Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
Guest

Still A Lot Of Denial Out There

Recommended Posts

For me the sign of the bottom will be all the "potential development " signs mouldering into the ground.

Unfortunately, I have come to realise that 'the bottom' will take longer to arrive than I thought (but it will still hit fundamentals). I was once asked, "did I honestly think that Gordon Brown and Alistar Darling would allow, what I thought would happen, to happen?" I did not believe what they would do to support the bubble. I really did not believe Quantative Easing (printing money) would happen. They have printed so much money that house prices are actually going up, before prices fell to meet fundamentals, as they have in previous recessions. I am prepared to wait until they stop printing money. Or more accurately, I will wait until Gordon Brown and Alistar Darling are forced to stop printing money by a UK debt (bond) crisis.

Why did we not simply print money to get out of previous recessions?

The UK has effectively printed £175 billion. Why has the UK not lost it's tripple A credit rating?

Edited by Belfast Boy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Why did we not simply print money to get out of previous recessions?

The UK has effectively printed �175 billion. Why has the UK not lost it's tripple A credit rating?

It has been tried many times before , Weimar Germany, Argentina ( several times) and Zimbabwe to name but a few.

So far this time the government seems to be using Derren Brown style mind control on the bond markets ;)

However just as Derren can't do any of the things he claims the UK will have to pay the piper sooner rather than later :ph34r:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
However just as Derren can't do any of the things he claims the UK will have to pay the piper sooner rather than later :ph34r:

Although high inflation is a possible outcome from QE, it is not inevitable. QE is a necesscary step to avoid depression -the first signs of depression is deflation. Japan engaged in defacto QE for many years without inflation.

It has been tried many times before , Weimar Germany, Argentina ( several times) and Zimbabwe to name but a few.

It is extremely hard to compare various economic breakdowns and find the root causes, Zimbabwe can be parked and no correlation (lets all agree that). Wiemar, caused in 1921 following the London Ultimatum under the treaty of Versaille demanding

2,000,000,000 (2 billion) gold marks plus 26 percent of the value of Germany's exports. The first payment was paid when due in August 1921 was the beginning of an increasingly rapid devaluation of the Mark which fell to less than one third of a cent by November 1921 (approx. 330 Marks per US Dollar). The total reparations demanded was 132,000,000,000 (132 billion)

***edit addon to contextualise, March 1921, Sixty Marks = One US Dollar

Is it concidence also that the National Socialist German Workers' Party arose in the wake of the national shame, embarrassment, anger and resentment which resulted from the Treaty of Versailles and maybe a lot of these misfortunate circumstances were engineered.

Adolf Hitler himself in his book, Mein Kampf, makes many references to the German debt and the negative consequences that brought about the inevitability of National Socialism. The inflation also raised doubts about the competence of liberal institutions, especially amongst a middle class who had held cash savings and bonds. It also produced resentment of Germany's bankers and speculators, many of them Jewish, whom the government and press blamed for the inflation.

Argentina in 1999 was a miltary dictatorship - need any more be said.

By consequence however, if anyone believes inflation will spiral out of control (which is still possible) then the best possible option would be to buy physical assets with debt - the obvious choices being property.

Edited by md23040

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is often asked 'why is it going to be different this time?' and it is a good question. If this is worse that 1930 then why wont the outcome be different. I have thought about this (very dangerous thing for me). And the only answer I can come up with is speed. Within seconds the world knew about Lehman Bros. Adjustments were made, positions re-drawn within minutes. Infact the market had almost advanced warning and perhaps had commenced allowances prior to offical news. We often see this when share prices actually rise when bad results are posted - this is because the actual results were not as bad and the market had already adjusted for.

