/the real economy.

They'll never see the linkages - again probably intentionally.  Those that do see the overall picture will exploit the stupid MPs (maybe the majprity?) who don't.

This is the trade-off. My concern would be that terms of reference set too wide can create insurmountable problems for an inquiry, as seen in that into historical child abuse for example. The hope would be that a more narrowly-focussed inquiry could then be fed into a more overarching view of the situation, but that leads to problems you describe.

1 hour ago, Noallegiance said:

2. In every assessment made by the BoE, the man in the street is not their concern. Every answer given today was weighted toward protecting the institutions within the financial system. This may be a manifestation of the realisation that the UK financial sector is so vast that a catastrophic failure within it would be hugely detrimental to everyone on our shores, but it means that the impacts of the current system on Mr & Mrs Britain do not feature within their policy making strategies.

Given the subject of the hearing was BoE Financial Stability Reports 2016 and the focus of the witnesses of macroeconomic matters, this isn't altogether surprising. The MPs present have a responsibility to translate the responses into something meaningful for the electorate, which they are incapable or unwilling to do.

If you're angry about the lack of attention to the consequences of their actions on average people, I'd considering directing that towards the elected representatives who are supposed to be able to bridge the macroeconomy with lived experience. For the most part, I'd say they're incompetent. In certain instances, like Rees-Mogg for example, they appear to just not care.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BoE's Carney - curbing consumer lending would be 'big call'

LONDON Bank of England Governor Mark Carney said it would be a "big call" for the central bank to rein in rapid growth in consumer lending, which picked up strongly last year and brought some echoes of the period before the global financial crisis.

 

We can't stop people spending money they don't have...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, interestrateripoff said:

Virtually every "forecast" he has made has been so wrong there can be no confidence that he's right this time - except maybe on some sort of stopped watch principle - an if at first you don't succeed ....principle.  Maybe he's trying to blight good news by the latest forecast.

If there ever is another referendum it'll be the best laugh ever to hear his "forecasts" then.  How he stays in the job is just one of those great mysteries.

Edited by billybong

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, billybong said:

 

If there ever is another referendum it'll be the best laugh ever to hear his "forecasts" then.  How he stays in the job is just one of those great mysteries.

I think it's a poisoned chalice. Anyone who wants the boe governer job must be ruled out for stupidity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, interestrateripoff said:

BoE's Carney - curbing consumer lending would be 'big call'

LONDON Bank of England Governor Mark Carney said it would be a "big call" for the central bank to rein in rapid growth in consumer lending, which picked up strongly last year and brought some echoes of the period before the global financial crisis.

 

We can't stop people spending money they don't have...

It's interesting that there are "echoes of the period before the global financial crisis" but he's still focusing on the the things that they focused on then - the things that didn't reveal the approaching crisis.  It's not as if he's coming out with reports about investigating say hidden areas of possible banking fraud or other more hidden macro issues like those that led to the "unexpected" global financial crisis - and at this stage they are very likely to be developing in the background and becoming more obvious.  Like the possible crisis became pretty obvious to those portrayed in the movie "The Big Short" - despite the central banks not noticing a thing.

He/the BoE  might as well not bother.

Edited by billybong

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Si1 said:

I think it's a poisoned chalice. Anyone who wants the boe governer job must be ruled out for stupidity.

The way he repeatedly undermined Haldane today suggests he's very aware of one person stupid enough, and spending more time thinking about keeping his poisoned chalice than any "big call" like, say, working towards financial stability.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.