betterToDo

I see and already agree with your point, I dont think I expressed that post very well at all. Say someone with a job and a fund set aside is hoping the market will fall big time in their favour and everything else will stay the same are probably wrong, thats what I meant by myth. A crashed market will come at the expense of a lot other things, even if you're in a position to take advantage in terms of buying a house.

I dont see the point of discussing things like a 50% cut in the DOW without a reference point. The DOW could stay at 10000 and there be a loss of value, but in the USD. Its all relative, just as we've seen with house prices and the big distinction in falls between nominal and real.

In which case I stand corrected. Maybe I've been worn down from too much trawling through rubbish at terrible value.

Thats a very good point. I think the answer is we're in the middle of a shift from paper-traded markets. At the moment we have high frequency trading on one end, and people talking on the phone to their broker at the other and a huge variety of processes in between, many of which were not designed for present day technology, but rather adapted. A huge disconnect in terms of the latency of transactions and everything else. Eventually I guess it will mature.

I agree it certainly offers the potential for fraud and misuse (especially if cartels are involved - if you destroy the instrument in question in the short term before delivery, either nobody has to deliver or it'll be very cheap to do so), but people like Max Keiser are wrong in terming it counterfeiting. It is not, because you are subject to the contract for delivery. This does not however mean there aren't issues, because of the time involved, especially in volatile markets. In normal, stable, liquid markets no issue ever arises, but not having arranged a means of delivery at the time of sale means there is not a closed loop, and it is possible for there to be many more shorts than can be delivered. I recently ordered a new Mac. At the point of sale, Apple hadn't built it. Its very likely they can and will, but if they couldn't they wouldn't be able to deliver. In that event, I would just get a refund. Thats ok in that case - the distinction is in the contracts. If the contract was for guaranteed delivery, they would have to buy one from somewhere else, and in theory, their liability would be unlimited if there was only one in existence. Quite how you go about policing it all is another matter and entirely beyond me.

There is no clear real distinction between a "naked short" and a short, its a grey scale. If you own something, you can sell it. That produces downward pressure on a price. Now, how about you arranged to borrow something, then sell it? You haven't actually bought the stuff, so pressure on the price still exists when you sell. This is a short, you have arranged the means of delivery at the point when you sell - there is little risk you can't deliver. The point is, there is always a time difference between when you sell something, and when you deliver what you sell (clearing) - think about the exchange that occurs between you and the electricity company when you boil a kettle. I believe the term "naked" refers broadly to selling without even so much as borrowing first - ie you enter a contract for delivery, but at the time of the sale have not got a means of delivery. This is ok provided there is a liquid market for you to buy it when the time comes, and the time of that varies according to the exchange and contract (although note if you then cannot find a source to enable you to deliver when they time comes you're in big trouble - this has been exploited by traders in the past who have cornered the market by buying the shorts, and then being in a position to dictate price when the squeeze comes on delivery). Obviously, even if it wasn't naked, when you come to deliver, you're then going to have to cover what you originally borrowed. The line is blurred indeed. So yes, it is a bet that the price will fall. I can bet gold will fall today by selling some, but I already own it. You can frame that as me shorting it, but the delivery is obviously guaranteed I don't have to borrow it or procure it from somewhere else. Its all relative. Note, if you sell something you already own, thats it. If you buy something, thats it. However, if you go short, the price can in theory go to infinity (as well as zero) meaning your liability is potentially unlimited in order to fulfill the contract. This is where the issues start to arise (for example shorts get executed in the name of limited liability companies rather than individuals). I might be wrong, but in general this is my understanding of it.

I'm not one for predictions, but I read vast quantities of stuff (mostly crap but it has to be done) and my combined opinion, for what its worth, is that I've never been more bearish than right now. This is not an invitation to shoot me down (I have to be frank, I think people who confidently declare the nature of the future are idiots after attention), but it is now everywhere I look. After the "great disappointment" over the last couple of years which I've seen dissected and explained to the nth degree, I suspect the chickens are finally having their say about when and where they will be roosting. I'm not referring to UK property specifically, but I see no place left for it to hide - although the idea I suspect many cling to on here that their ideal property will suddenly fall into their lap at a bargain price is, and always will be, a myth - and even if it did, they would find it a disappointment. The general theme of a change in the tide is illustrated nowhere more clearly than through the trials and tribulations of the embattled Merkel, and the new UK coalition government.

I've just enjoyed a nice breakfast and a walk in the dorset countryside. Didn't notice the 2% drop at any point.

Much as I enjoy Max Keiser, short selling is not counterfeiting.