When Napoleon was defeated at Waterloo it tool a number of days for the news to reach London and people made fortunes as the news filtered out across the country it took days to react to what now happens in seconds. In the 1930's there were no computers. Nobody could work out what was happening. It took a day to work out new stock prices after the days individual trades were tallied up. First of all it would have taken months wo work out what was happening on their black Tuesday (or which ever day it was) then it would have been easy for the Government to hide what was going on (they probably didn't know). We were probably at a stage -just a week after Lehman's that perhaps took a full year of adjustments in the 1930's. The speed of intervention here was fast. Within days they were injecting $bn's into the system. The life support was switched on very early. In 1928/9 JP Morgan did raise £m's of private money but he invested to make a profit, not to save the system. Word has it that that's how JFK's father became a multi millionaire, but that's another story. If this was then we would probably still be denying there is a recession.

There have been books written (which I hav'nt read) on how the 1930's recession could have been avoided or even handled better and I recall the chief of the fed' explaining that speedy intervention was the key.

The internet, an sits like this one brought people up to speed quickly. That just didn't exist before.

Just a theory

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
...the only answer I can come up with is speed.

There is certainly substance to this but you've got to remember that while we can be made aware of thing much more quickly all actions have been accelerated to roughly the same level. This means that if something bad occurs it can propagate much faster than it did in the past. It's also possible, with the rising involvement of computers in the trading world, that mistakes will be magnified by the speed of processing before intervention can take place.

With regards to Lehman Brothers, I seem to recall rumours of their imminent demise circulating for at least a fortnight before it actually happened.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It is often asked 'why is it going to be different this time?' and it is a good question. If this is worse that 1930 then why wont the outcome be different. I have thought about this (very dangerous thing for me). And the only answer I can come up with is speed. Within seconds the world knew about Lehman Bros. Adjustments were made, positions re-drawn within minutes. Infact the market had almost advanced warning and perhaps had commenced allowances prior to offical news. We often see this when share prices actually rise when bad results are posted - this is because the actual results were not as bad and the market had already adjusted for.

When Napoleon was defeated at Waterloo it tool a number of days for the news to reach London and people made fortunes as the news filtered out across the country it took days to react to what now happens in seconds. In the 1930's there were no computers. Nobody could work out what was happening. It took a day to work out new stock prices after the days individual trades were tallied up. First of all it would have taken months wo work out what was happening on their black Tuesday (or which ever day it was) then it would have been easy for the Government to hide what was going on (they probably didn't know). We were probably at a stage -just a week after Lehman's that perhaps took a full year of adjustments in the 1930's. The speed of intervention here was fast. Within days they were injecting $bn's into the system. The life support was switched on very early. In 1928/9 JP Morgan did raise £m's of private money but he invested to make a profit, not to save the system. Word has it that that's how JFK's father became a multi millionaire, but that's another story. If this was then we would probably still be denying there is a recession.

There have been books written (which I hav'nt read) on how the 1930's recession could have been avoided or even handled better and I recall the chief of the fed' explaining that speedy intervention was the key.

The internet, an sits like this one brought people up to speed quickly. That just didn't exist before.

Just a theory

the big differance between the 30s and now

in the 30s without speedy intervention the big american banks survived

likewise as far as i know no UK banks at all went bust

this time if we had not had the speedy intervention with

billon upon billons being threw at the banks

the sheeple would have awoke one monday morning

to discover them magic plastic cards were merely plastic!

how fecked are we?

rock on!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Although high inflation is a possible outcome from QE, it is not inevitable. QE is a necesscary step to avoid depression -the first signs of depression is deflation. Japan engaged in defacto QE for many years without inflation.

It is extremely hard to compare various economic breakdowns and find the root causes, Zimbabwe can be parked and no correlation (lets all agree that). Wiemar, caused in 1921 following the London Ultimatum under the treaty of Versaille demanding

Argentina in 1999 was a miltary dictatorship - need any more be said.

hello md - good to see you on the forum again

the biggest problem comparing the situation in the US with the hyper-inflations of Wiemar, Zimbabwe, Argentina is that the US Dollar is the global reserve currency. Hence, this is new territory as far as 'money printing' goes. However, comparison with the Japanese deflations are equally skewed given the massive current account deficit the US holds.

