Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

VedantaTrader

Members
  • Posts

    1,108
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by VedantaTrader

  1. You are kind of agreeing with my thoughts in a way. Would they save? I don't know, that is up to the individual, its not my problem if they don't, I can't interfere with anothers life, I have no right....So because they didnt save, then you are saying that the people who did save and prepare, work hard and didnt spend money on frivilous credit card transactions in Next, Tesco, Cars, over priced property, should now pay their retirement savings for the imprudent? Doesn't seem fair. If people didnt save, then that is their problem, no one elses. If someone earned money and had a chance to save but didnt, then you excuse them by forcing others to pay without choice? Doesnt sound fair to me. Who creates rampant inflation? Is it not government? Inflation is not price rises, this is a symptom, inflation is the increase in the supply of money and credit...who allows inflation? Why not have stable prices as in a free market. Since 1945, in gold terms the price of oil has fluctated between between 1 gram and four grams per barrel. In the same time Oil has fluctuated between 1 USD and 147 USD. Stable prices should allow a fluctuation of between 1 and 4 USD, as gold has. Is government not the source of this inflation you allude to? If people cannot take responsibility for their own actions and save, then why penalise everyone? Governments are totally misguided and are the source of many of society problems...I m prepared to underwrite the other side Darling and Browns trade...This out of control spending will spell disaster down the road for the UK, mark my words...I have been building up a short in sterling in the last couple months...The UK released the budget deficit for July...another £8 billion on the UK credit card... Look what happened to sterling in the moments after that news... GBP/JPY Governments will cost us all so much money. What happens when they stop buying UK bonds? All these actions are taken by bureaucrats...A free market would not be a utopia, but it would be less costly than what we have, and it would be more fair to the producers of wealth, the people who create employment. Remember it is government actions in the past that leads to high unemployment,,,they will make matters worse. How? Governments have created huge regulations within the insurance industryy they are responsible for 2 thirds of the spending, so of course the biggest buyer will influence prices. The FDA is a government body...they create huge barriers that influence cost... Medicaid is for people under 65 by the way also....as for malpractise and sue for everything culture, Ron Paul recommended this plan...The problem from sources I have read are that there is a shortage of doctors due to the expensive costs of getting set, caused by government regulation. If more doctors could practise more easily even on a part time basis, an increasing supply of doctors would lower wages.... HR 3076 is specifically designed to address the medical malpractice crisis that threatens to drive thousands of American doctors – especially obstetricians – out of business. The bill provides a dollar-for-dollar tax credit that permits consumers to purchase "negative outcomes" insurance prior to undergoing surgery or other serious medical treatments. Negative outcomes insurance is a novel approach that guarantees those harmed receive fair compensation, while reducing the burden of costly malpractice litigation on the health care system. Patients receive this insurance payout without having to endure lengthy lawsuits, and without having to give away a large portion of their award to a trial lawyer. This also drastically reduces the costs imposed on physicians and hospitals by malpractice litigation. Under HR 3076, individuals can purchase negative outcomes insurance at essentially no cost. Here is an interesting point also, which I d like to see how you justify blaming insurers...The five biggest US health insurers insure 105 million Americans. They made profits between them of 11.8 billion USD last year. This profit was only 0.5% of total health care costs for the year of 2.3 trillion USD...How can this be explained. You mentioned the drug companies also...are the FDA not a huge part of the burden on US drug companies. A friend is phd student for a drug company. It can 20 years from research level to commercial use for a drug and billions of pounds of R+D... If government didnt over regulate, we would have more competition so individuals would vote with their feet and be as open to abuse in the private sector. Governments allow monopolys. By the way dont take this personally, I m usre you are not, it is only a debate after all...I think we have managed to agree on zero out of ten topics so far
  2. Yes, but my point is that welfare makes people dependent, less willing to accept personal responsibility, less willing to help themselves, less productive, more willing to take and less willing to give. It is up to the individual. If we had less burdens on taxpayers, less artificially distorted money markets, stable prices, no central banks then my point is that the safety nets would not need to be so obesely large as they are today. If people in their twenties knew they had to prepare for their retirement and would not be given will-nilly handouts all their life, and thr government did not tax all the elements that allow people to save for the future, then we would not need the safety nets. Pensions, savings, income, disposable income all effect how people can prepare for the future with savings. However, government intervention penalises people who want to do this... 1). Pensions are taxed. (related to retirement) 2) Savings are taxed (related to retirement) 3)Private property is taxed. (related to retirement for many) 4)Income is heavily taxed. (effects disposable income) 5) Central control/government control of the money supply constantly pushes up prices, they make house prices more expensive, they don't allow recessions to clean out the system, and allow people to save...disposable income is much less now than even 10 years ago, 2 years ago. How can a centrally planned economy know what the right amount of money is in a society? How can they determine what peoples time preferences are for saving and spending? It has been shown they cannot. 6)Capital Gains are taxed (related to retirement and future savings) 7) Inheritance is taxed. 8) Inflation tax So are you saying that people could not save more easily without all of the above. We need huge safety nets because of the above not despite it. Since the 1960's US healthcare costs have risen much more than general prices. It was in the 1960's that the US government got involved with Medicare and Medicaid. 