Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Timm

  1. On 19/10/2021 at 14:09, Unmoderated said:

    I'm more interested in the shape of that yield curve. A sudden increase in short dated gilts but no real movement in the longer dated suggests whatever people are expecting is only expected to be in the short term. 

    If inflation was expected to persist the longer dated gilts would be yielding higher.

    To me this says short term inflation then a drop to low inflation without a change in base rates,

    I do see what you are saying.

    The shorter the term, the bigger the jump. The 6 month is now up 5x on a month ago, the 2 year up 4x and the 10 year about 50%. Etc. 

    But. It was the longer dated ones that started moving first - that was what got my attention. Then, after I bumped this thread last week, the 2 year yield suddenly leapt up on Monday morning, followed later in the day by the 6m term. The yield on this very short term bond seem to have continued to rise over the week, whilst the others seem to have pretty much settled.

    So what I'm saying is that the shape of the yield curve has changed dramatically over the week. Any idea why that might be? (Genuine question - I have literally no idea.)

  2. 2 hours ago, Si1 said:

    A modern wastewater system has two components - a runoff water network and a foul-water network. The runoff network drains either directly into natural water systems or via soak pools, the latter is to reduce flash flood-potential. The foul water system goes through sewage works to treat the waste and leave solid residue that is buried or used as fertiliser; and really pretty clean water which is OK to allow into the natural water system, but you might not want to drink it. In those systems there's no reason to randomly dump sewage into rivers, ever really.


    However the UK doesn't have that system for the most part. We have much older 19th century combined drainage systems which take both runoff and foul water in the same pipes. They go into a sewage works but in the event of a rainstorm far too much water is flowing through the system and it has to be allowed to drain into the river as the volume flow is too much to go into the sewage works.


    Also since the financial crisis and/or the 2010 GE (and the collapse of the public sector mega economy of Brown), with economic austerity, there's way way less money going into environmental management by the govt. This is evidenced with a fraction of the jobs in environmental fields being advertised - literally hundreds a month before 2010 and a few a month after it. Basic fact is that with less public money to spend do people want (1) jobs, (2) education for their kids (3) healthcare or (4) clean rivers - delete one. 


    Fact is that whilst a clean environment is nice it is a lower priority compared to some more fundamental environmental needs.

    Nailed it.

    There's not much point in continuing this thread, when the go-to reference work crops up in the second post.

  3. 35 minutes ago, Freki said:

    IR have de facto risen already for the government

    Rising inflation has driven up the cost of repaying Britain’s national debt by around 50% in the first half of the financial year.

    Interest payments from April to September totaled £32.7bn, up from £21.7bn a year ago, due to the increase in the Retail Prices Index to which index-linked gilts (government bonds) are pegged.

    The RPI has risen sharply this year - hitting 4.9% in September, up from just 0.5% in August 2020.


    This perhaps is why the BOE "will have to act"

    Now, what will that act be? Raise interest rates? Or just buy those pesky linkers?

  4. https://www.forexlive.com/news/!/uk-september-cpi-vs-32-yy-expected-20211020

    Looking at the details, the largest upward contribution to September inflation came from transport while restaurants and hotels made the largest downward contribution to the 12-month inflation rate.

    On the latter, it is largely due to some easing of the "eat out to help out" scheme that was launched in summer last year so there's that to keep in mind.

  5. 3 hours ago, FallingAwake said:

    So how does this happen?

    Between Weeks 37 and 40 of 2021, out of every 100,000 people, a greater proportion of vaccinated people are getting covid than unvaccinated, in ALL of the 30+ age categories! (Remember, these are "per 100,000" figures.)

    Source: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1025358/Vaccine-surveillance-report-week-41.pdf


    From your own link (my emphasis):

    "Estimates of initial vaccine effectiveness in the general population " 

    Page 7 in the link you posted.


    Each 100,000 is 100,000 people out of the general population, some 80% of whom have been vaccinated.

    Night night.

  6. 1 minute ago, FallingAwake said:

    Yes, if you want to divide 100,000 people up. But this isn't how "per 100,000" stats work.

    In the table I quoted from, they're just saying (to take the 40-49 age range), for every 100,000 vaccinated people in this age range there were 1,455 cases, and for every 100,000 unvaccinated people there were 696 cases.

    The purpose of "per 100,000" stats is to specifically allow us to make a direct comparison. Before, we did have to do it your way.

    If you want to look at raw numbers, they are also given in the chart. If I were using the raw numbers, then yes, your point would be valid.

    But I'm using the "per 100,000" numbers, which unambiguously show that the vaccinated are catching covid in much higher numbers per 100,000.

    But either way the numbers are pretty awful in terms of catching covid.

    - In terms of raw numbers, 93,389 out of 111,896 cases in the 40-49 age range were vaccinated. That's pretty dismal. It basically does nothing to stop you from getting covid.

    - In terms of relative "per 100,000" numbers, the rates are 1,455 per 100,000 compared with 696. That means the vaccinated are twice as likely to get covid. That's terrible for a "vaccine".

    I agree, however, that the silver lining is the death rate... so far ( ;) ).


    The 100,000 are a slice of the whole population, of whom about 80% are vaccinated.

    I said this before, but you chose to edit it out, because it destroys your thesis.

  7. 3 hours ago, FTB-house-hunter said:

    I fully expect the state pension to go bye bye for many.  It will reach a point where they say everyone needs £xxx a week to live on, if you get that figure or above, no state pension for you.


    And quite right too.

    Why should the workers subsidise the economically inactive, other than to ensure they are adequately housed, fed and free? I'm getting on a bit, but I don't want to have a standard of life that is beyond that of the average worker, if the average worker is paying for it.