A weakening dollar will help the US (Fed) far more than a strong dollar and Bernanke has already stated he will do 'whatever it takes' to fight deflation. Therefore, i err on the side of inflation as far as this debate goes.

there is a good ongoing inflation/deflation debate at FSN at the mo, featuring the likes of Prechter, Schiff etc. if anyones interested.

Incidentally, a piece by edmund conway recently in the telegraph made comparisons between the US and Argentina

edit - sp.

Edited by p.p.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hello md - good to see you on the forum again

the biggest problem comparing the situation in the US with the hyper-inflations of Wiemar, Zimbabwe, Argentina is that the US Dollar is the global reserve currency. Hence, this is new territory as far as 'money printing' goes. However, comparison with the Japanese deflations are equally skewed given the massive current account deficit the US holds.

A weakening dollar will help the US (Fed) far more than a strong dollar and Bernanke has already stated he will do 'whatever it takes' to fight deflation. Therefore, i err on the side of inflation as far as this debate goes.

there is a good ongoing inflation/deflation debate at FSN at the mo, featuring the likes of Prechter, Schiff etc. if anyones interested.

Incidentally, a piece by edmund conway recently in the telegraph made comparisons between the US and Argentina

edit - sp.

yeah i just still dont know if benanke can print as much as he would like, and anywhere close to stoking up inflation.

im still adeflationista although accept high inflation could be the final outcome.

its an interesting debate

Edited by getdoon_weebobby

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It is often asked 'why is it going to be different this time?' and it is a good question. If this is worse that 1930 then why wont the outcome be different. I have thought about this (very dangerous thing for me). And the only answer I can come up with is speed.

The internet, an sits like this one brought people up to speed quickly. That just didn't exist before.

Just a theory

Has speed changed fundamentals?

My salary appears instantly in my bank account at the end of each month. In theory I can spend it faster than ever. I can even borrow more than ever against it, thanks to new complex financial instruments, and then spend that money faster than ever. However, after I have spent it and borrowed against it to the limit what do I do then? At some point it has to be repaid = credit crunch. Speed has not changed peoples incomes, upon which house prices are fundamenatlly based. It will not be different this time. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Argentina in 1999 was a miltary dictatorship - need any more be said.

Yes. It wasn't.

Correct! Thank you, but you know the kernel of the thread was on comparisons and causes of inflation with the group mentioned and the evidence of little correlation.

But to be exact the national reorganisation process under the military junta basically screwed the country up until 1983. Then a neo liberal government was formed that continually blundered including a new currency introduction. But then they blundered even further after acquiring massive foreign debt without finishing infrastructural projects (that were riddled with massive corruption and bribing scandals) and that led to defaulting on debt. That led to the international community losing faith in the currency hence an inflation bout.

Basically the thrust of this is Weimar, Argentina Zimbabwe, and other junta led bouts of inflation have no to correlation to QE policies in a depression. Money printing occurred in these other countries afterward, as a result of inflation, but not at the outset. QE is a Japanese term fundamentally known as é‡çš„ç¦è¼¸ç·©å’Œ. In a depression situation inflation cause is debatable but we'll soon find out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It is often asked 'why is it going to be different this time?' and it is a good question. If this is worse that 1930 then why wont the outcome be different. I have thought about this (very dangerous thing for me). And the only answer I can come up with is speed. Within seconds the world knew about Lehman Bros. Adjustments were made, positions re-drawn within minutes. Infact the market had almost advanced warning and perhaps had commenced allowances prior to offical news. We often see this when share prices actually rise when bad results are posted - this is because the actual results were not as bad and the market had already adjusted for.