60% of the US healthcare is under US government social security...So how can you put a freemarket tag on something that is not a free market. Healthcare 1960's until today IS it pure coincidence that healthcare costs started to rise exponentially since government got involved in 1965? A push for universal health insurance is on the agenda at next week's Southwest Conference on Healthcare Reform at ASU. Since health care policy in the U.S. has been moving that direction for years, maybe we should stop to ask "the Dr. Phil question": How's that workin' for ya? In 1960, 5 percent of the U.S. economy was devoted to health care; today, that figure is 16 percent. In 1960, 24 percent of health care costs were paid by government and 21 percent were paid by insurance; today, those figures are 46 percent and 34 percent respectively. In 1960, 47 percent of all health care costs were paid directly by consumers. Today, consumers pay only 12 percent. If you've covered the bar tab for a party, you know people spend most responsibly when they pay for themselves. When people don't pay their own bill, money is no object. This is exactly what has happened in health care. This graph makes the point: As less of the nation's health bill is paid by patients, health prices have risen geometrically compared to general prices. If medical prices had only risen with general prices since 1960, just over 7 percent of our economy would be devoted to health care today. As this country debates how best to ensure access to affordable health care, data makes one thing clear; we need more personal responsibility for health care costs, not less. The alternative is for people to take care of themselves with the money they earn and spend...to live within their means, to have the rate of interest set by the aggregate of peoples time preference for the demand of money...Interest rates should rise and fall with the aggregate of peoples time preference for spending and saving. Now we have centrally planned money supply who don't know the right quantity. The problem in a centrally planned economy is that resouces and individual supply and demand forces within these resources can be most efficiently allocated and used by a free market. In communist supermarkets, there was either a glut of toilet paper and not enough toothpaste or vice versa...A fantastic story which conveys how a free market allocates resources better than any other method is "I, Pencil" a 17 page essay written from the consciousness of the ubiquitous pencil...I, Pencil Money is just like another commodity, yet government see to it that it is not allowed to reside in the free market, hence we have artificial distortions in the supply and demand of money...This is one of the main roots and dangers of government interference... Individuals should be allowed to initiate contracts between individuals without government interference. People should have the freedom to choose their own choices, and law should uphold that people can do this as long as they don't encroach on the wellbeing of another, or bring harm to another individual with your own actions.
  3. Believe me without welfare the family unit would be much closer, be good to your children as they choose your nursing home. The chances are that if there was no state welfare then people would save. The savings rate in Asia is extremely high, Japan, China, Singapore, Malaysia as there is minimal state welfare. I know a Chinese girl well who lives here and I have spent time in the region, I asked her about this, she said people will tend to save more for a rainy day, they don't like to spend more than they have...So if the government didn't cause so much inflation, we let the market set interest rates not some ignorant central bank, then prices would be more stable and pensioners would not find it so hard to keep up with the cost of living. Their savings would also be worth something. The government tax pensions, they tax wages, they tax interest on savings...IS this really in the interest of people? Does this encourage high savings, I say it doesn't. It encourages people to speculate and spend...LIke I said before charity should be voluntary, a great number of people from around the world give to charity. So in answer to your question, if the welfare statists are so concerned about old people without a family then those same indviduals should find their vocation in starting and promoting a charity. Charities like Oxfam have huge revenues as they are marketed in a very effective way,people give with free choice. It has been state interference in the US healthcare system that has led to higher prices...60% of US healthcare is under government influence. Those programs medicaid and medicare are a disaster. Doctors can charge what they like as it is underwritten by the government...This inturn makes it more expensive and further out of reach of more people. If you carefully look at the economics of how governments drive up price, the regulations allow monopolys, how resources are wasted and money is misallocated it just makes no sense. I don't know if Americans don't want state health care for the "right" reasons or not. This is the crux for me. We are brainwashed into thinking tax evaders are evil and need to be dealt with by the law...yet I think people have a right not to pay taxes, or minimal taxes. It is the chicken and the egg. You state we would be better chasing down tax evaders and benefit fraudsters...Well, perhaps tax evaders are a symptom of benefit fraudsters? Take away the benefit (fraudsters) and ridiculous 50-60% taxes on people who produce to gove to the benefit seekers, then we won't have tax evaders...I m afraid as long as you have welfare and too much government you will always have tax evaders. It is a kind of protest. In the next decade, expect tax revolts from the middle and working classes. Yes, give to a charity that supports people who have fallen in hard times, or better still set one up yourself. Any state giving should be for a limited time, people should be able to egt back on track within 6-12 months from most problems. You see again, government doesnt allow people to start of with very little as there is far too much regulation, public indeminity insurance costs, health and safety, traders license, running into the thousands of £. When the Asian bankers lost their jobs during the Asian crisis, many started up selling on the streets food, clothes, anything really to make money and survive. Try going out onto a street here and selling something before you get a fine, a slap on the wrists for trying to make a living. The streets are dead in the UK, dull and mundane, over regulated yet still more anti-social behaviour, you can't find any people on the streets selling anything of their own creation as the government charge extortionate amounts for that priviledge.
