Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
Mr. Miyagi

Project Armageddon

Recommended Posts

http://www.tullettpr..._Report_007.pdf

This has been posted on the front page of this site. The preliminary report was discussed at length a few months ago. The report does not paint a pretty picture for the U.K :ph34r:

the report is for the reading of wealthy boomers

it is saying they are screwed and their children will not pay

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not going to lie, I haven't read it all. But loved the section of how Gordon royally screwed us what with less regulation on banks and a ridiculous property boom.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just finished it. Outstanding, I'll be sharing the link with many people. I was glad to find the figures showing how much of the last decades "growth" was debt based. It doesn't really go into how much paying that back will hurt, though. It's as if adding the paying back of private debt would make the numbers look really silly/scary (take your pick).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I got as far as page 8

Bankers have been blamed for

the financial crisis (for which the real

culprits were the policymakers who

crippled regulatory oversight), and

criticised because they earn too much

(which, as we have remarked before,

is about as rational as supporters of

a football club demanding the sale

of their top goal-scorer because he

earns so much more than they do). The

emotional debate over banking tends

to obscure the reality that for Britain

to downsize its financial services

industry would be about as rational as

Saudi Arabia downsizing oil, or Iceland

downsizing fish.

So we are in all this debt but the time for remorse about bankers is over?

They are worth every penny and must be allowed to continue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I got as far as page 8

So we are in all this debt but the time for remorse about bankers is over?

They are worth every penny and must be allowed to continue.

I think the point the author is making that Britain would be facing an even more severe as s banging if we didn't have the financial sector. You can blame both Labour and the Tories for allowing the city to become one of Britains major contributors to the economy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the point the author is making that Britain would be facing an even more severe as s banging if we didn't have the financial sector. You can blame both Labour and the Tories for allowing the city to become one of Britains major contributors to the economy

It also highlights how the financial services are one of the areas that make up 70% of our GDP that will not be delivering any real growth any time soon due the reliance on debt funding.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I got as far as page 8

So we are in all this debt but the time for remorse about bankers is over?

They are worth every penny and must be allowed to continue.

you would think that the UK cannot possibly turn towards other industries - at the end of the day, Saudi Arabia simply cannot swap oil for another industry, Iceland (or wherever) simply cannot swap its fisheries resources for something else; but thde UK CAN swap it's badly diversified financial brains out into engineering and commerce, in fact it must for future stability; a financial firm of course WOULD query this as they have so much to lose as an institution

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just finished it. Outstanding, I'll be sharing the link with many people.

Same here. It's a report which is in tune with how I've seen things since 1997. Labour's 13 years in office trying to be all things to all people, with appealing keywords such as fairness, causing lots of waste, unfairness and unjustifiable levels of entitlement with rewards which were not warranted in a more level and balanced reality. My mistakes have been to completely underestimate people's stupidity and greed and level of entitlement. Stupidity in the sense of accepting house price inflation at the levels we saw, without concern, and home owners expecting such a pace for year after year, and banker's too. Or bankers knowing for can they really have been so stupid, but just wanting the immediate bonuses of the time and not caring about the longer term outcome.

I read it as dismissive Labour's plans of small cuts but doubts the coalition's plans too. The coalition's quest for growth but the debt looks overwhelming, and not enough by way of reforms and dangers to growth even with cuts and reforms. Seeking growth whilst keeping too many people in high debt positions holding on to housing assets they shouldn't really be in possession of, rather than see prices correct significantly.

Page 18

The biggest single debt increment during the period between 2002 and 2009 was mortgage borrowing, which increased by £590bn between those years. Many borrowers saw this as investment, a view which was profoundly mistaken even though many policymakers and even bankers managed to delude themselves otherwise. As average property prices soared from £121,000 in 2002 to £197,000 in 2007 (a real terms increase of almost 70%), escalating mortgage debt looked like an investment, and a good one at that.

But to believe this was to overlook two critical points. The first point that was generally misunderstood was that property prices, whilst realisable on an individual basis, are not realisable in the aggregate. Therefore, and as borrowers and lenders alike were to discover, property prices, far from being an absolute, are an example of 'notional value'.

End of page 29, start of page 30 looks at the possibility of a rapid collapse in house prices, but more likely to be protracted. Were it protracted or even rapid I'm guessing double pain for many at HPC if the system and debt laden entitled individuals within it can't cope with the change.

There are at least three further reasons to suppose that property prices may be heading for a very big fall. First, net mortgage lending has virtually dried up, declining from £113bn in 2006-07 to just £3bn in 2010-11 (fig. 35)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the point the author is making that Britain would be facing an even more severe as s banging if we didn't have the financial sector. You can blame both Labour and the Tories for allowing the city to become one of Britains major contributors to the economy

Or, you can blame the American Lenders who arrived in the mid 90s with their loose lending policies and very deep pockets.