When Napoleon was defeated at Waterloo it tool a number of days for the news to reach London and people made fortunes as the news filtered out across the country it took days to react to what now happens in seconds. In the 1930's there were no computers. Nobody could work out what was happening. It took a day to work out new stock prices after the days individual trades were tallied up. First of all it would have taken months wo work out what was happening on their black Tuesday (or which ever day it was) then it would have been easy for the Government to hide what was going on (they probably didn't know). We were probably at a stage -just a week after Lehman's that perhaps took a full year of adjustments in the 1930's. The speed of intervention here was fast. Within days they were injecting $bn's into the system. The life support was switched on very early. In 1928/9 JP Morgan did raise £m's of private money but he invested to make a profit, not to save the system. Word has it that that's how JFK's father became a multi millionaire, but that's another story. If this was then we would probably still be denying there is a recession.

There have been books written (which I hav'nt read) on how the 1930's recession could have been avoided or even handled better and I recall the chief of the fed' explaining that speedy intervention was the key.

The internet, an sits like this one brought people up to speed quickly. That just didn't exist before.

Just a theory

It is an interesting idea, but as you say it is just a theory, and one that doesn't stand up to scrutiny. You are laying the accent on efficient market theory which seems to be a theory for academics who write about it and teach it in universities, whereas successful traders constantly prove efficient market theory as false, which is probably why they are not sitting in a university lecture hall, and thats not denigrating any lecturer as of course the world is a better place with academia. Just an observation. Markets have been proven not to be efficient.

However this graph of debt/GDP ratio tells a story...Debt/GDP ratio

In the 1920's it took just 5 years between 1924-1929 for debt/GDP to go from 150% to 260%, and for the same credit growth to take place between as between 1924-1929 it covered a period of 1980 to 1995, another such period was 1995 to 2007, a mere 13 years to achieve the same credit growth that occurred in the 5 years between 1924-1929. Yet we have a world of digital communication.

If anything this has been a much slower growth in credit that the 1920 period. IS this trend important you might ask? Well, if you look at the correlation between asset prices and credit growth the link between the two is very high. Right now we are actually increasing this ratio and not allowing the bad debts to liquidate, however it will unwind, and it could take a very longtime. The correlation between asset prices and this unwind is also very high, at least in real terms, assets lose value usually over a 10-25 year period.

We were probably at a stage -just a week after Lehman's that perhaps took a full year of adjustments in the 1930's.

A Pricewater house Cooper accountant in charge of the Lehmans unwinding was on today saying it will take baout 10 years to unwind the Lehmans trades and assets. A friend who works as a lawyer to a financial firm in London told me this at Christmas also.

Remember, they have not actually solved any of the problems that existed before the boom. If anything they have actually made them worse in the medium and longterm at the benefit of the short term.

There have been books written (which I hav'nt read) on how the 1930's recession could have been avoided or even handled better and I recall the chief of the fed' explaining that speedy intervention was the key.

This is the man who has not got anything right, this is the man who has been one of the major architects in the boom and the cause of these problems...

An Austrian view of the Great D was that it was the result of the credit growth that occurred between 1924-1929, not what happened between 1929 there after...The Keynesians on the other hand, and their text books focus on what happened after 1929. Yet it was the interventions which prolonged the crisis and made it worse. People were going hungry and the government were ploughing up crops to try to keep prices of agriculture up to prop up business. What sort of insanity was this? Cash for clunkers anyone? Destorying good cars to shift demand forward? Sound familar. People cannot afford houses, yet we are trying to prop them up by taking money from the productive areas of the economy?

Also protectionism of the 1930's? Just google trade wars on google news any day to see the protectionsim surfacing now between China and the west...Smoot-Hawley anyone? Freedie and Fannie Mae had their genesis in the 1930's also. These are dangerous people to believe in, and history and the last few years have indicated this clearly, yet the media have trust in these people.

Within days they were injecting $bn's into the system. The life support was switched on very early

And where are these billions coming from? What is backing it? Is it coming from real production? What blackholes are we pumping billions into? Why are we doing this? To offset prices of assets which will fall, and need to fall?