  4. Good points Gordy... Far from it, just make a definite date and time when it will stop, say 6 months, they have to get themselves sorted for that date...after that the money stops without questions.
  5. While I m not fan of the Daily Express, they do a good job of reporting stuff the government and the BBC would rather not publish. Shameless Welfare creates dependence...True charity does not mean indiscriminate giving. Indiscriminate charity leads to ever more misery for the taker, not refuge. A French writer said..."Charity causes half the suffering she relieves but can't relieve half the suffering she has caused" I believe charity should be voluntary. A friend from over the water drew a nice analogy the other night when I was speaking to him about how ( as he sees it) the rise in single mothers and the loss of responsiblity of actions of the individual is down to welfare and indiscriminate giving. Janine drinking her WKD's and her Bacardi breezers gets drunk, she is 18 years old, gets pregnant, by her 18 year old boyfriend who was also drunk. She has the baby, the father cannot be bothered and takes nothing to do with the baby...Janine has the baby and "we" the government provide her with a nicely furnished house, with new toaster, DVD player, TV, beds, the works...Her friend Stacey sees this and says that ain't too bad...she thinks "Hmm, getting pregnant looks like a great idea, as janine off loads the baby 4 nights week to her parents... Another scenario is that the government provide no house, and perhaps very limited benefits for the first 6-12 months of the childs life. Janine has to move in with the folks in a cramped house, with little money...so is forced to go out and work, or her family will be forced to go out and work, or the father...Janines friend,Stacey sees that janine is stuck in a house everynight with her family taking care of the baby and doesnt have the money to go out anymore than once a week, she is stuck in watching Eastenders and Emmerdale in the living room with her family. Stacey thinks, "Hmm, having a baby looks tough and decided to be more careful. I would cut these benefits for a start. I don't see why taxpayers should fund this. If someone has two arms and two legs, a mouth, basically all the organs one can use for producing actions, then why make them dependent. Are the shocks,trials and tribulations in life not what make one stronger? A close friend of the family who works to the housing executive told me within the last month, that fraud is rife in the NI HOusing Executive... So my problem is that people should not be coerced into giving indiscriminately for people that really don't need help. I m hope I don't come over as moralistic with do's and thou shalt nots...I think people should have the freedom to do what they want, I have done my fair share of hedonistic activities...but the consequences should be left with the individual not complete strangers who had not part in the actions... Instead, if I want to give to a charity or a cause of my choice then why should some bureaucrat tell me his charity is more worthy than another individuals...? I would much rather I had the choice to give money and help to people who really need help...and I mean really need it. I lived in a apartment which over looked about a quater of mile away KLong Toey slum, one of the largest in Asia. I have been through it a often, and would eat the street food around the area quite alot. Btw, I m belong to no religion...just admire this guys work. It is a truly humbling experience to spend time with kids like this...what really touched a nerve is when he says these kids are survivors...they are very strong. It is true, they are strong, and very confident, mature...and more importantly they realise an opportunity when it comes along, they will grasp it with both hands...so I would prefer to have the free choice to use my tax money as I see. I m realy sick that taxpayers have to pay for people who just want to take take take...when they don't really have a real need. What galls me is that these benefit seekers see it as their moral right to take from someone else...that they demand without a second thought... ...One comment below one of these vdo's on youtube sums it up well... "I got to visit this place once, after reading a book written by Joseph Maier. Those people are really strong, one fire can destroy the whole village but they rebuild within days and go on with their lives as if nothing happened. I use to think I had problems here in America, but we could all benefit from their example." This indiscriminate welfarism is not the way to go from an economic standpoint, or will it help the doner or the taker.
