Sancho Panza

Still amazed how they're held up as the epitome of retailing nouse. Took Mrs P there (well she took me) and she came away with very little,jsut said it was all hugely overpriced for what it is. Edit to add-if they're doing badly and they're the anchor store for many malls,what price the rest?

Love that graph.Thanks for posting. I hear you.Never felt as alienated from the politcal class as I currently do. Dear Mama Panza keeps saying how wonderful she thinks Le Mogg is.I keep pointing out that the vampire squid is the vampire squid. The only plus with elceting Corbyn is that the crash will happen quickly,it's just there mabe nothing left worht switching the lights back on for.

Up here in Leicester prices were flat from Dec2004 to Dec 2014 on the sales data ublished by RM. Last three years have seen first significant uptick http://www.rightmove.co.uk/house-prices-in-my-area/marketTrendsTotalPropertiesSoldAndAveragePrice.html?searchLocation=le2&sellersPriceGuide=Start+Search

The index is supposedly based on sales data from across the country,may even include cash buys at auction etc. That's why when I came across it before leaping for joy,I thought the methodology needs examining by someone with a bit of knowledge,I'm relatively clueless compared to many on here. I've jsut had a flick at LE2 market trends data on Rightmove which is based on land reg sales which shows a peak in Aug 2017 and then a 23k (10%) drop into Nov 17. Obviously very small sample.

What's your view on this index? I was wondering about the VI because that statement of -4.7% in Q4 is a rather large opening effort in your index I'm sure I remember FT saying he preferred the LSL/Aca index or am I misremembering things? Is the land reg the one we should be looking at for a defintive guide,or is it a case of taking them all together?

Thanks for that.I've updated the tiopic header. I'm interest in page 5 ...England and Wales. Market peak Sept 17 at £298,930 Dec 17 at £284,855 Impressive. Be intersting to know the views of our more learned statisticians @rantnrave, @Neverwhere, or anyone else who can shed some light.

Going to EA today for clarity https://www.estateagenttoday.co.uk/breaking-news/2018/3/latest-house-price-index-claims-superiority-over-rivals--even-the-land-registry?source=othernews 'The first edition of the LCPAca index, just released, shows trading volumes in Prime Central London as the lowest on record, although prices in that location grew 2.4 per cent in the final quarter of 2017, says Heaton. Transactions in PCL are significantly down, 9.5 per cent across the past year, representing the lowest number of annual sales on record and a 34 per cent drop since 2013. PCL’s new build sector shows subdued activity; annual transactions fell 13.4 per cent. England & Wales sees biggest quarterly price fall since Global Financial Crisis - down 1.4 per cent in the final three months of 2017. '