This debt bubble will unwind, and has started, it took longer this time to build the same amount of debt than in the 1920's with electronics and house price crash.co.uk, it is very likely it will take longer to unwind, 24 months is not going to unwind what took 4 decades to build up, and it history has shown that it never take just 24 months to unwind. I just don't undwerstand how we are so complacent and in denial about this.

edit to add, newspaper clipping from this day 1930...

“While the recovery in business will undoubtedly be gradual, and characterized by confusing uncertainties, the fact remains that all indices that have pointed to revival in the past are now existent. As the stock market is usually some months ahead of trade, observers ... think there is a good chance that Wall Street will be the outstanding bright spot of the country during the winter months.”

Today, Bernanke Bloomberg article...Bernanke Says U.S. Recession ‘Very Likely’ Has Ended

Edited by VedantaTrader

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Has speed changed fundamentals?

Speed was important in the case of preventing depression. Having studied intensively the 1930's situation myself, and most central bankers being aware of its background too, along with the mistakes of Japan, it was essential to zero rate interest rates. And in a depression situation with deflation, which discourages spending since prices are cheaper six months down the road etc, it is important to introduce liquidity into the market as near zero rates is not an efficient enough instrument on its own.

On the fundamentals of debt - this is being paid off by consumers at an alarming rate since spending has been severely curbed. But get your point on debt has to be paid sometime and can’t be perpetual.

Still A Lot Of Denial Out There

IMO no there is little or no denial out there by consumers but there is major denial by government, bankers and estate agents. The first two have a vested interest to protect the floor, but EA is a conundrum that has been previously dealt with by me. This group should be encouraging house prices to fall since it is a commission based business that profits through higher transaction levels not necessarily on the size of the transaction etc, i.e. it’s obvious with lower prices and higher transaction activity benefits EA’s most, especially in the scenario of year on year house price increases slightly above inflation since this encourages more to enter the market. So in a

(Stable affordable market) 400 sales per year @ £150,000 at 2% = £1.2m commissions

Or

(High Priced Denial market) 100 sales per year @ £250,000 at 2% = £0.5m commissions

**some EA’s aren’t selling 2 houses per month.

Selling a house at £300k for £6k commission might be hard work whilst £200k for £4k may lead to three times more activity and less time consuming. So the EA's should be talking down the market since money talks and this conundrum confused me until it dawned most of these schmucks, if not then all of them, are up to their eyes in BTL probably on interest only, and like developers probably bought more and more as the madness continued.

IMO the consumers are not in denial because anything selling is heavily discounted and on the hush hush. Probably more impartial EA like Halifax etc are not as caught up and more realistic. The blockages are the Ea's. Again many EA's sell property that the bank refuse to lend on because the prices are too high and time and again the EA's have been told by the bank valuers, but in their thickness they refuse to listen and remain blinkered to reality with their fingers crossed.

Maybe as a professional body EA’s should be made declare if there own more than one property and if so how many and where, thereby sellers and buyers engaging their services can form an opinion on whether any advice would be impartial or not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
A Pricewater house Cooper accountant in charge of the Lehmans unwinding was on today saying it will take baout 10 years to unwind the Lehmans trades and assets. A friend who works as a lawyer to a financial firm in London told me this at Christmas also.

True but it took three days for Normura bank to pick over the assets of Lehmans after poaching all its key M&A staff and lawyers to unwind all the sexy bits of the business that were going on the cheap. Hence I rated buying certain banks shares some months ago whilst others worried about gold, that has done nothing by comparison.

The rest of your article is very interesting, the size of abx in the last number of years became eye watering.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
True but it took three days for Normura bank to pick over the assets of Lehmans after poaching all its key M&A staff and lawyers to unwind all the sexy bits of the business that were going on the cheap. Hence I rated buying certain banks shares some months ago whilst others worried about gold, that has done nothing by comparison.