The Indigenous Lenders seeing their market share dramatically reduced joined in the new game, the rest is history.

The most important thing to the average Brit today is carrying a bottle of water in the left hand and a mobile phone in the right hand and if really a part of the new scene be covered in Tattoos from the masses of Tattoo Parlours now opened in the towns, and if you want to go further take the customary Staffordshire Bull Terrier with you wherever you go. :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.tullettprebon.com/Documents/strategyinsights/Tim_Morgan_Report_007.pdf

This has been posted on the front page of this site. The preliminary report was discussed at length a few months ago. The report does not paint a pretty picture for the U.K :ph34r:

They were not complaining when I wrote their credit derivative exchange system early last decade which facilitated the trade of trillions of dollars worth of toxic assets.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They were not complaining when I wrote their credit derivative exchange system early last decade which facilitated the trade of trillions of dollars worth of toxic assets.

So basically propaganda from a bunch of self serving City tossers who helped facilitate the problem in the first place. It figures.

Anyway if it really is Armageddon they had better watch out for this guy as he has their number

Edited by stormymonday_2011

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They were not complaining when I wrote their credit derivative exchange system early last decade which facilitated the trade of trillions of dollars worth of toxic assets.

Ooo! You enabler!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It also highlights how the financial services are one of the areas that make up 70% of our GDP that will not be delivering any real growth any time soon due the reliance on debt funding.

Thats the scariest thing in the whole report

Without growth the UK looks more and more like the PIIGS

The only way out would be further devaluation/inflation and public spending cuts much deeper than what is currently being proposed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've come to the conclusion from this that unless you're a cruise boomer, a benefit claimer or super rich the best solution is to leg it.

In fact, I don't know why I'm even wasting time on this site when I could be searching the net for a plane ticket.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just having a conversation with a guardian reading colleague about the contents of the report, mainly the way that GB debt is calculated and how the economy is currently structured and it's ability to grow, his words.........If it comes from you Mr. Miyagi I do not believe a word of it. (in my area of the public sector I'm considered as right wing as Thatcher, I'm not!!)

It's the old river in Egypt syndrome.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The report's ok - a good bearfest, but my criticisms are:

- repetitive and lengthy without going into any detail at all about its debt calculations. I am extremely sceptical of the "real" total debt graphs. The financial support component should not be included in so far as banking assets support the debt. I am not too sure about the unfunded pension liabilities either. How the hell did he calculate that? Again, unfunded public sector pension liabilities need to be considered with the balancing assets - i.e. the future contributions of from public employer and employee paychecks - these are calculated to be in relatively stable balance. If you are going to count future public wage bills as "unfunded liabilitiies" then you need to include all future government expenditure as an unfunded liability. At which point you are no longer talking about national debt in any understood sense.

- There is no comparison analysis of other countries unstated national debt for comparison. It is almost as if it wishes to compare it's own ******** "real" figure for the UK with the official figures for all other countries.

- It whines on and on about a "psychology" Labour created, as if this can't be easily changed when reality hits. And I'm not sure that it is just Labour who created a sense of national entitlement. We did have an Empire, after all. When it strays from the numbers it is pretty weak (and it's pretty weak on the numbers).

The best things about the report are the emphasis and quantication of mortage debt bubble expansion providing a false impression of sustainable GDP growth, and the suggestion that much of the economy is based on swapping houses with each other or the public sector.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ooo! You enabler!

I was only following orders. Besides I've been over spreading the magic in Australia for 5 years. Moved back to watch the carnage over there from a safe distance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It whines on and on about a "psychology" Labour created, as if this can't be easily changed when reality hits. And I'm not sure that it is just Labour who created a sense of national entitlement. We did have an Empire, after all. When it strays from the numbers it is pretty weak (and it's pretty weak on the numbers).

You only need to read a few threads here to realise that Britain is full of rabid leftists who won't stop demanding more 'free stuff' until the whole economy collapses and they're fighting in the streets over tins of dog food. While Labour have done the right thing now and again, they've destroyed pretty much everything worthwhile in Britain, created a permanent welfare underclass and driven most of the 'best and brightest' abroad. You can't easily recover from devastation like that, and you certainly won't with a loser like Camoron in charge.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not too sure about the unfunded pension liabilities either. How the hell did he calculate that? Again, unfunded public sector pension liabilities need to be considered with the balancing assets - i.e. the future contributions of from public employer and employee paychecks - these are calculated to be in relatively stable balance. If you are going to count future public wage bills as "unfunded liabilitiies" then you need to include all future government expenditure as an unfunded liability.

Future public sector pensions are in a stable balance? Outgoings are funded by incomings? I don't think so. The gap is the unfunded liability it talks about.