I'm sure Acadata is used by LSL for their report. Can't find the actual report. @Patient London FTB found the relevant doc. https://www.londoncentralportfolio.com/Hidden-Files/LCP/PR/LCPAca Resi Index (Feb 2018).pdf Oct 2017 -1% Nov 2017 -2.4% Dec 2017 -1.4% Property Industry Eye 7/3/18 'A new monthly report that claims to offer a more up-to-date, more accurate and more comprehensive view of the housing market in England and Wales than those provided by the likes of Nationwide, RICS and Rightmove has launched. Residential property investment firm London Central Portfolio has teamed up with Acadata to address what it calls “a number of conspicuous issues” with existing industry data. LCP’s chief executive Naomi Heaton said: “Samples offered by high-end estate agents tend to be small and non-representative. “Nationwide’s house price index represents just 12% of the market, excludes cash purchases and is based on mortgage approvals, not actual sales. “Rightmove use asking prices data only, while RICS’ residential market survey is largely qualitative. “Land Registry’s own published full report is based on a restricted sample, excludes new builds and has a longer time lag.” She added: “Looking to overcome these problems and provide a single reliable residential index, our new report, based on every single sale transacted through Land Registry, will provide a much more accurate and in-depth analysis on how the market as a whole, including the controversial luxury and new build sectors, have really fared in prime central London, Greater London, England and Wales.” The new index revealed that house prices in England and Wales recorded their third successive monthly price fall (at -1.4%) in December last year, resulting in the largest quarterly price fall since February 2009 (at -4.7%). According to its data, the average house price in England and Wales is £284,855. Not including London, the average house price in England and Wales is £250,797. Meanwhile, LCP estimates that annual transactions fell 2.3% last year to 902,100, which is 29% below that prior to the global financial crisis. On a quarterly basis, transactions in the final quarter of 2017 were down 3.8% to 236,899, it calculates. Heaton said: “With prices and transactions both beginning to fall, there is a serious need to address the affordability issues within the sector and support the building of more low-cost housing outside London.” LCP’s data showed that the market in Greater London was slowing, with transactions continuing to decrease. They were down 7% over the quarter to 23,200 and 10% over the year to 93,381. Average prices in Greater London fell below £600,000 for the first time since 2016 (£598,558), following a fall of 3.8% in the final quarter of last year. Meanwhile, prices in prime central London stabilised during the same period, according to LCP. Nonetheless, transactions were “significantly” down (by 9.5%) across the year to 4,183, which is the lowest number of annual sales on record and a 34% drop since 2013. The new-build sector shows subdued activity in prime central London, with transactions down 13.4% and quarterly prices down 5%. In England and Wales, the most recent figures for new-builds, which date from June 2017 (unlike overall monthly, quarterly and annual results, for which there is a two-month time lag, new build results lag by two quarters), showed that the price differential between new and old stock has reached nearly 30%. New-builds in England and Wales are now 65% more expensive on average (£345,118) than they were in December 2006, compared to 38% more for old stock. Heaton said that foreign investors who have bought new build property in London, Manchester and Birmingham were in many cases struggling to let them out for the rental yields they needed to achieve, and laid part of the blame on agents. She said: “I am staggered by the fibs that are told to these foreign investors.” Citing the example of a recent development in London, she said that the reputable firm of agents selling the units were quoting estimated gross rental returns of 4.3%. In reality, investors would be “doing really well” to achieve 3.5% she said, and that rental estimates quoted by agents to foreign investors on new build properties were often “unattainable”.'

Under the 'it's all about the Rust Belt' banner https://www.wsj.com/articles/gary-cohn-resignation-drags-asia-pacific-stocks-lower-1520384427 ' U.S. stocks opened lower Wednesday after economic adviser Gary Cohn’s resignation from the White House raised new concerns that the Trump administration was pushing forward with new tariffs on U.S. steel and aluminum ' Wolf take. https://wolfstreet.com/2018/03/06/dow-futures-plunge-420-points-cohn-plans-to-resign-igniting-trade-war-fears/ ' It didn’t take long for the futures market to react. After it was reported Tuesday evening that Gary Cohn plans to resign, Dow futures plunged 410 points, or 1.7%, at the moment. He matters to Wall Street. As Director of the National Economic Council, he’s President Trump’s top economic adviser. He’s also a former Goldman Sachs executive and a free-trade Democrat. He was one of the few remaining “globalists” in the White House.'

Never a good sign but small brokers have been under pressure for years and the amount still trading is getting smaller by the year. I still use one but I'm careful what we keep there long term Either way he's been hosed-well,his investors have.

https://www.investing.com/equities/capita-group Capita.20 year low at 150. Trying to work out if they're the canary.