The rest of your article is very interesting, the size of abx in the last number of years became eye watering.

lol

don't know who that one was aimed at but it made me chuckle; thing is the risk approach towards the two is completely different.

buying certain bank shares at the time concerned would have been a very speculative play which probably wouldn't have involved a large portion of your portfolio (unless you are in league with govt sax), whereas buying gold for many would be as a form of insurance and not necessarily speculative (something along the lines of the gold is money argument).

anyhow, good call, but you would need steel plated kahunas to hold your position with the price volatility at the time

maybe it's time to buy natural gas instead but you could end up getting burnt ;)

Edited by p.p.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
True but it took three days for Normura bank to pick over the assets of Lehmans after poaching all its key M&A staff and lawyers to unwind all the sexy bits of the business that were going on the cheap. Hence I rated buying certain banks shares some months ago whilst others worried about gold, that has done nothing by comparison.

The rest of your article is very interesting, the size of abx in the last number of years became eye watering.

This is true, but things have not speedened up due to the digital world which was my original point...Gold I don't feel is a trade, and buying banks was a very good trade. I feel comparing the two though from my view point is not helpful. If people have just bought gold in the same day you bought banks shares yes you have a point. However, if you owned gold coming into this crisis, you can now buy 20/30* times as many bank shares with the same amount of gold as 18 months ago. Gold has increased in real terms greatly without actually moving up nominally. I would say if you can buy something 90% cheaper than 18 months ago that is not something to worry about...unless you are trading gold against bank stocks in the shortterm.

Edit to add, well done for having the b*lls to buy them, I didnt at the time or now actually,not the major UK ones at least. Have owned Arbuthnott banking in the FTSE 350, and like the Asian banks such as Bangkok Bank, UOB and Standard Chartered.

Edited by VedantaTrader

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
don't know who that one was aimed at but it made me chuckle; thing is the risk approach towards the two is completely different.

It was aimed at no one in particular, although generally within the hpc.co.uk main site many expected the gold rocket to take off with turbo juice after Lehman’s (and sat smug in the knowledge of their ultimate beings). However one thing in life is certain and that is nothing is certain, and while everyone looked over at that side of the room and fretted over banks, there were good banks picking over the carcass of bad banks with governments pleading to take any assets at any cost.

Without being smug, my philosophy is simple and to keep things simple, markets by nature are naturally bullish but when they turn bearish it's over done. Banking has been around for as long as vice and is probably the most important capitalist industry, therefore (as mentioned months ago) battered and bruised stocks for certain companies were overdone and then I found out who was buying what and where and for how much. Being a contrarian as you know, sold out of gold and switched part of cash reserve into financials and part into REITS since as mentioned previously Gold in reality is as useful as pig testicles, it serves no useful purpose.

Years ago funnily, argued by some in hpc.co.uk main board (when there were more enlightening posters - link to one of these debates HERE), and this struck me to be absolute truth and highlighted to absurdity of human reactions to investment decisions. These were more funny IMO than informative but a bating thread aimed at Cgnoa and Goldfinger etc, who for many had halo status.

However back on track, none of the financials were bought at the bottom, that's impossible, it was all averaged in, and if anyone said they bought all in then, this is not a bull investor but more than likely a bullsh1tter.

Buffett had mentioned those who were risk adverse in the climate after Lehman’s would make incredible returns. And again as mentioned by me 4 stocks could go to the wall, 3 bump along but 3 may soar. It seemed however with another Buffett quote, that all boats rose in the tide.

VT is probably right there is still a great unwinding to come, however no matter what, credit will always be a fundamental principle to the maintenance of capitalism.