  8. 5 hours ago, TheCountOfNowhere said:

    This is pretty shocking when you see it and realise you've been done up like a kipper




    The bOE will not raise IRs to any extent, they will send them -ve to make sure they're investments dont fall, meanwhile, the rest of us will be f**ked.

    I like that graph, but the green lines identify the wrong event.

    What actually caused the HPI take off are the early events identified in the red annotation. 1. Bankers let off the leash (deregulation) 2. BTL mortgages (AKA assured short-hold tenancies) 3. IO/self cert mortgages 

    It's a bit silly to say that the Govt were really good at keeping house prices stable to incomes until BOE independence, when most of the measures keeping them high since 2008 (FLS, Term Funding, Help to Buy, Stamp Duty Cut etc) were Govt measures.

  9. 1 hour ago, FallingAwake said:

    (...) If we look at the 40-49 age group, yes most are vaccinated. So yes, we'd expect to see more cases in the vaccinated (although not if it were a proper vaccine!)

    But we wouldn't expect to see the vaccinated catching covid at a rate of 1,455 per 100,000 compared with the unvaccinated at 696 per 100,000.

    That makes the vaccine actually worse than useless, in terms of spreading covid.

    So @Timmwould be correct if we were looking at absolute case numbers. But we're not. We're looking at relative case numbers, i.e. "per 100,000".

    The 100,000 are a slice of the whole population, of whom about 80% are vaccinated.

    Take 100,000 people. 80,000 are vaccinated and 20,000 are not.

    The vaccinated are four times as numerous, but have only twice as many cases.

    So the vaccines give about a 50% protection against catching it.

    In other news, they also give 90% protection against dying from it.


  10. 9 minutes ago, msi said:

    World of difference between engaging with the subject and thinking 10mins off youtube makes you find the 'secret conspiracy that every expert doesn't see' lunacy - just look at the C*vid thread

    Indeed, I just popped in there and it is just silly.


    Is there a special site that trolls go to, from which they can cut and paste their coordinated idiocy?

  11. 1 hour ago, FallingAwake said:

    So how does this happen?

    Between Weeks 37 and 40 of 2021, out of every 100,000 people, a greater proportion of vaccinated people are getting covid than unvaccinated, in ALL of the 30+ age categories! (Remember, these are "per 100,000" figures.)

    Source: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1025358/Vaccine-surveillance-report-week-41.pdf


    Are you still doing this rubbish?

    The answer is that almost everyone over 30 is vaccinated. 

    If 100% of over 30s were vaccinated, then 100% of cases would be in the vaccinated group.


    Edit: I saw the response below. It makes no sense and I'm not going to reply.

  12. 6 hours ago, Unmoderated said:

    To me this suggests expectations of any inflation or rate increase will be limited in size and duration.

    It's all relative, isn't it? To most HPC'rs, these yields still represent an abnormally low return on capital. But if they persist, they represent an ongoing increase in the cost of debt that could be ruinous for some. Plus, is it a one off repricing, or a response to the expected CPI figure on Wednesday that could be repeated next month and the month after that? Are we looking at a one off event, or a change in the direction of travel?

    I won't nail my colours to the mast, but there is a reason that I bumped a thread last week that had been dormant since 2019. 

    6 hours ago, Unmoderated said:

    Banks still lending at mad low rates for mortgages out there - and very easy to borrow right now. 

    With one proviso, I will defer to others on that one - see spyguy above.

    The one point I would make is that mortgage rates are mad low now. Some people think that the bond markets give clues to the future. Whether that is CPI this Wednesday, BOE base rate on the 4th Nov or in Dec, or the years to come, I would not like to guess.

    4 hours ago, Roman Roady said:

    Thanks...if it were the second scenario, it would have to be a very large amount wouldnt it?


  13. 55 minutes ago, dances with sheeple said:


    I did wonder that this morning, but nobody else seems to think so.

    Plus, if it was that, wouldn't they have averaged out over the week, rather than dumping everything on one morning and nothing in the afternoon? It does look more like a general re-pricing, rather than a sudden large and unilateral divestment. 

  14. 1 hour ago, Roman Roady said:

    How significant is this then?

    They are very significant and unusual daily moves.

    I am very very far from being an expert, and I had been hoping someone better qualified would be along to provide some educated comment / narrative.

    The general consensus view seems to be that the markets have suddenly decided that inflation (and therefore interest rates) are about to be reported as much higher in the UK than expected. This could be because the expected CPI figure of 4.1 is going to come out a lot higher than forecast. The next CPI figure comes out this Wednesday, so a leak is possible. 

    The other possibility is that somebody (or some people) needs a lot of money fast and is selling bonds in a hurry. That does not seem to be the view of most market commentators.

  15. On 15/10/2021 at 08:38, Timm said:

    I thought it might be worth logging the current yields as a benchmark to watch over the coming winter.

    UK 10-year gilt yield now  1.05%

    UK 20-year gilt yield now 1.3%

    UK 10-year gilt yield now  1.17%

    UK 20-year gilt yield now 1.43%

    And that is since Friday!

    Also, the 2 year is insane, up from 0.57% on Friday, to 0.73% now.

  16. 15 hours ago, gruffydd said:

    They won't get ahead of the curve - they're old school laggards who don't even seem to be on top of the basic dataflows. So it's 0.15% in December.

    Then a bigger rise in February when they eventually realise they're behind the curve. 0.25%. 

    Nothing will happen in November... some bolloxology about Furlough (we already know there's been little impact re: the ending of furlough, but apparently these Bank of England twits need anther month lol). 




  • 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.