Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

dstars

Members
  • Content Count

    864
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About dstars

  • Rank
    HPC Regular

Recent Profile Visitors

793 profile views
  1. Again Particle man you go and do an S. J. Perlman and remind me why I still read this forum. Injin softened me up and you came in with the killer blow. Well, it's all going down people, and I'll tell you why I know this: I was watching telly the other night and because I can't be arsed giving Sky telly a nod and a wink and spending a shitload paying some guy to set up a satellite dish cause I can't be arsed with having a stroke (it's illegal to have Sky where I live so I have to get proper football on the web), I happened to be self-administering my daily dose of Paxman, Wark and the skinny bird when what should I see but the two greatest economic forecasters in the known universe (if you're as cretinous as the editor of Newsnight must be if s/he thinks Kaletski (with an 'i') and she who told us only a few short months ago why a drop in house prices was impossible, are experts. (She must have read it in a book that GDP or interest rates or supply and demand some other baloney had to be doing whatever it is that it has to do to ensure a drop in asset prices.)) There is only one man in the UK who knows less about economics than those two jokers and that's Ol' Crash himself. Kaletski even made a speech about how thinking we were heading for a great depression was only for the birds until he saw the inevitability of it all: LAST WEEK! After Fannie and Freddie Buggared the American taxpayer (which at least might be good in the giving it a break with killing millions of people department). It never occurred to him for a second that anyone with a double-digit IQ knows he’s a phoney dipshit. The bird told us it was all the fault of the central banks (being so on top of it all and such an expert in these matters of high finance) getting it wrong with all the surplus liquidity that had escaped her notice until five minutes ago. Baffoons. They are a danger to us all. The machine is still cranking. Now we're being told that the 'speculators' are kicking the shit out of the global economy. But we have seen this all before, many times. A proper speculator was on as well. George Soros. This is a guy who you might describe as 'the real deal'. An true experimental economist. When he was asked if he thought that Paulsen had made the right decision on matters such as pretending he can save F & F or telling Leeeeymun go fck itself Soros said that (paraphrase) "If it works he's right, if it doesn't he's wrong." This is code for Soros knowing that Pohlshn is dead wrong (on F & F) but he knows if he says it they'll jump on him and say he's causing it; like they still do with sterling. I hope you know you guys (it's a great thread; nice info on the stock price moves) that you made me miss the second half of the Man. U game - with no commentary. I hope that insanity case cgnao has made a bundle and all the gold bugs didn't take fright too soon. I'm too scared to risk money. I'd rather keep mine in HBOS and N S & I but it looks like they're going to hunt me down a fcking hole like a beaten animal. This theft is current. The morons didn't see it coming until it was working it's way into their large colons, now they think it's about whether this or that caused it and please tell us Oh great ones who fcking perpetrated this global crime! The criminal activity IS ONGOING. (I know that most here know this already.) We is fcked. I do not even trust national savings anymore. I won't buy paper gold cause everyone is a thief, and the stuff's too fcking heavy to lug about. Swiss francs are my last hope. If this gets any worse I shall be forced into becoming a speculator and speculation is so fcking scary and risky. I tend to shit myself when positions go against me and I won't trade anyone else's money in case I lose it. I see a trade out there and it has nothing to do with the underlying instrument and it looks so fcking easy it scares me. It’s not even to do with volatility, it’s more like casting a net over a dumb animal. (And we all know how dangerous those are.) I see the Asian currency crash. If it were possible in this space time continuum to super-impose ‘the chart’ of the whole of the Asian currency crash onto ‘this one’ they would be identical. (And if anyone wants to know what I'm smoking; I'm smoking the last of my Amsterdam supply and well-pissed that a fifty-year old good guy who pays taxes; in a Kanton of Switzerland that has the lowest taxes (but I work like a dog and want to kill my boss, so don't eat the whole your liver about it) can't buy it with his fags down the corner shop.) The market is not rife with speculation; this is cannibalism. This is Sephen King eating himself on a desert island. And it was all so inevitable it could easily have been avoided if we did not, as a race, take hot air laced with equations as anything other than snake oil. Coke without the Coke. Tobacco without the stuff that made Injuns smoke it in the first place. The fat lady hasn’t even fallen to the first landing yet. When smoke was coming out of cgnao’s ears this was not inevitable. Kaletski thought it wasn’t inevitable until last week. But as I explained earlier, Kaletski is thick. But this could have been avoided. The regulation required is simple but I watched a US ex-regulator squirm in an interview when asked what rules should be implemented; she said we had ‘to focus on solving it’. This is why we’re in this mess. All the wrong people are in all the wrong places. Regulation is a piece of cake. Another wiseacre made great hyperbolic gestures when describing how complex these ‘instruments’ were. They were not complex. They were dumb. They had to lead to this. There could have been no other outcome. Complex equations thought up by guys with frayed collars then fed into code by nerdy slaves to the largely nasty characters who populate investment banks are not the point. How they interact with their environment is what matters. It is simple to analyze complex financial instruments; just float them out in your head into different environments and see how they do. There can be no possibility that anyone cared. That is the point. It was not that they were so clever and bad, or incompetent. They did not care whether they made money or lost money as long as it was someone else’s money (they would make money). The guilt extends to the poor rednecks and schemies and middle-class dreams of riches. But those are the people who get to pay the bill for this. Not that long ago, the chairman of Merrill Lynch was given over 200 million dollars (or was that a dream?) for losing 8 billion dollars.
