Finance thread 2022.

[Grumpy Git]

1 hour ago, Rev said:

I've still never seen a decent explanation of how shorting shares, and other such nonsense, helps the economy at large. 

Can anyone explain how it's not been made illegal? 

I understand it makes those who make the correct calls immensely wealthy, but I assume not many institutions a normal everyday person invests with are involved, so what purpose does it serve? 

As far as I can tell, it's using money to make money, for the sole reason of making money, not to provide goods or services that the average joe can benefit from.

Exactly this 100%.

These people are the real parasites of society.

[Ram-Alf]

12 hours ago, Rev said:

I've still never seen a decent explanation of how shorting shares, and other such nonsense, helps the economy at large. 

Can anyone explain how it's not been made illegal? 

I understand it makes those who make the correct calls immensely wealthy, but I assume not many institutions a normal everyday person invests with are involved, so what purpose does it serve? 

As far as I can tell, it's using money to make money, for the sole reason of making money, not to provide goods or services that the average joe can benefit from.

There isn't one, It helps the speculators. 

Not forgetting "shorting" is a gamble, Win some lose some, RR shares 2 years ago were shorted so much it could have entered into a limbo dancing competition, I was down some £17k at one point, I got out and lost £2k, Not a financial whizz kid by any means, But when the big money institutions plough millions upon millions into shorting the small Invester has no chance. 

[Ram-a-lama fa fa fa]

22 hours ago, Unlucky Alf said:

Sinfin Asda has had a move around...stuff that's in the same place for years has now been moved elsewhere in the hope us foolish shoppers will fall for their...Oooo they have something new ?

does this strategy actually work? frustrates the crap out of me and i end up walking out with less stuff!

[Ram-Alf]

2 minutes ago, Ram-a-lama fa fa fa said:

does this strategy actually work? frustrates the crap out of me and i end up walking out with less stuff!

I don't fall for it, But it has something to do with our mental capacity to see something in a different area so it must be new so i'll buy it, Like the stuff they have at the checkouts, Oooo chocolate i'll have some of that, Oh and chewing gum ?

[Tamworthram]

12 hours ago, Rev said:

I've still never seen a decent explanation of how shorting shares, and other such nonsense, helps the economy at large. 

Can anyone explain how it's not been made illegal? 

I understand it makes those who make the correct calls immensely wealthy, but I assume not many institutions a normal everyday person invests with are involved, so what purpose does it serve? 

As far as I can tell, it's using money to make money, for the sole reason of making money, not to provide goods or services that the average joe can benefit from.

Having you effectively described all kinds of gambling whether it’s on the stock exchange, horse racing, football outcomes or the future price of commodities? If I place a bet (which I never do) on the outcome of todays game it’s not going to provide any goods or services that the average Joe can benefit from. it’s either going to make me a little wealthier or more likely, the betting company better off. 

[ariotofmyown]

13 hours ago, Tamworthram said:

Having you effectively described all kinds of gambling whether it’s on the stock exchange, horse racing, football outcomes or the future price of commodities? If I place a bet (which I never do) on the outcome of todays game it’s not going to provide any goods or services that the average Joe can benefit from. it’s either going to make me a little wealthier or more likely, the betting company better off. 

Is the difference though that in football, horse racing, casinos etc, you are betting on the outcomes of events. If you bet on buying shares in a company, you are also hoping that the company does well and the share price goes up.

Now, I can bet on Derby to lose and that will have no impact on the outcome. If I bet big enough money, I could influence the odds on Derby to lose. But I'm only going to make money if Derby do end up losing. And even if loads of people follow my lead and bet against Derby, it doesn't really impact the club in any way.

Now I could short against a company or a currency. My huge bets can cause others to follow suit and impact the value the market places on the thing I'm betting against. I might also be going to champagne receptions with a person who makes decisions that can also influence the price of what I am betting on. There is also no final outcome that decides if I win or lose. I just wait until the price had dropped sufficiently, then I cash in.

My actions might severely impact a currency or a company as their value has dropped. Perhaps it would have dropped anyway and people should admire my predictive skills?

Or perhaps me and the peoeple whose actions dictate the markets, are all part of one big club, and we are all getting rich in driving failure? Companies fail and people lose their jobs. Currencies crash, interest rates are hiked and people lose their homes. I make a fortune though, as the policies my influential friends and I push, lead to the negative outcomes I've bet on.