Btw likewise bad investment decisions are made by me every day of the week, since markets are all about gut instinct, knowledge and cetain degree of luck (along futures markets helps alleviate this) - it's very like poker but my level of expertise in trading is small by comparison to VT a seasoned expert IMHO and deserves major respect.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

*** Add/on material. Here's a very interesting video into the whole fiasco back on Monday 29th September 2008 (8pm GMT) - if you check these boards my meltdown on the system happened on air when Congress voted against the rescue package, it was absolute horror when my comm stoxx (for a time) seized and became worthless.

To see how close to the wind meltown came click - Video Link Here

It's amazing that the Government put TARP (Troubled Asset Relief Program) together in a matter of days and told senior wall street executives to eat humble pie, whilst Ireland still 16 months later dithers along with NAMA. Thank God Paulson wasn't in denial with the extent of the problems and averted ARMAGEDDON - to the disgust of some tin hat brigaders on hpc.

Edited by md23040

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It was aimed at no one in particular, although generally within the hpc.co.uk main site many expected the gold rocket to take off with turbo juice after Lehman’s (and sat smug in the knowledge of their ultimate beings). However one thing in life is certain and that is nothing is certain, and while everyone looked over at that side of the room and fretted over banks, there were good banks picking over the carcass of bad banks with governments pleading to take any assets at any cost.

Without being smug, my philosophy is simple and to keep things simple, markets by nature are naturally bullish but when they turn bearish it's over done. Banking has been around for as long as vice and is probably the most important capitalist industry, therefore (as mentioned months ago) battered and bruised stocks for certain companies were overdone and then I found out who was buying what and where and for how much. Being a contrarian as you know, sold out of gold and switched part of cash reserve into financials and part into REITS since as mentioned previously Gold in reality is as useful as pig testicles, it serves no useful purpose.

Years ago funnily, argued by some in hpc.co.uk main board (when there were more enlightening posters - link to one of these debates HERE), and this struck me to be absolute truth and highlighted to absurdity of human reactions to investment decisions. These were more funny IMO than informative but a bating thread aimed at Cgnoa and Goldfinger etc, who for many had halo status.

However back on track, none of the financials were bought at the bottom, that's impossible, it was all averaged in, and if anyone said they bought all in then, this is not a bull investor but more than likely a bullsh1tter.

Buffett had mentioned those who were risk adverse in the climate after Lehman’s would make incredible returns. And again as mentioned by me 4 stocks could go to the wall, 3 bump along but 3 may soar. It seemed however with another Buffett quote, that all boats rose in the tide.

VT is probably right there is still a great unwinding to come, however no matter what, credit will always be a fundamental principle to the maintenance of capitalism.

Btw likewise bad investment decisions are made by me every day of the week, since markets are all about gut instinct, knowledge and cetain degree of luck (along futures markets helps alleviate this) - it's very like poker but my level of expertise in trading is small by comparison to VT a seasoned expert IMHO and deserves major respect.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

*** Add/on material. Here's a very interesting video into the whole fiasco back on Monday 29th September 2008 (8pm GMT) - if you check these boards my meltdown on the system happened on air when Congress voted against the rescue package, it was absolute horror when my comm stoxx (for a time) seized and became worthless.

To see how close to the wind meltown came click - Video Link Here

It's amazing that the Government put TARP (Troubled Asset Relief Program) together in a matter of days and told senior wall street executives to eat humble pie, whilst Ireland still 16 months later dithers along with NAMA. Thank God Paulson wasn't in denial with the extent of the problems and averted ARMAGEDDON - to the disgust of some tin hat brigaders on hpc.

probably best to discuss gold on another thread (on another part of hpc if reqd.) depending on how many interested parties there are, but I don't share your views on gold and I am not a TFH bug! It's just difficult to discuss gold on hpc without reverting to extremes and members of the 'for' party are automatically caricatured for effect.

I followed the 10% rule and who was I to argue with history.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:   323 members have voted

    1. 1. Which of the Prime Minister's options would you choose?


      • Leave with the negotiated deal
      • Remain
      • Leave with no deal

    Please sign in or register to vote in this poll. View topic


×

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.