Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

El_Pirata

Members
  • Content Count

    449
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About El_Pirata

  • Rank
    HPC Regular
  1. "Far more of us will be eating sausages by the end of the next decade, according to the National Sausage Council." Yawn. Sad to see Reuters stoop this low.
  2. These people are financial illiterates You can only make money in a rising market if you have a LONG position If you own one house, and need one house to live in, your position is NEUTRAL. You have no exposure to rises or falls in the market per se. On a mark-to-market basis you have made no money even if the value of your house has doubled. MEW is NOT profit-taking. It is simply BORROWING money that has to be paid back at some point, plus interest. Your house will not pay that money back unless you sell it, and then where will you live? The only way to make money from the position of owning one house that has risen in value is to go short (sell to rent) in the expectation that the market will fall and you can buy back a similar house for less. Of course you can also downsize, but in this case you are in effect selling of some of your standard of living. If you really believe that house prices will keep rising, you should be out there hoovering up every property you can find, going LONG LONG LONG. Extending your mortgage will do nothing but get you in more debt. This is not rocket science, but the basics of trading that mankind has been doing since the year dot.
  3. Let me correct you I just cant see prices coming down unless people stop being able to borrow lots of money
  4. What do you think will happen if everyone who is struggling does that at the same time?
  5. I don't think you really need to believe in any sort of conspiracy theory to believe that figures are being fiddled or presented dishonestly (maybe not as blatantly as in Argentina). It's just political expediency. The measures needed to combat inflation will always be - in the short term - highly unpopular and won't win you many votes. So why not just pretend that inflation is not happening? Not too hard, he who pays the piper etc... In the long term, of course, the effects of an inflationary spiral are guaranteed to kick you out of office. But most of our populist Nu-Lab politicians don't see that far, they would much rather boot a problem a few years or months over the horizon than have the balls to tackle it (see also PFI-PPP).
  6. It's not just happening here: Cooking the books WHEN a dash for economic growth produces double-digit inflation, most governments change their policies. But not that of Argentina: it has opted to keep the policies and change the inflation numbers. Last month, it sacked the head of the consumer-prices section of the National Statistics and Census Institute (INDEC), replacing her with Beatriz Paglieri, a trade specialist at the economy ministry. Five days later the institute announced that January's inflation was 1.1%. Private economists estimate that the real figure was between 1.5% and 2%. This crude statistical jiggery-pokery suggests that officials reckon that inflation might be the only obstacle preventing Néstor Kirchner from winning a second term in a presidential election in October (though his wife may stand in his stead). After collapsing in 2001-02, the economy has notched up four years of growth of 9%. It has shown clear signs of overheating (see chart). The government's response was price-freezing “agreements” with many businesses. But prices are still rising. Ms Paglieri has the confidence of Guillermo Moreno, the secretary of internal trade and the government's chief price enforcer. To arrive at the 1.1% figure for January, she apparently changed the institute's methodology. It dropped from the index prepaid annual health-insurance policies, which come up for renewal in January and whose average cost rose by 22% over the past year. It also changed its sample of tourism companies, reporting that holiday costs had risen by only 3.7% in January, compared with 16.7% in the same month last year. According to an economist who formerly worked at the institute, between them these two changes reduced the inflation rate by 0.8 of a percentage point. Officials may have had an eye on annual salary negotiations between unions and employers, which start this month. But “unions read the newspapers too, and the perception that people have of inflation is very different from the index,” says Javier González Fraga, a former central-bank president. Argentina is still a long way from a return of the hyperinflation of the 1970s and 1980s. But many economists believe that prices of goods and services not covered by price controls will rise by 13-15% this year. Nipping inflation in the bud would require a rise in interest rates and curbs on public spending, as well as letting the peso appreciate. But first there is an election to be fought. It is shaping up to be a war of numbers. http://www.economist.com/world/la/displays...tory_id=8670499
  7. ...until you factor in the opportunity cost of money, Einstein
  8. I don't think this was worth starting a new thread about, but seeing as you obviously crave attention I'll indulge you: Outrageously stupid and ignorant? You said "For most of Q4 2006 the weather was unseasonably warm in the USA especially in the NE." There's no arguing with that, but that has no bearing on MOVEMENTS in the oil price in Q1. It's ancient history and it's long since been priced in. Now read something a bit more up to date. US harsh weather extends its grip - Friday, 19 January 2007 http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/6274769.stm More snow hits upstate New York - Saturday, 10 February 2007 http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/6347139.stm "Extreme cold weather has also been affecting other north-eastern and central areas of the country. Deaths linked to the cold have been reported in Ohio, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Michigan, Wisconsin, New York and Maryland." In pictures: US snow storms http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_pictures/6348947.stm Looks pretty cold to me! Weather turns out to be colder than expected (ie than what the market had priced in)=higher oil prices Now as far as an attack on Iran is concerned, all of these things are facts: * The US is doubling the strategic petroleum reserve * It has increased jet fuel purchases in the Persian Gulf * It has sent two carrier groups to the Gulf * It is sending 20,000 extra troops to Iraq * Bush has authorized a shoot-to-kill policy against Iranians in Iraq Now I'm not saying the US WILL attack Iran, but I believe that it is putting all the pieces in place so that it CAN this summer. If you can't cope with people having that opinion, then don't hang around on bulletin boards! And calling people "fkn lemons" doesn't do you many favours.
  9. No I'm afraid you are off the mark my friend. The weather in the US northeast has been cold in the last couple of weeks, and heating oil stocks have fallen, whcih has translated into higher prompt prices. But what is more interesting that prices have shifted higher further down the forward curve. It seems that the market has built in a higher risk premium - ie it is pricing in a greater chance of a supply disruption in the next 18 months. Add to this the fact that: The US has massively increased jet fuel purchases in the Persian Gulf The "surge" in troop levels More aggressive rhetoric from US goverment on Iran And you have a recipe for attack on Iran in summer 07.
  10. Nationwide is offering 6.25% if you pay in £250+ a month
  11. Oil prices are rising because the US is gearing up to attack Iran this summer
  12. Sorry if OT but: Does SPR Increase Foretell Iran Strike? Does aggressive SPR build-up foretell Iran strike? Light sweet crude is down 20 cents at $54.80 per barrel, after Tuesday's $2.48 jump to $55.04 on reports that the US Dept of Energy will purchase 100K barrels of oil per day starting next spring. While the decision is part of the Bush Administration's latest commitment to reduce US dependency on imported oil, the aggressive approach on beefing up SPR may reflect heightened possibility of a US military strike against Iran as early as March or April, at a time when US navy ships are piling up in the Persian Gulf. Yesterday, markets were filled with chatter of a Kuwait-based newspaper article reporting that the US will launch a military strike on Iran before April 2007, citing "reliable sources". According to the article, the strikes will be launched from US ships with Patriot missiles guarding all oil-producing countries in the region. The attacks would be planned in April, the last month of British PM Blair in office. The immediate result of such an attack is a protracted run up in oil prices, which could reach the $70 per barrel mark in less than a week. http://www.fxstreet.com/fundamental/market...2007-01-24.html
  13. What was the old RPI inflation target?
×
×
  • 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.