  6. Exactly Weebobby and you must be feeling it alot when you get your pay, and as you say your gf works in the NHS in a necessary role, and I have family who work to the government. I hope people see that it is not a direct criticism of any individual but the system as a whole, as I m sure we all know people who work for the public sector. Limited government is the way to go. I would not mind paying for what is reasonable,fireservice,police etc but even this could be privatised. To put it another way...You see a drunk outside a pub smoking,spending his benefit. You are walking home from work with your shirt and tie...would you of your own free will give this man £62 each week you see him at this pub? I suspect not many would. But the government don't give you a choice. People need to help themselves first.
  7. I know it is not a direct comparison, but the point is still valid. That the government are taking capital from one group and shifting it to another. Either way someone is still paying taxes for the 30% of these workers. Someone pays these wages, and if you divide it between all taxpayers I believe some of your tax will be used. The point is that taxpayers are paying 30% of NI's wages.
  8. We are one of the highest taxed countries in the world. We pay near the highest taxes on fuel, yet the roads and infrastructure are much worse than other countries who have lower duty. I m probably not the best person to debate this with as I don't agree with taxation, I agree with taxation on a very limited form. I understand people trying to avoid tax...I just don't see why some bureaucrat thinks that he/she can spend the money you earn better than you. The government are trying to get people spending through the QE, cutting rates, running large deficits...Why not go to the source, and cut the income tax, that is the surest way to put more money in a workers pocket.
  9. The figures are for people in full time employment and also are gross wages before taxes, so all in all, the actual income figure is much lower, especially in Northern Ireland as 70% of the workers have to pay the wages of the remaining 30% in the public sector...so I would argue that real wages are much lower in reality as 70% of the workers have to subsidise 30% of the workers wages. Also disposable income is much lower now than 5-10 years ago. Real wages have fallen. If you look at disposable income ona 10 year basis, a 5 year basis a 3 year basis it is much lower. Also the there are many reports out there by uswitch and the like, Equifax released a report showing the percentage of the population at the end of each month with no disposable income has grown by 20% to over 55%...and this is upto fate as in March 2009 Disposable Income Shrinks This will have a knock on effect on the jobless rates many outlets, chains and business who supply these outlets and chains lay off staff. The sectors of the economy that might do ok only employ a small percentages of the total work force. In the past these business cycles and recovery from recessions have usually been led by consumer spending. The big elephant in the room for me in regards unemployment is not only how high unemployment will go, but what will the driver of jobs be? What sector of the economy will lead to increased employment with new job creation to offset the job losses. So while it can accepted that unemployment will peak at some point perhaps in the next 18 months (although it could continue to get worse over the coming years) what will actually bring the unemployment figures down? It is very possible that unemployment numbers could peak out near 10%, and stay around those levels for years, pr perhaps continue to rise after a period of consolidation. The government are trying to stimulate the economy with reckless spending not realising that the economy needs to shrink and deleverage. So in the future they will need to increase taxes...However, history has shown that increasing taxes only lead to higher unemployment or very little new job creation. So the government in their misguided policys are trying to save jobs by spending money, increasing deficits. In order to pay for these higher deficits they will need to increase taxes. Who will they increase taxes for? I would say it will not be the super rich, but the middle class and medium size business entrepreneurs and those on high wages, but not super rich. These are the entrepreneurs in society the people who create employment by intelligent use and allocation of capitak and resources. The government will increase tax burdens across society which will lead to less employment, less new business and many business going under and perhap leaving the UK altogether. It is ironic, it seems logical that increasing taxes should increase the government income from tax revenues, but the opposite actually happens, as taxes increase, tax revenues fall, leaving the deficits even larger and the desired effect of saving jobs actually fails in the end. Just look back at the many times in history when governments have tried this, starting in the US at the start of the 1920's, and a modern day case study is California. However, the evidence is so sound in regards this, yet governments always do it. The government instead should cut spending and lower taxes across the board, which actually increases government tax revenues. These factors do not bode well for a v-shaped recovery or even a U-shaped recovery, and house prices in general. House prices will not bottom out for may years, perhaps nominally, but in real terms it could be nearly a decade. A few months here and there of positive news doesnt constitute a new revived economy...I expect to see something like this...a decade or more of www or uuu...ie, the "W" will be a few large dips back into a recession with a small recovery, but a jobless one, this type of pattern could go on for quite a few years...Or perhaps even worse could be U shapes, with tow or three very long recessions lasting 2 years each. There is no precendent in history for a recovery under rising taxes, rising spending, record debt, over priced stocks markets with low yields and high Pe's, interest rates at 0.5%, remember interest rates at these levels are not a positive sign as many mortgage brokers would have you believe, they are the result of an extemely weak economy and the symptom of failed government monetary and fiscal policy. The savings rate must first go up and the debt must either be liquidated or paid down, and the savings base must increase so that interest rates should lower naturally, as the supply of deposits increase, which would lower interest rates. This will a long drawn out process, and a month or two of slightly better activity doesnt mean the bottom is in for house prices.