How about I bet against the pound as my mates/ex-colleagues in government are about to announce a crazy plan of tax cuts and huge borrowing with literally no idea how it will be paid for?

How about I bet against the pound whilst falsely promoting the idea that leaving a huge, free trading block with our closest neighbours will be good for the economy?

[Tamworthram]

8 hours ago, ariotofmyown said:

Is the difference though that in football, horse racing, casinos etc, you are betting on the outcomes of events. If you bet on buying shares in a company, you are also hoping that the company does well and the share price goes up.

Now, I can bet on Derby to lose and that will have no impact on the outcome. If I bet big enough money, I could influence the odds on Derby to lose. But I'm only going to make money if Derby do end up losing. And even if loads of people follow my lead and bet against Derby, it doesn't really impact the club in any way.

Now I could short against a company or a currency. My huge bets can cause others to follow suit and impact the value the market places on the thing I'm betting against. I might also be going to champagne receptions with a person who makes decisions that can also influence the price of what I am betting on. There is also no final outcome that decides if I win or lose. I just wait until the price had dropped sufficiently, then I cash in.

My actions might severely impact a currency or a company as their value has dropped. Perhaps it would have dropped anyway and people should admire my predictive skills?

Or perhaps me and the peoeple whose actions dictate the markets, are all part of one big club, and we are all getting rich in driving failure? Companies fail and people lose their jobs. Currencies crash, interest rates are hiked and people lose their homes. I make a fortune though, as the policies my influential friends and I push, lead to the negative outcomes I've bet on.

How about I bet against the pound as my mates/ex-colleagues in government are about to announce a crazy plan of tax cuts and huge borrowing with literally no idea how it will be paid for?

How about I bet against the pound whilst falsely promoting the idea that leaving a huge, free trading block with our closest neighbours will be good for the economy?

Very fair point but I was just pointing out that the final paragraph was pretty much an exact description of gambling:

“As far as I can tell, it's using money to make money, for the sole reason of making money, not to provide goods or services that the average joe can benefit from”

 

[Gone]

?

 

[Rev]

9 hours ago, Tamworthram said:

Very fair point but I was just pointing out that the final paragraph was pretty much an exact description of gambling:

“As far as I can tell, it's using money to make money, for the sole reason of making money, not to provide goods or services that the average joe can benefit from”

 

When it comes to everyday gambling, be that bookies or even the lottery, the average Joe can benefit from it, if their bet comes in.

That may be unlikely, but its a possibility that encourages people to gamble.

How can the average person access short/long positions on share prices?

 

[Tamworthram]

1 hour ago, Rev said:

When it comes to everyday gambling, be that bookies or even the lottery, the average Joe can benefit from it, if their bet comes in.

That may be unlikely, but its a possibility that encourages people to gamble.

How can the average person access short/long positions on share prices?

 

That’s not what you said though. You said they don’t provide goods or services that the average Joe can benefit from. The principle is the same: someone is using money to gamble on an outcome and doesn’t actually create or provide something from which another person could benefit- a gamble that may or may not pay off. If you want to talk about access to short selling shares, I think technically anyone can do it but it’s not recommended for the inexperienced.

Having said all of that, I do find it deplorable that people can “gamble” which such big numbers that the mere fact they’re doing the gambling helps create their desired outcome. It almost feels like market manipulation but I’m not sure how it could be prevented.

[1of4]

Well Hunt as undone everything that was in Kwarteng's 'budget' in the hope it will re-stabilize the market. Couldn't manage to fully press the reset on in the hope people would forget the financial damage done. There'll be many families who will be facing hardships for the foreseeable future, due to the incompetence of this government.

They are also back tracking on Truss' two year energy plan, that what was going to safeguard us from hugh energy bills. It now appears this plan will be reviewed next year.

Is Truss still in charge or is it Hunt who is now actually setting government policies?

[Ram-Alf]

5 minutes ago, 1of4 said:

Well Hunt as undone everything that was in Kwarteng's 'budget' in the hope it will re-stabilize the market. Couldn't manage to fully press the reset on in the hope people would forget the financial damage done. There'll be many families who will be facing hardships for the foreseeable future, due to the incompetence of this government.