  2. Bloody hell. If anyone out there knows a journo withouth their heads stuck up their arses, copy Particle's post and send it to them. That I have to suffer the bilge of the professional financial press and telly while this kind of analysis gets buried amongst a bunch of looney tunes blog sadsters (myself a recovering saddo) makes me sadder still. I don't even like cheese (sept on pizzas) but someone had to point this out. Beautiful. Absolutely beautiful. And the people at The Times think fcking Kaletsi is a commentator. It is a crime.
  3. Probably. Anyway, I took to posting late at night so that the kids wouldn't get offended. But I asked nicely if this could be set back where I posted and it wasn't. So I'm offski. Hey moderator gadgies; you get this stuff for free you know; are you fcking kidding? For your homework (the peep that moved me) I'd like you to gather up all of my old posts and read them. A million thanks to all the people who wrote some great stuff and offered great insights (you know who you are and there are a lot of you) but it's all a done deal now - no bulls left to annoy and everyone's an expert. I'll still come hear to read but I'm done posting. I could always make good money doing this so it's not fo' free no mo'. Bye!
  4. Indeed. Would the moderators kindly move this thread back into the light? If I am dead wrong it gives people a chance to scoff. This is important for the property market; and is not unrelated. I have posted many comments on economics and the markets and they were never 'cut'. What gives?
  5. But those prices are probably 'offers over' gone to fixed. It hasn't hit Glasgow on price yet. But it will soon enough.
  6. Indeed. I'm on my eighth country. I have to say that I especially enjoyed "although where these buyers are beats me.." And buyers will be administering many more beatings to come in the near future. Another: "If we accpet an offer at the asking price we have lost about £50K Which is 2 years mortgage payments. So in theory that does add up." In theory, it does. This is great stuff guys.
  7. These falls are an irrelevance. The market will collapse. Edinburgh could go down in history (along with Belfast) as disproving previous 'heuristics' by heading for 70-80% falls. It doesn't matter what 'official' figures say and current prices give no indication as to current conditions. It is not yet about price in Edinburgh (or many other places). Price comes later. The lemmings have stalled at the edge in Edinburgh and they are not about to jump off just yet. There will be no orderly falls. Prices will collapse. I can't be sure exactly when and my guess is that modest falls will be followed by modest rises... then prices will collapse. (Did I mention that prices will collapse?)
  8. No, I know less than I let on. All 'points' are always known. What I thought was going to happen was unprecedented volatility punctuated by plateaus of calm during which wags would 'see the bottom' and conjecture a recovery. We're seeing that now but I feel uneasy when 'experts' start to see that things 'is' bad. Such behaviour is often a precursor to fundamental change. Someone posted recently about David Smith (some kind of economist, I believe) who claimed he pegged this by suggesting bad mojo in August and that only crazy people would have suggested any such thing before such a thing became inevitable to him and his book of calculations. Of course, this is how gets to earn the big bucks; 'anyone suggesting anything before I suggest it must be guessing'. One thing he was right about was that there is a time and place to suggest such things. Indeed, it had already happened by the time he cottoned on. At the other end of the spectrum we have nuts like cgnao who give us a bad name by screaming horseshit constantly then cherry picking rants to retrospectively predict the future, or standing by and pointing at reality and claiming copyright The markets now it looks different to me. I still can't figure anything about currencies (beyond a wish to earn and hold Swiss francs) as it's all too bloody complicated. But it just 'feels' like the stock markets need to simplify.