  10. And these figures are gross also, so no one should forget that tax must be taken off also.
  11. Thats a surprise...It is unlike the government to distort the price fundamentals in any market
  12. I wouldn't say this is cynical...I would say it is true. I think the key is in those two words...It is hard to expect anything else from a sales rep. Of course it is always left up to the individual to decide what is good value. A sales rep anywhere will tell you it is good value. Just as the estate agents here were telling people the Titanic quarters or real estate in general was a great buy, they were talking their own book...The individuals who accepted this on blind faith without doing any of their own research of course will have been burnt big time as property is over valued here...Applying some simple valuation methods would have led them to perhaps a different conclusion, but people seem to like to believe sales people. I went to meet the sales rep for this place Aguston Condo at the mock up condo on site. Very impressive development at the high end 5 star end of the market. A 3 bedroom was £155,000. Of course she said it was a good buy. However, doing my own research rather than accepting the price on blind faith suggested it is good value...with a rental yield of over 7%...compare that with the estate agents telling us that the apartments here are a good buy with a rental yield at less than 3% and some even under 2%... It should always be ones own research that leads to a conclusion on value, as its naive to expect a sales rep to say otherwise,,,rental yield is one tool I think holds true on a historic basis... P.S> Perhaps you are talking about areas related to tourism like Phuket, Ko Samui...in which case the market could be totally different. I would be more focused on the residential market in and around central Bangkok, the suburbs for middle class Thais, and of course up country.
  13. Perhaps I m being slow, but what does that quote mean?
  14. Firstly, that "head in the clouds" advert is priceless... That condo looks great. I spent time in Malaysia and Singapore and lived in Bangkok, Thailand Weebobby. Penang is quite nice, but it seems a place more for the older expat. It all depends on what you want to do, and how you want to live. Samui Villa This villa is just ridiculous in Samui for size and luxury. It seems to be used for very short term rentals and rich holiday makers at 1200USD per night!!!... or this... Taking the p*ss for luxury I reckon you are talking well over a million quid for somewhere like this... I preferred Thailand to Singapore and Malaysia, just as it was much more fun IMHO, and there was never a dull moment...I lived President Park/Capitol Club here in Bangkok...and it was resonably priced for what you get. The Capitol club was free of use for residents of President Park as they are the same place basically. They have a serviced apartmentswing but the four towers are mostly made up of condos. Had squash courts, tennis, fantastic gym, four swimming pools(outdoor), large area around with plantations for a more natural feel, steam rooms, jacuzzis, spa, bar, good food available to order around the pool area...and after a hard day you can get a great massge for 1-2 hours for £5 As Jim Rogers as been saying, the savings and the capitol base is now in Asia, and historically the action always goes to where the money is. I think he is right. There was always a motorcycle taxi guy waiting outside the condo to take you to the skytrain, there was a supermarket under the condo, and loads of great restaurants,street food, cafes just around the area...Asia is quite a spontaneous place to live. Even if you wanted that in the UK, you just can't get it, and if you did have it, well, how much would you pay for it. Condos in this place could be had for between £140,000(3 bedroom) up to and over £200,000, all depends on how well finished the condo is. I look at value not only in price but what you get for the price. As you say some of those places in Belfast that say they are condos are jokes, and those apartments around Belmont road area at over £500,000, what do you get for the money? Nothing...Same with those places In Florida you listed, much better value... Not only is the NI/UK a bubble in price, but they are also over valued for what you get for your money.
  15. Got a text from a mate who was at a party on Saturday night. He was speaking to a financial advisor for the NI housing market and the FA said that now was a better time than ever to buy as mortgage rates are 1.25%...If ever one needed a contrarian indicator this is it. Financial advisors are actually awful at making predictions. My mate said people would then be in negative equity for 5 years doing that,lol...The reply from the FA was..."I thought you were an intelligent person...." Like I said in another thread, interest rates at 1.25%, or the base rate at 0.5% are a symptom of an economy in extremely poor shape, not the cause. How anyone can think that interest rates stuck at 0.5% is bullish is beyond me. If the market was healthy interest rates would much much higher than this.
  16. Thats a fair point also. I would nevr bank with HBOS or Lloyds thats for sure...and this is a direct experience having worked in one of these institutions before in the retail side, I ll not say which one(although lets say they would be based more towards North England than South,haha), but the perception was that they were sneaky in how they conduct business... Nationwide have been very good with me, so I guess I ll stay with them. As you say,if I decided to move bank, who to use?