I agree with you. I tried to express something along these lines on the Mish comments yesterday and basically got lynched. I usually agree with a lot Mish has to say but in this instance I think given the context of the raise he is wrong.

Yeh and they litter the coast of the otherwise beautiful county of my birth :angry: We need another decent hurricane, this time blowing from the North.

How very sad for you. In terms of the house, I'd say if there's a foreseeable practical use for any of you, keep it. Otherwise, I'd get rid of it in fairly short order.

Picture the scene: A tranquil and sunny day down by the pond. A gentle breeze stirs a rustle in the leaves overhead. A large flock of HPCers mill about on the surface of the water (the occasional quack can be heard). Then someone throws in a scrap of bread....

This is what I read.

I might be wrong but think I read somewhere that Osborne is going to agree to it.

Based on the figure of $10 billion, no, but will obviously be a big dent in future investment and harm them significantly long term.

How about trying with some Goldman executives? They'd wedge in quite nicely. We'd all stand to make a net profit from it too.

It would be a blessing if there were a bill that could be paid to clean it up. There is no cleaning it up.

Neither slick nor sophisticated are words that spring to mind when thinking of any estate agent I've ever met. Perhaps there are some out there somewhere. Not the ones I've met, sorry. They were nice enough, but simple. If you want sophisticated, meet a few folk from the City. Now they know how to screw you.

No! More tassles, sequins, and a great deal more fluff in general.

If I had a house to start selling tomorrow, I'd take the photos myself, advertise it myself, field enquiries myself, show people round myself... I'd have to get a solicitor involved at some point no doubt, but would I really need an agent at all? The internet has provided a route for an individual to do this, where this was much much harder before. Perhaps this too has been masked by the boom? It may not suit all to do so perhaps, or having never sold a property, am I being naive in believing I could do this?

Thats an eye for an eye argument though. No use in practice. If public sector unions start striking all over the place, the government caves in, and the country goes bankrupt, thats not going to help anyone, moral arguments aside.The Mish articles I was referring to are about situations in which the unions have, during good times, accumulated massive benefits and pay, far outstripping anything in the private sector, and now, even as their states fail, are striking over details of pay increases, not even cuts. That, specifically, is what I find revolting. In those situations just as there may be inequality between the bankers and the general population, there is also another inequality between sectors of that population, irrespective of the ins and outs of what has brought about the need for cuts. I absolutely agree about the outrageous inequality across many domains in society which is highlighted as you say, nowhere more acutely than in finance, but I don't interpret that as being the topic of the thread.

Obviously. ... and that's a very broad brush indeed you're using about politicians. Hoping a sense of shared peril is going to result in reasonable action is wishful to say the least. And so what, sure its unfair whats occurred, how is taking the position that they want to keep having their cake (at the expense of everyone else not just these bankers) going to solve anything? Its not, but don't think they're going to consider you, any more than the banks do. And thats the thing, the irrationality, of which there are many instances being revealed in the US. I like unions in terms of the balance they can provide against the power of employers, but people are greedy whether they're bankers or anything else. Heres a good example.

I know this has been discussed before, but hey, its bugging me, and its raining. Driving home today, I decided to count the estate agents (it's a Sunday, I'm young, I'm free, so why the ****** not?! Yep, that's the kinda way I like to roll). Just in the length of what is by most standards a modest high street with maybe around 30-40 businesses, there were 12 estate/lettings agents. Only one I know of has closed shop since I've been here (3 years or so). Conversely, there is now just one travel agent. This was just in one suburb of Reading. There are many many more dotted around other parts of the town, all presumably covering overlapping areas. I find it ridiculous there should be so many. They continue to exist in the face of massive changes not just to the market, but also to the mechanisms driving it. Sites like Rightmove etc have, from my perspective, almost removed the need for them to have premises, at least in terms of selling. There are even sites popping up intended to exclude the agent altogether (I'm thinking of that one by that Sarah Beeny lady, I can't remember the name). The internet wrought havoc on the travel agencies. I do understand the product is different and they deal with both sides of the market, but still... How much longer can it go on? When are these 12 high street locations going to be used for something more useful? For the most part, I cannot understand how they are contributing enough value to the economy to continue to be present in such numbers. I'm aware some perform some useful functions other than just advertising properties, but how can the sector continue to be worth 12 out of 40 (max) high rent premises!?!?

Take a look at whats happening in the US, horrific stories of self-serving unions blind to any reality driving their states towards bankruptcy. Mish has been covering it unfolding in very revealing detail. I imagine we're in for a similar ride.