Ah-so

Because you believe it, not without any evidence. You have faith without evidence or knowledge.

People were ruined often because ordinary people don't really understand banking (such as you for example). Because I know a hell of a lot about it, I am aware of how little I know. The idea of people outside of finance (and even inside it for that matter) being able to assess the risks of a bank, a laughable. Take SVB - sold bank, good business model, low default rates, and then the whole thing is screwed because the treasurer and CFO decided not to hedge their investment portfolio. What in God's name were they thinking? And while it didn't attract individual investors, most of the companies that deposited with them wouldn't know about their undhedged exposures to interest rates.

Everyone under £85k, yes. I have "faith" because I know how it works, and you don't, and so suffer from the fallacy of personal incredulity.

I don't remember the days before 1979 when deposit protection was introduced, but I find it unlikely that people did their homework, but perhaps I should take your word for it that when Britons weren't striking, they were doing credit analysis on the latest annual accounts of the National Westminster Bank at their kitchen table.

Yes, it will. If you understood the mechanisms of the FSCS you wouldn't say that, you don't so you do.

I am intimately familiar with the policy and mechanics of bail-in. Banks hold vastly more capital than they did in 2008, but if that were depleted, they have had to issue a huge amount of unsecured debt which would be bailed in first. If that still wasn't enough (and we're now talking losses well in excess of the financial crisis), balances above £85k could be affected and a percentage of the balance would be exchanged for shares in the bank. If you have less than £85k in the bank, the FSCS will protect your savings.

And the Department of Energy also unveiled its findings with a "low level of confidence". In other words, they don't know, but in balance they think that's the case. The conspiracy theorists are cock-a-hoop because someone has said something that aligns with their previously unevidenced claims.

That's what I thought too. The original Casual Observer must be nearly 50 now.

I was slightly disappointed that you had nothing more to say about a satirical poem. But then again it was a poem about a narcissist. 😁

I appreciate that a lot of what GPT comes back with reads a bit like a wiki page on a topic, but it can simulate a level of creativity in poetry. The below was entirely written by chat GPT, not me - I am just copying and pasting. Apologies for posting as a block of text - the formatting was weird when I left the spaces in. Mikhail Leibenstein, with muscles grand and fine, Was known for vanity and ignorance too. He spent his days in gym, with weights to grind, To build a body that would make him shine, But when it came to science, he was lost, His mind was weak, and science at a cost. He scoffed at facts and data, deemed them lies, And in his ignorance, he'd close his eyes, To all the truth that science had to give, His ego blind, he could not learn and live.He thought himself a god, above it all, But science showed that he was but a fall.So let this tale be a caution to us all, To never let our ego make us fall, For wisdom comes from knowledge, not from strength, And ignorance will lead to great offense. So let us strive for understanding, too, And find true strength in knowledge, me and you.

I think in practice, other than the woolly "vigilance" is that they will expect firms to: - reduce the percentage of BTL on their balance sheet, or at least of new lendi - lend at a lower LTVs - Hold more capital against such mortgages In practice, the PRA can give clear instructions over the above, and it can dictate was level of capital a firm needs to hold, and that is the thing that really scares banks and building societies. While this is too late, it will stop banks making the problem even worse. It will probably mean that the shutters are down at most PRA lenders, but there are also FCA BTL lenders who aren't subject to PRA rules, but I suspect that the FCA will just follow the PRAs strategy.

Even if did have dementia, he can still outthink and out argue Trump. All Trump can do is grift is idiot fans for money or push ludicrous conspiracy theories about the election. The only sane thing Trump did was to push for a vaccination for COVID-19. Trump is desperate to be President again because it's probably the only way he can escape charges for election fraud and stealing government secrets when he left office.

A lot of them have bought shares in DWAC, the financial vehicle that is going to buy TruthSocial, Trump's Twitter competitor. The only thing that gives the shares any value is that his deluded followers keep buying the shares.

I imagine you're being deliberately obtuse. Housing is a basic need and BTL landlords have been depriving others of the ability to buy their own place by taking about 10% of the UK's housing stock out of the market. No one needs to own stocks. It is also different from owning shares because you can still get tax relief on the interest (although now reduced). An owner occupier gets no such relief.

That tends to be the way. And then they moan about it for years afterwards.

Obviously a lot do have the large deposits, or otherwise the housing market would have pretty much collapsed.

It's a large property and Usk is a pretty desirable location. To me, "ordinary" is three bedrooms and about 1200 sq ft. In Cardiff that will cost about half the price of the properties you list. Still expensive and you'll need a household income approaching £100k plus deposit, but not totally out of reach to ordinary people.

Just reading this page, I can see why I have stayed away from this thread for a while.

😆 You missed the possibility that perhaps I trawled though 500,000 posts to find one where he revealed his vaccine status.

OK, I will if you will 👍

"please shut up about it" - how many times do I have to say the matter is closed, but you keep on posting on the matter in replies to me. Perhaps I misinterpreted your prose, but this rather theatrical turn of phrase, employing the rhetorical tricolon, suggested some level of pride.

I keep on saying the matter was closed but you keep on bring the matter up. Make up your mind! But yes, once your vaccination status was public, and now you have changed your mind and decided to make it a private issue.

It is a fair point, but I put up a hypothetical example of a disease that was deadly and required a weekly self-administered vaccine. Bruce Banner was clear that he would rather die than have to do that. COVID ius rather different, of course. Yes, you will probably catch it, but you most likely won't die from it.

It's difficult for those us without a medical background when the CDC says things like this: https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/lab/grows-virus-cell-culture.html https://www.reuters.com/article/factcheck-covid-rna-idUSL1N2LS27P Obviously they must be using the term "isolated" in a different sense to the one they are using.

Gosh, "silly" and "little" - both barrels, boom. As I said, I consider the matter closed, but yes, I imagine that you now are vaccinated, because you wanted to make it easier to get to France, but as you no longer wish to talk about, I will not bring the matter up again.