  9. My Black Monday thread (or have I become cgnao?): It seems almost every week someone starts a Black Monday thread. I thought I would never do such a thing but I find it impossible to believe that the stock market can believe its way out of this one. It is finally becoming evident, to those who would wish otherwise, that those huge losses that banks keep posting are but the beginning. Any bank that wants to survive had better get down to Gordo and Ben's trough before the others cause they can't save them all (or even one of 'em, for that matter). As usual, announcements of further losses contain much less information than the stock market geniuses who are calling the bottom. I overheard a conversation recently where someone who had bought UBS 'at the bottom'; was being told how high the stock would go. Now, understand that the person who had bought stock has 'made' (on paper, I hasten to add) around 30% in a couple or three weeks. But the person advising them was saying that they would double their money (he actually cited banking analyst 'expectations' and we all know how clever those guys are). So, our erstwhile investor can 'annualize' a 30% profit made over two weeks or they can hold for a phantom 100% over a year or so. "Mmm, 100%, not bad..." they said, as if the money were in the bank (and even though it is not, my guess is that some of it has already been spent). I broke a rule of mine and pointed out that UBS had just lost almost $40bn and that maybe looking at the gap between the current price and the top might not make such a great deal of sense. "But they were well run for years before that loss. " I was informed. Again, I pointed out that the way the bank was run led to the $40bn loss and that they would not have made such profits if it were not for their strategies - which led to losses which may still end them as a going concern. The people in question were embarrassed for me. After all, have they not just 'made' an easy 30% in the markets? And what the hell do I know anyway? I'm not going to for I cannot be arsed but anyone who can find a decent price, on the downside, on almost anything outside of Swiss pharmas and food, should do very well. Unless, of course I'm dead wrong and a 30% profit over two to three weeks should be eschewed in favor of greater rewards in the future. It is time for stock markets to discount reality into price. Wags have at least started to think that the central bank pricing mechanism has 'broken down' (Newsnight last week and other 'expert sources'). But soon they will see that it never existed; that central banks are powerless; they exist to pump pork into their buddies' pockets, nothing more. Central banks do not set interest rates: they never did. Of course, I could be wrong. You see, I'm thinking that tomorrow, Monday, April 14, will see the start of unprecedented falls across world markets. But I almost always get the timing wrong. I'm always too early, and too early costs money. A recovery cannot be envisaged until we see banks being allowed to fail. Unfortunately, this will happen against the wishes of our 'leaders'. But nevertheless, banking failures will be the very start of the turnaround. Only then will politicians see that banks can and should fail and that capitalism should be given a chance. Anyway, that is all beside the point. This is my Black Monday thread and I was wondering if anyone else out there agreed?
  10. Don't worry. Edinburgh won't fall tomorrow but it won't be too long before we see a major collapse in Edinburgh.
  11. What, then, is a nationalization of a bank? What is 'providing emergency funds' but a bail out? Can I have some of those funds please? What qualifies one for such special treatment? Why no other industry gets protection? Is the banking system holding a gun to our heads? The taxpayer is going to be expected to pay for this. But they are going to find less and less taxpayers to steal from as more of us leave the country. There are far too many people expecting the taxpayer to fork out for them. Take, for example, the other end of the scale; the local librarian. She's a risk-averse type of gal so as soon as she could buy a house she did just that. But over the years her avoidance of risk was leveraged into great wealth as property was used as the conduit to flood the economy with money. But our gal, whilst sitting atop a great pile of wealth, also gets a very nice pension when she's had enough of the sweat and toil of the local library. Then she gets to take it easy at the expense of the taxpayer; someone who may have no pension at all. So people without houses or pensions get to support the houses and pensions of others. Then there's her 'bad sheep' little brother who used to be a heroin addict but now he's on Methadone. He has his own staff of social workers and psychologists and other dole workers that the taxpayer gets to pay for. He even gets to buy his filthy hovel at a 90% discount, lob it to an FTB and then start again. Then there's four to five layers of government overseeing this huge mess. We have imported cheap labour from Eastern Europe to work and our underclass have become rich. And soon we will blame the imports for all of our troubles. Our government has taken part in illegal wars to pump oil prices and now they are acting like National Socialists as they try to steal our DNA and make us strip at airports and drink mother's milk (lest it contains explosives). I was asked recently by a four-pound-thirty-an-hour security guard at an airport to do just that. My head almost blew off the second time it happened as our flight had been cancelled