https://wolfstreet.com/2018/03/04/are-subprime-debt-slaves-a-leading-indicator-worrying-the-fed/ 'With consumers, the credit problems appear first among the most fragile, most at risk, and most strung-out – borrowers with subprime credit ratings, and with lenders that went after these consumers aggressively. And this is happening now. Small banks pushed with all their might into credit cards, loosening credit standards, lowering credit score requirements, raising credit limits, and offering new cards to people who had already maxed out their existing cards and had limited or no ability to service them from their income, and no way of paying them off – and thus are stuck with usurious interest rates that make these credit card balances impossible to service. Now small banks are getting their clocks cleaned by these American debt slaves that they have gone after so aggressively and that suddenly cannot make their credit payments. Charge-off rates – the portion of outstanding credit card balances that a bank writes off as a loss – spiked to 7.5% and 7.4% of total balances in Q3 and Q4 respectively, according to the Fed’s Board of Governors. Those were the highest charge-off rates since Q2 2010, up from 4.6% a year earlier, and up from 3.5% two years earlier. During the Great Recession, charge-off rates at small banks had peaked in Q4 2009 at 8.8%. So the current charge-off rates of 7.4% aren’t that far off. Charge-off rates for the largest 100 banks had peaked Q2 2010 at 11% in; but in this cycle so far, they’ve dodged the bullet. These 4,788 small banks hold only a small portion of all banking assets, including credit card balances. So this won’t jeopardize the financial system. But the surge in charge-offs at these banks does give a glimpse at the credit problems at the margin: And this is a leading indicator for a broader cycle.'

https://wolfstreet.com/2018/03/01/feds-qe-unwind-marches-forward-relentlessly/ 'There have been suggestions that the Fed “backed off” or “reversed” the QE-Unwind during the recent sell-off to prop up the markets. This was deducted from a single bounce in the overall balance sheet in week ending February 14. But this bounce was just part of the typical ups and downs and perfectly within range. I have to disappoint these folks: based on what has happened in February with the Fed’s Treasury securities and MBS – the only two accounts that matter for the QE Unwind: The Fed didn’t miss a beat. The QE-Unwind proceeded as planned throughout the sell-off. And I expect this to continue.'

I always felt Brown was more stupid than Balls as he gave the latter a job.

I'd hold off for clarity. You gotta spray and pray over a wide area in teh PM's due to this and things like Barricks problems in Tanazania. Decl.I own some ELD.

Darling got a one day a week job with Morgan Stanley iirc. Brown got hired by Arthur Andersen. Both played a part in bailing RBS,A&L,B&B etc etc Just sayin'.

It's all seat swapping amongst the predominantly Oxbridge elite.Same as at the BBC.Then when they're finished in politics they get to head a chariddee on £100,000 a year. I'll invoke the spirit of Occam here.He was jsut thick.You can overcomplicate conspiracy theories sometimes. Not saying it didn't work out well for GS et al, just that the more likely explanation is that Brown thought he'd eradicated the economic cycle with his pals in their iivory towers.

If you enjoy the delusional aspects of the post,read the comments. It's all Shelter's fault that the Govt felt it inappropriate for BTlers to enjoy tax breaks FTB's don't.

http://www.propertyindustryeye.com/parent-company-of-your-move-reeds-rains-and-marsh-parsons-to-announce-results-this-morning/ ' Pre-tax profits have fallen sharply at LSL Property Services, whose brands include Your Move, Reeds Rains and Marsh & Parsons, the firm announced this morning – but there was a reason. Its 2017 full-year results show pre-tax profits at £40.1m, down from £65.4m the year before. However, this was when the company boosted its performance by disposing of £32.9m worth of shares in Zoopla.'