  17. I agree that there has to be a more fair way. These things usually come back to bite in the long grass. At least 3 people I know who I have sent something earlier on in the week about lloyds being in the news over charges I think someone does a blog on them) means we ll never bank with them. I had the credit card at a time, and they seemed to make it as difficult as possible to make a payment.... I have been with Nationwide for a few years, and think that as far as banking goes they have been much better than any other bank I have been with... About 2 years ago, I went over my overdraft of £250 by accident. What they did was they automatically adjusted the overdraft to £400, even though I was only maybe £20 quid over the £250, and didnt charge me for it, and sent me a letter explaining this.The charge was an annual APR of 7-8% at the time, which was very reasonable if you ask me. Perhaps, it was that I get regular payments, and never used the OD,and could get an overdraft up to a few grand if need be, however they still could have used the chance to charge me...and I m sure this would have happened with other banks...as halifax ripped me off in my younger days just after student hood. The account was inactive for about 2 years. And a once a year direct debit put me over my overdraft which was £100, I didn realise a savings account was automatically set to take out an amount each year...even though it was the charges that put me over my overdraft. They didnt send a letter for 2 months, which meant that 2 more charges of £40 had been added. Then got a letter saying that they would go to a debt collection agency in 10 days if i didnt settle. So over £100 quid of charges, even though I had never spent any of the money, it all stemmed from a direct debit that I didnt know EGG had set up as default on their online saver. So payed up closed the account, will never bank with them again...I think everyone should shout loud about these things, as at least then it will stop people using them in the future.
  18. That is madness. I mean how anyone can think that this sort of asset value destruction will lead to a V-shaped recovery when the economy was based on the consumer who were financed by in large by HELOC's without more dislocations and problems is a real optimist. I mean these prices are in line with places like Cambodia in some ways...
  19. Thanks WeeBobby. It makes sense really, in that we can't predict or see the future, so we deal in some sort of probabilities and possible outcomes...As you say, these two outcomes are not bullish for assets as in stocks and real estate. As for the trading...I have no formal education in that area and don't work to a company unlike yourself...I pay for a real time data feed for some CBOT futures, mostly eminis in commodities and metals and indexes and the London Stock Exchange real time data also for stocks. And I have a currency data feed for quite a selection of currencys. And end of day data just for about every market... I have a couple of trading systems I use which are based on finding entry's on shorter term charts, but the indicators on the shorter term charts reference data from higher timeframe charts,so I can look at only the shorter term charts and get a full picture of what is happening in the primary, intermediate and shorter term trend. I like to have the primary trend and intermediate term trend in agreement, but I like the shorter term trend to be the opposite the primary and intermediate to take an entry...But I havent quite found my niche yet, as in what timeframe peference I prefer. I understand you spread trade? And know this method really well...I think my timeframe is something like, if using leverage, hourly, 4 hourly, daily charts...and money from this will then go into longer term non leveraged products with a longer holding period, months to years. I m really focusing on currencys (and from a non modest point of view think I know quite abit abt this area) as I think there are going to be huge chances and swings in the coming years that could make fortunes. Time will tell I guess. I also like the fundamentals to be in agreement with the trend in price...At the moment, just building up my bank. It seems to work well enough and catches all the major moves and keeps me in, but I m always looking for ways to improve the system and make it more organic... Do you have a degree weebobby in something related to trading or is something you enjoy and happen to have a natural flare at...or maybe both. Cheers.
  20. Yeah, I certainly think you are over estimating the government The track record with IT systems is nothing to write home about (from Thailand as the case might be)...I m not surprised that people will be doing this. One thing I m not surprised about is how people will stop at no cost to sponge from other people. Alot of farang (as westerners are known in Thailand) will be on tourist visas, doing border runs every month to places on the Cambodian and Laos border. There are suppose to be a limit on the number of consecutive visas you can get, before you have to the Kingdom as its known for 3 months before you can return. Of course you can come back to the Uk or go to OZ and get a visa at the Embassy and come back straight away...but the sort of people who do the perpetual border runs to Cambodia don't have very much money so cannot afford to do fly back to the Uk or OZ, will be shacked up with some skanky bar girl who tells her benefit seeking (fake) England football shirt wearer that "he hansum man, and she lub him too mutt" in a 30 quid a month room in Pattaya somewhere...He ll probably drink cheap Thai whisky or beer Chang and might have a tendency towards taking "yaba"... You can either get an non-Immigrant type B Business visa, which you can get in the UK if you want to stay longer,or have a business set up under Thailand Board of Investment to obtain a work permit, or be working to a multinational, or a Type B-education visa which I had, if you study there...Also, if you buy a condo, you can get a resisdent type O visa, but you have to have a certain amount of funds each year in your bank account to get it renewed...or you could marry a beautiful Thai girl...plenty of options. Most are there on tourist visas...trying to get from one month ot the next.