Now, if we can convince all the current public sector employees to actually start paying for the pension they expect to receive, that would be a start towards a stable scheme - the ex-emplyees now drawing pensions would still be draining funds the whole time.

What are the chances of them paying for what they expect to receive at the moment? It's that "entitlement" thing again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You only need to read a few threads here to realise that Britain is full of rabid leftists who won't stop demanding more 'free stuff' until the whole economy collapses and they're fighting in the streets over tins of dog food. While Labour have done the right thing now and again, they've destroyed pretty much everything worthwhile in Britain, created a permanent welfare underclass and driven most of the 'best and brightest' abroad. You can't easily recover from devastation like that, and you certainly won't with a loser like Camoron in charge.

Agree with the thrust of that. To throw this in, though: there was a piece on Newnight last night (or perhaps the night before) encouraging us to "fall in love" with the welfare state again.

All we need is to retarget who it benefits and look at the moral hazard aspects, and we'll all support it, because it will support us in our old age.

Conveniently forgetting that actually, all the payments into the system were not ringfenced, but rather were systematicaly p***ed away by successive Governments and the money to pay out doesn't exist anyway, never mind whether it was theoretically "affordable" or not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The report's ok - a good bearfest, but my criticisms are:

- repetitive and lengthy without going into any detail at all about its debt calculations. I am extremely sceptical of the "real" total debt graphs. The financial support component should not be included in so far as banking assets support the debt. I am not too sure about the unfunded pension liabilities either. How the hell did he calculate that? Again, unfunded public sector pension liabilities need to be considered with the balancing assets - i.e. the future contributions of from public employer and employee paychecks - these are calculated to be in relatively stable balance. If you are going to count future public wage bills as "unfunded liabilitiies" then you need to include all future government expenditure as an unfunded liability. At which point you are no longer talking about national debt in any understood sense.

- There is no comparison analysis of other countries unstated national debt for comparison. It is almost as if it wishes to compare it's own ******** "real" figure for the UK with the official figures for all other countries.

- It whines on and on about a "psychology" Labour created, as if this can't be easily changed when reality hits. And I'm not sure that it is just Labour who created a sense of national entitlement. We did have an Empire, after all. When it strays from the numbers it is pretty weak (and it's pretty weak on the numbers).

The best things about the report are the emphasis and quantication of mortage debt bubble expansion providing a false impression of sustainable GDP growth, and the suggestion that much of the economy is based on swapping houses with each other or the public sector.

It cannot easily be changed when reality hits because if that was the case, reality would be hitting now! The sheeple still have very little idea of the state of play because they are not interested, they just assume things are a little bit bad and if only the 'nasty' Coalition would stop targetetting 'the poorest in society' and took a bit more in tax off the rich, then all would be rosy again.

That simply isn't the case and they have no idea and probably never will, as they do not/cannot/will not understand the depths of the shit we are in until we are stalking each other on the streets.

I've been banging on about the sense of entitlement for years now and people hav generally ignored me. Maybe you don't see it round your way, but round my way all I ever hear "I/we/they are entitled to it" with no concept of just how such "free" stuff is paid for!! Breaking this sense of entitlement culture is the biggest barrier to change for me and I'm please to see it given such prominence in this article.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Future public sector pensions are in a stable balance? Outgoings are funded by incomings? I don't think so. The gap is the unfunded liability it talks about.

He doesn't give any justification, source or working; this alone is a damning indightment of a 30+ page report. However, it seems he has just discounted the recurring liability for pension pay outs without considering the revenues.

Public sectors pensions will require some additional contributions from general taxation for a few years, then decline as a percentage of GDP thereafter if you believe growth estimates (which I don't, but that's a different argument).

No matter your pessimism on the affordability of these commitments you can't just consider the future bills as a liability without considering future income. Even public sector pensions running huge deficits filled by Treasury have some income from taxation associated with them. That as I said would be directly analogous to regarding all future public sector spending as an unfunded liability.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It cannot easily be changed when reality hits because if that was the case, reality would be hitting now! The sheeple still have very little idea of the state of play because they are not interested, they just assume things are a little bit bad and if only the 'nasty' Coalition would stop targetetting 'the poorest in society' and took a bit more in tax off the rich, then all would be rosy again.

That simply isn't the case and they have no idea and probably never will, as they do not/cannot/will not understand the depths of the shit we are in until we are stalking each other on the streets.

I've been banging on about the sense of entitlement for years now and people hav generally ignored me. Maybe you don't see it round your way, but round my way all I ever hear "I/we/they are entitled to it" with no concept of just how such "free" stuff is paid for!! Breaking this sense of entitlement culture is the biggest barrier to change for me and I'm please to see it given such prominence in this article.

I take your point, but I see this as just describing Wester sheeple rather than a special breed of super-entitled sheeple. I don't see much difference between the UK and the US or France, neither of which suffered New Labour.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 284 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • 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.