They are also back tracking on Truss' two year energy plan, that what was going to safeguard us from hugh energy bills. It now appears this plan will be reviewed next year.

Is Truss still in charge or is it Hunt who is now actually setting government policies?

Quite plainly it's Hunt who's running the Government, Truss is on a mission of placating the masses(MPs)she's a dead woman walking, Time is her only ally, She's a busted flush, Everything she stood by through her election is now sailing down the Thames.

As for out Utility bills, I'd like to take the German Governments way, They pay 70%/80% of your bill and the consumer pays the rest at full price, This way the consumer then becomes their own environmentalist...using as little as best without having all your lights switched on or Central heating burning Gas when your not at home ? 

[Tamworthram]

24 minutes ago, Unlucky Alf said:

Quite plainly it's Hunt who's running the Government, Truss is on a mission of placating the masses(MPs)she's a dead woman walking, Time is her only ally, She's a busted flush, Everything she stood by through her election is now sailing down the Thames.

As for out Utility bills, I'd like to take the German Governments way, They pay 70%/80% of your bill and the consumer pays the rest at full price, This way the consumer then becomes their own environmentalist...using as little as best without having all your lights switched on or Central heating burning Gas when your not at home ? 

I don’t think it’s quite as generous as that in Germany. I don’t think the government is paying the full 70/80%. Isn’t it “just” heavily subsidised for the first 70/80%?

[cstand]

Common sense view from zero hedge explaining how large government deficits, constant money printing, wasting tax payers money is the problem which I have complained about for years, not just in this country but around the world.

The bond markets around the world are down, all currencies around the world are down against the US dollar.

Our only hope is to have another grocers daughter for PM or else we are all stuffed.

But the chances of having a civilised debate are over because activists have brainwashed the young that we are all victims and the only solution is to tax the rich people which history teaches you it always ends in failure.

https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/liz-truss-not-blame-uks-market-turmoil-bank-england

Edited October 18, 2022 by cstand

[Ram-Alf]

11 minutes ago, cstand said:

wasting tax payers money is the problem 

This is an old story that was airbrushed from the Labour party back in the day.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/sep/22/500m-fire-service-disaster-public-services

[cstand]

6 minutes ago, Unlucky Alf said:

This is an old story that was airbrushed from the Labour party back in the day.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/sep/22/500m-fire-service-disaster-public-services

Our current debt is 100% of GDP.

In 1990 it was 27% of GDP.

 

 

Edited October 18, 2022 by cstand

[PistoldPete]

26 minutes ago, cstand said:

Common sense view from zero hedge explaining how large government deficits, constant money printing, wasting tax payers money is the problem which I have complained about for years, not just in this country but around the world.

The bond markets around the world are down, all currencies around the world are down against the US dollar.

Our only hope is to have another grocers daughter for PM or else we are all stuffed.

But the chances of having a civilised debate are over because activists have brainwashed the young that we are all victims and the only solution is to tax the rich people which history teaches you it always ends in failure.

https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/liz-truss-not-blame-uks-market-turmoil-bank-england

Funny how the Treasury mandarins complain about "unfunded" tax cuts (the cost of which they grossly over exaggerate) and yet do not even include in their sums the £2 trillion of unfunded public sector pension costs.. those get buried and forgotten about.  

[cstand]

2 minutes ago, PistoldPete said:

Funny how the Treasury mandarins complain about "unfunded" tax cuts (the cost of which they grossly over exaggerate) and yet do not even include in their sums the £2 trillion of unfunded public sector pension costs.. those get buried and forgotten about.  

Yes unfunded public sector pensions as well so our debt is well over 100% GDP so far worse then anyone admits.

 

[JoetheRam]

39 minutes ago, cstand said:

Our current debt is 100% of GDP.

In 1990 it was 27% of GDP.

 

 

Genuine question, what would be an acceptable GDP:Debt ratio to you, and which of Health, Education, Defence are you getting rid of to achieve that?

 

[Ram-Alf]

1 hour ago, cstand said:

Our current debt is 100% of GDP.

In 1990 it was 27% of GDP.

 

 

It's not the GDP I posted it for, It was the £500 million John Prescot pi$$ed down the drain for his central Fire stations that was binned.