  21. I think that is a fair point, and perhaps this might be true for some people. I don't spend too much time on the main board these days. There are alot of mouth pieces on there who have jumped on the bandwagon as it seems to be "cool" or something. I m still a firm believer that many peoples time horizons are too short. There some very longterm structural problems in the economy that have not been cured, and infact have been made worse. So one announcement today on QE and a new post on the topic doesn't really change the longer term outlook. I think the reason might be the number of news items and the volume of new information that we are bombarded with each day perhaps leads to myopia. It is only a theory or my opinion. However if we take it that the tendency of the human mind is to gain instant sense gratification from actions then it is a "natural" state to look for results right now, to take a new piece of information and make instant speculations and postulations based on limited information. So I wouldnt get too worried about day to day things like this... There may be some tentative signs of a recovery, but you must ask yourself some questions... Have the underlaying problems in the economy been cleaned up and fixed? Are we starting from a firm base? IS the debt burden now larger or smaller? What will the driver of jobs be? How productive will these jobs be? If interest rates stay at 0.5% for another year what will that say about the state of the economy? Some think that low interest rates will be a good thing. I think that if interest rates are still at 0.5% in 12 months from now it will be a symptom of a very weak economy, a contracting, stagnating economy, would also expect to see a tightening of credit markets in these conditions, with interest rates tightening, mortgages becoming more expensive... putting downard pressure on houses and assets. Now ask, if interest rates are still 0.5% in 18 to 24 months from now? Low interest rates are touted as being good by the housing bulls? However, if they are still at 0.5% 18 months from now, this will again be symptomatic of a contracting economy. It is possible rates could be down that low for quite some time, much longer than many predict. However, far from being a positive, if they are then it will because there is no recovery. J Bond 10 year Gov This chart shows a 10 year Japanese Gov bond...Interest rates were cut to near zero around the turn of the century. So Japan were creating new money to keep interest rates down, yet bond yields continued down for 3 years, as bond prices went up. Japan have been at near zero for nearly a decade now. The way I look at this situation is this. Japanese bond yields and interest rates were a feedback loop to the state of the economy. They were the result rather than the cause...the symptom so to speak. 0.5% interest rates were symptomatic of a weak economy with falling house prices and a stock market than ended up over 80% down from its all time highs. Japanese land prices in real terms had fallen 50-70%, yet with very low interest rates... So my view is this, if interest rates are low, it is not bullish on the housing market, or asset market or credit markets. Low interest rates ( as according to the type of economic policys we follow) are the result not the cause of a stagnating economy. Again, as far as QE goes. If we get more QE, then again this will be symptomatic of falling asset prices, a protracted contraction and a weak economy. If the recovery is coming why have more QE? So I would say that if you are worried about QE, then rest assured that means that house prices will be falling, mortgages rates will be moving higher and credit will be tightening...Again QE will be the result of a weak economy not the cause. Now to turn this whole argument and flip it over...Lets say the recovery is underway, that shall mean interest rates will move higher in 6 months, 12 months and 18-24 months...And this is the crux of my point in that the first question I asked was, has the system been cleaned out and fixed? Have the underlaying problems been solved? They have not been, the deficits and debt is now huge, we are propping up asset prices of insolvent institutions, taxes will be higher, unemployment is still rising with no driver for jobs, personal debt is still at all time highs, house prices are well priced above the fundamentals historically, stocks will have bottomed out for the first time in 140 years at PE's and dividend yields which are much higher than previous market bottoms. In other words they are still expensive. So are these conditions for a sustained recovery, a firm base? Are the banks capitalised sufficiently? IS there a high deposit of savings in banks now which means they can start to lend money? Can people really save at 1-3% returns and pay down record debt levels at interest rates of above 5% at the same time? Is it really saving to put away money each month at 1% and pay down a larger amount of debt at probably over 5%? Is this not a real negative savings rate? To have a firm recovery would it not be necessary or at least favourable to have low debt levels, and high savings, as deposits to create new lending? Do we have these conditions? Rather than high debt and low savings? So if it is believed we have a recovery, then interest rates will rise in time? Then it has to asked what effect will rising interest rates have under the conditions we have now? If a recovery is undwerway then we should get rising prices, expansion, rising employment...what happens when then if prices start rising...can interest rates stay low? Interest rates will rise of course, and with the debt levels bigger now than before the recession (which is what shouldnt happen, a recession should reduce debt, and increase savings)what will the outcome be? What will happen is that they will pop the very bubble they are trying to reinflate, and we ll be into another protracted recession. It is going to be extremely difficult to raise rates in this economy... These are my two thoughts at this time... 1. Zero interest rates, more QE will be a symptom of falling house prices and stagnation, and not a bullish indicator. 2. A recovery will mean rising interest rates over the next 6-12-24 months, will this be favourable for an over indebted government who need to raise taxes, will this be favourable to mortgage rates and an over leveraged consumer. The other scenario I think could happen is a currency event in the next 5 years how soon no one knows. Where they stop buying UK debt. This could result in wild gyrations in sterling in the magnitude of 10% a day, and rapidly rising interest rates... I think patience is the name of the game. This will unfold over months and years not days and weeks.