The delusion still runs deep,as does the sense of entitlement. 41% will raise rents. Warnings of a HPC if LL's sell................. Property Industry Eye 5/3/18 'There are new warnings, including from Savills, that the buy-to-let market is looking increasingly bleak with landlords deterred from entering the sector or considering quitting it altogether. According to one study, as many as three-quarters of landlords could quit, including 10% who say they are definitely selling up, while four in ten say they will be forced to put up rents. The majority of landlords thinking of getting out of the sector have just one property and say they will sell if they are making a loss, breaking even, or even just not making enough profit to make it worthwhile. They blame continued financial pressure and costs created by a steady drip of new legislation, specifically citing the impending tenant fees ban, and the loss of tax relief on mortgage costs which is currently being phased in. The new survey of 1,000 landlords has indicated that 41% will be forced to increase rents – but has also revealed that a majority will not hike rents because they believe tenants are already at the edge of affordability. The survey was conducted by 3Gem for online letting agent MakeUrMove. Managing director Alexandra Morris said: “The result of the rising costs associated with the changing legislative and regulatory environment will either be increased rents or landlords having to sell their properties. “The worst-case scenario will be a housing market crash if landlords default on their mortgage payments or decide to cut their losses. The Government is currently sleep-walking into this crisis. The alarm bells should be ringing. The Government needs to act now to ensure it remains financially viable for landlords to meet their financial obligations. “While we wholly believe the industry needs to be regulated, the taxation changes could have a huge impact on smaller landlords. “They might struggle in the new environment, having potentially devastating effects on the housing market. This is particularly concerning when private landlords provide a vital role as the backbone of the UK housing market. “The Government is supposedly bringing in this legislation to protect tenants, but the unintended consequence will likely be landlords having to increase rents, especially if they are forced into debt on their rental property. And this is the best-case scenario. In reality it could be much worse.” Savills has also expressed concern, saying that the combination of prospective interest rate rises and the reducing ability to offset mortgage interest costs against tax is proving a double whammy for landlords. Lucian Cook of Savills said: “It’s why we’re beginning to see signs of some people exiting the sector or reducing their porfolios.” Landlord associations have repeatedly warned of a likely exodus of small private landlords, principally because of the loss of ability to offset mortgage interest costs against tax. Anecdotally, agents have reported in EYE posts being instructed to sell properties rather than re-market them to let. From next month, landlords will be able to offset only 50% of their mortgage interest costs against tax, rather than the 75% they are currently able to offset. This figure will continue to drop until 2020 when the ability to claim any tax relief will be scrapped and replaced by a tax credit worth 20% of mortgage interest.' Email to a friend

I always remember Gordon telling the markets he was going to flog the yellow stuff off and when, and then being surprised when he timed the market bottom. He should have gone then. Our rulling political class has been awful in a cross party manner,but I genuinely struggle to think of anyone whose opinion of self/reality ratio was as out of kilter as his. I remember the freudian slip about 'saving the world'......................lolzzzzzz.

The chart from Zug exemplifies why I'd prefer USD,CAD,AUD.First world currencies for the foreseeable,accepted in most other countries,all got problems but all got a lot of natural resources. Obviously,paints a picture that might steer one towards PM's or even blockchain for the more adventurous. The Western world is in for a shock when govt bond buyers realise you can't tax imputed rents (currently running at 12% of UK GDP) or even worse,that that money isn't actually spent in consumption. If you fiddle the accounts for long enough-price inflation,asset inflation,credit inflation,GDP etc etc, at some point the chickens will want to go to bed.