and we were required to do it all over again "Should have got here sooner" said my erstwhile protector. Upon returning to Switzerland I was waved through. (A European passport is not enough not to be treated like a criminal in the UK but it'll do for a foreign country?) This is the great tectonic shift. The rise of the East and demise of the West. It cannot be avoided as our leaders cannot be but what they are. There are places that are very livable in the West but the UK is not one of them. If you have any wealth or talent or ambition at all, leave the UK and go somewhere where you are appreciated. Perhaps, some years down the road, the UK will have laws in place to stop such things happening (or even laws that allow bad businesses to fall). Gordon Brown said, when he ordered Northern Rock to be saved, "they have a sound business model". A few weeks later he said "they had an unsound business model". Perhaps he thought nobody would notice the difference of one little 'un', which accounts for 100 billion pounds? The numbers are so crazy that I can hardly believe them. Time was that the world economy could be in danger with a few billion leveraged, now we hear of tens of trillions. I do not understand it; and my understanding of such things is deeper than Gordon Brown's (the fact that he got voted to parliament notwithstanding). The UK is doomed, but the people don't have to be. I understand that the above is an fragmented rant but cogent arguments are no use in the current situation. Our system cannot be solved so we must act accordingly. The message is: Get Out of the UK. Find a way to make their decisions unprofitable (to them). There is a world out there that values hard work, skills and talent: Find it, before they milk you dry.
  12. We are all going down. The only ones not going down are 'them': the ones that caused this. Indeed, if we were given a choice (which we were/are not) we do not have to bail anyone out. I think you would find, after an initial period of banker hysteria, that they would turn on each other, and start to differentiate themselves. Soon we might find bankers trying to act in a manner that benefited us all. But they first have to see that such a thing is profitable. If we do not make such behaviour profitable they will not act in that way. It is not complicated. If we tell them; suck up as much money as you can in any way you can; take any risks you wish; you are immune from failure; they will act accordingly. This is not really the fault of the banks; they are simply acting according to their nature as defined by our rules. Lenders were encouraged to encourage fraud. Ultimately this was caused by our central banks, politicians, ratings agencies and regulatory bodies; not the banks themselves; who were tacitly encouraged to engage in behaviour that had to lead to an economic meltdown of sorts. But still, Bernanke is trying to solve a problem of outsized expansion by expanding: It will not work (unless 'work' means more pork for the thieves). If Bernanke had learned anything from all of his studies he would have seen this coming a long time ago and and tried to introduce measures to offset this insanity; but he did not. (Again, such measures are not rocket science.) He did not see it coming and now he is playing with the world economy as if it were a boy's chemistry set; trying to replay the faults of the 30s. He thinks he knows what he is doing: he does not. This is not the thirties. It is not the same. This was entirely avoidable. I believe, strongly, that he is getting it wrong and in turn our (UK) poodle central bankers are following his lead. Let the banks fall. We will survive as will many banks. The sector needs to be slashed and burned. It is too fat. What Bernanke is doing is beyond madness but 'experts' (not a single one of whom saw this from afar) all reckon this is the only option. It is not. And not only is the not the only option; it is by far the worst option. Of course, it will look like it is working for a little while, but only a little while. Our financial systems are run by thieves and incompetents and now we are sending them the message that they cannot fail. All they have to do is more of the same and they will be saved forever and forever.
  13. This is the party line. This is the line we'll hear for a while at least. FP got it spot on recently when he recommended banking stocks. I have no idea what the profit point or uncle points will be but they will surely go up for a bit before tumbling down again. Why would the whole system have to fall? It wouldn't. This is just the line we get spun. We need banks to fall. This is a regulatory failure. We need to see banks fall before we can call them banks again. The whole system does not have to fall just because some fall. There simply has to be a difference between incompetence/corruption and prudence/good practice. I was a journalist In Mexico City in the aftermath of the peso crisis. The people from the middle to the bottom suffered greatly whilst the bankers made out like bankers. Until banks fall nothing will be solved. I believe Bernanke spent too much time studying the Great Depression and the idea that Keynesian blasts might work, if given a chance. Bernake is getting it wildly wrong. The people who caused this; the people who did not see this coming, are now our saviours? I don't think so. Buy banks, but tie a string to it. For they will blow up when the next 'crisis' hits. The world economy now has no skin left, anything and everything will be perceived as a lifeboat or a monster.
×
×
  • 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.