Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
Sign in to follow this  
interestrateripoff

Why Britain Needs An Innovation Bank - Riskier Investment Than Btl!

Recommended Posts

http://www.theguardian.com/business/2014/may/04/why-britain-needs-innovation-bank

Everyone agrees that Britain needs as many fast-growing innovative companies as it can get. We need our bankers to be as enthusiastic about lending to them as they are to buy-to-let property companies.

The problem is that while buy-to-let offers the security of bricks and mortar with the possibility of rising prices and rising rents, innovative companies offer little but risk and uncertainty – but they are infinitely more important to our future.

Innovative companies can have significant value in their intellectual property, usually a copyright or a patent. But unlike a buy-to-let property there is no confident market price for a patent, or even a well-functioning market. Banks don't lend against collateral they can't value, and which even the company may not be able to value. But we live in an era in which intellectual property and so-called intangibles – everything from databases and computer programmes to brands and management know-how – are ever more important.

Large companies know what it means to thrive on their intangible assets and intellectual capital. Pfizer's bid for AstraZeneca is partly designed to secure all-important IP and intangible assets – chiefly the British firm's drugs pipeline.

O FFS.

Thank god we aren't in a delusional bubble creating mass malinvestment.

Edited by interestrateripoff

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Everyone agrees that Britain needs as many fast-growing innovative companies as it can get. We need our bankers to be as enthusiastic about lending to them as they are to buy-to-let property companies.

More words that could have been plucked straight from articles in any newspaper in the 80s including in the guardian (except in the 80s it would just be worded as "housing" instead of worded as "buy-to-let property companies").

Will the LibLabCon time wasters take any notice. Look where the UK is now and how much notice they took in the 80s.

Edited by billybong

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It was always hilarious that the proposed solution to a property fueled crash was deemed to be recapitalizing the very people who caused it in the expectation that they would repent of their foolishness and instead become champions of the Entrepreneur.

Flogging mortgages is the only thing the banks really know how to do apart from outright gambling in the derivitives game- any expertise they may once have had in the area of investing in new business's has long since atrophied from lack of use.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Everyone agrees that Britain needs as many fast-growing innovative companies as it can get. We need our bankers to be as enthusiastic about lending to them as they are to buy-to-let property companies.

Not me. I'd rather they grow at a steady, sustainable rate rather than be a flash in the pan. Perpetual growth shouldn't be a requirement of their business plans either. I don't think 'as many' is accurate either as that implies a lot of chaff that would eventually go bust or be amalgamated into the most successful companies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The seeds have been sown for further destruction of the real economy and investment, more malinvestment, and the same charlatans in govt and the bankrupt of england have done it again together with their US counterparts. I think europe has learnt a bit and asia will be the big gainers in the long term.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The seeds have been sown for further destruction of the real economy and investment, more malinvestment, and the same charlatans in govt and the bankrupt of england have done it again together with their US counterparts. I think europe has learnt a bit and asia will be the big gainers in the long term.

As that adair turner presentation suggested, beyond a certain point, forcing more credit into the system doesn't force more growth.

But its all the banksters know. It allows them to skim off a bit for themselves.

Troubling that the guardian of all papers wants this to apply too all areas, not just property.

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
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:   211 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.