https://www.themaven.net/mishtalk/economics/sucker-traps-and-the-arithmetic-of-risk-WYJr-Zn3EUS6xHQi3DxwgQ 'John Hussman has another excellent article out this week, but it will be ignored. Mathematically, it must be ignored. In the Arithmetic of Risk, Hussman posted the above chart. I added the anecdotes regarding where we are. Here are some pertinent snips. At present, I view the market as a “broken parabola” – much the same as we observed for the Nikkei in 1990, the Nasdaq in 2000, or for those wishing a more recent example, Bitcoin since January Two features of the initial break from speculative bubbles are worth noting. First, the collapse of major bubbles is often preceded by the collapse of smaller bubbles representing “fringe” speculations. Those early wipeouts are canaries in the coalmine. In July 2007, two Bear Stearns hedge funds heavily invested in sub-prime loans suddenly became nearly worthless. Yet that was nearly three months before the S&P 500 peaked in October, followed by a collapse that would take it down by more than 55%. Observing the sudden collapses of fringe bubbles today, including inverse volatility funds and Bitcoin, my impression is that we’re actually seeing the early signs of risk-aversion and selectivity among investors. The speculation in Bitcoin, despite issues of scalability and breathtaking inefficiency, was striking enough. But the willingness of investors to short market volatility even at 9% was mathematically disturbing. See, volatility is measured by the “standard deviation” of returns, which describes the spread of a bell curve, and can never become negative. Moreover, standard deviation is annualized by multiplying by the square root of time. An annual volatility of 9% implies a daily volatilty of about 0.6%, which is like saying that a 2% market decline should occur in fewer than 1 in 2000 trading sessions, when in fact they’ve historically occurred about 1 in 50. The spectacle of investors eagerly shorting a volatility index (VIX) of 9, in expectation that it would go lower, wasn’t just a sideshow in some esoteric security. It was the sign of a market that had come to believe that stock prices could do nothing but advance, and could be expected to do so in an uncorrected diagonal line. I continue to expect the S&P 500 to lose about two-thirds of its value over the completion of the current market cycle. With market internals now unfavorable, following the most offensive “overvalued, overbought, overbullish” combination of market conditions on record, our market outlook has shifted to hard-negative. Rather than forecasting how long present conditions may persist, I believe it’s enough to align ourselves with prevailing market conditions, and shift our outlook as those conditions shift. Recall that the S&P 500 registered negative total returns for a buy-and-hold strategy during the nearly 12-year period from March 2000 until November 2011. I expect a similar consequence to emerge from current extremes. The 2000-2002 collapse wiped out the entire total return of the S&P 500 – in excess of Treasury bill returns – all the way back to May 1996. The 2007-2009 collapse wiped out the entire total return of the S&P 500 – in excess of Treasury bill returns – all the way back to June 1995. We correctly anticipated the extent of both collapses. Frankly, I expect that the completion of the current cycle will wipe out the entire total return of the S&P 500 – in excess of Treasury bills – all the way back to roughly October 1997. That outcome would not even require our most reliable measures of valuation to revisit their historical norms. You’ll often hear risk being equated with return on financial television. The proposition takes various forms. “Higher risk means higher return” or “Well, you can only expect higher returns by taking more risk.” In my view, the idea that higher risk means higher expected return is one of the most dangerous and misunderstood propositions in the financial markets. The reason it’s dangerous is that it ignores the central condition: “provided that one is choosing between portfolios that all maximize expected return per unit of risk.” See, one of the most conventional “risky” assets investors can choose is the S&P 500. But by our estimates, that asset is priced at a level that’s consistent with negative 10-12 year total returns. Given that expected return, the S&P 500 would be largely excluded from an “optimal portfolio” on that time horizon, unless there was something else in the portfolio with a very high expected return that was negatively correlated with the S&P 500 (in which case, the S&P 500 might be included in order to reduce portfolio volatility). Here and now, it’s very true that the S&P 500 is a risky asset, but it’s madness to imagine that adding more of it to a portfolio will increase expected return, except for investors with very long horizons. Lost in the Pictures As usual, Hussman supplied a large number of images to support his view. In this case, Hussman supplied eight images of dot plots, mean reversions, CAPE, and other things. He also provided Geek-analysis such as "Taking all this together, our rough estimate of average annual total returns over the coming 5 years will be: = (1+growth)(endingPE/startingPE)^(1/years)+(0.6/startingPE + 0.6/endingPE)/2–1 = (1.06)*(15/20)^(1/2)+(.03+.04)/2–1 = -4.7% annually." I don't disagree with a word of that. And his images are excellent. But is the message lost in the pictures? That's why I stripped out what I think are the key paragraphs on risk, volatility, bitcoin, and history. Either way, Hussman wrote another excellent article. But it will be ignored. Mathematically his message must be ignored, in aggregate. Someone has to hold every stock and every bond, at the top and all the way down. On an individual basis, however, there are choices. So think about those key paragraphs and act accordingly.'

I didn't realise they had a dollar peg. Never works well when the shtf.

To misquote Bil Clinton 'It's all about the rust belt stoopid' You're dead right.For me the announcement on steel tariffs was a game changer in terms of where Trump is looking to go.He took the credit for the bubble in stocks and he'll take the credit for the bursting of it. We've discussed nominee accounts previously.But sovency ratios in pension funds have been subsidizing govt detb for years.