  22. Good find, yep, basically in a nutshell. I notice a kind of innocence in people much older than me in regards this, and people of all ages for that matter, including famly members, who say things such as, "But the government have lots of smart people working to them, surely they would know these things that you are saying also"...and therein is the problem. It is one of innocence, a euphemism perhaps for ignorance... People generally believe that the government have their best interests at heart... There is an exercise I like to do when I m thinking about these things...the future...I like to ask these questions and answer them in some way to myself. More for ideas rather than Nostramus type predictions What will the world/society/the economy be like one week from now? This is quite probably quite predictable. What will the world be like 3 months from now? What will the world be like 1 year from now? what will the world be like 3 years from now? What will the world be like in 5 years? The last one 5 years...I think it might be possible that sometime between 1 week from now and 5 years from now, people will wake up and realise they have been the "patsy" in this...What form that realisation will take can be left to the imagination and history. Riots, revolts, social unrest etc etc... I think there will be a catalyst for this, who knows what that will be...
  23. I certainly include one of these in the VT CPI monthly inflation figures...although the Asian region is my preferred, GBP still not doing great.
  24. The Bank of Ireland shares should be wiped out to zero, that has not yet been the case...How about the bondholders? Have they been wiped out yet? I suspect not. So why should tazpayers who never put a penny or a cent into this bank be left with the bill before the people who took the prospectus and invested in Bank of Ireland corporate debt bonds? I don't understand this thinking... The only reason that the taxpayer is being stitched up with this bill, is that no one else wants to buy these toxic assets at the prices that would avoid bankruptcy. I mean they are already bankrupt in all but name. So of course taxpayers are left to pay over the odds for assets that no buyer can be found for...If taxpayers are to be protected and this rhethoric that they could be a good investment for taxpayers was so true then why not let the market take over these assets? The simple reason is that if they were marked to market the banks would go under in a flash as they are not worth a fraction of what banks "need" to value them at. No one in the private sector will buy at prices that would prop up the banks. I m sure someone in the private markets would buy these assets up, perhaps at 20 cents in the euro, who knows? And therein is the problem, no one can know the price of these assets, the true price if tax payers are there to artificially prop up prices. Lehmans was allowed to go bankrupt, yet Lehmans had its good assets taken over by other institutions. Barclays being a prime example. Barclays bought the trading, stock analysis side of Lehmans, which is by all accounts a healthy part of the Lehmans. This helped contribute to Barclays recent profits, and they are hiring 2000 people to staff these assets bought over from lehmans... So these bailouts and what they purport to do are the biggest pile of bull I ve heard. They are protecting the elite and the rich and the people at the top. People are still losing their homes through reposession who have BOI mortgages, is this not true? So how are these bailouts helping them. Why do these people not get a bailout? I m not saying this is what should happen, but would this not be a true bailout of the banks and the assets? As it would mean the banks would still be made good on the loans, as we the taxpayer step in to pay another mortgage, hence proping up prices. Yet these bailouts are not doing this. If HBOS had been allowed to go bankrupt, they have still very good parts of the business, namely retails banking, credit cards, savings etc etc, all very profitable businesses. Are we saying that letting these entities go bankrupt would mean that no one would take over these good assets and they would be rebranded or perhaps kept the same? These parts would not disappear, they would still exist. The bad parts should be liquidated and all shareholders and bond holders should be wiped out, this has not happened. Instead LLoyds has been weakened by being forced by government to take over HBOS. So now we have two weak banks. When the government decided to bailout Northern Rock, then people took their money out of RBS, Barclays, B+B and put it in Northern Rock, and these banks were weakened further due government actions...Intervention by government has never been a good thing... One only has to look at Japan to see this... I m sure BOI have many such assets in the business that could be taken over by someone else, and the rest of the bad loans should be liquidated, the bad assets. Making everyone foot the bill for the minority stinks IMHO.
  25. I think none of the problems have been solved. Only postponed. They are creating more distortions in the economy, larger imbalances. They are creating a new bubble in government debt. The last time they raised rates they burst the bubble. I think with more debt issuance and bigger deficits, it will become very difficult to push interest rates up with very negative consequences.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.