NoXion
Craicy the Squirrel
The quality of a source is always relevant.
What the fuck?! What are you even trying to say here?
Global financial system implosion begins
- Thread starter Falcon
- Start date
The quality of a source is always relevant.
What the fuck?! What are you even trying to say here?
gosub
~#
That there is quite a lot of racism in China
redsquirrel
This Machine Kills Progressives
Come on, that's a hour video. At least summarise the basic points.
platinumsage
HaveMyPassword123
He speaks so laboriously slowly that it's perfectly intelligible if you play it x1.75 speed, in which case it lasts 39 minutes.
platinumsage
HaveMyPassword123
OK so to respond to COVID the world should have instituted a globally planned ecomony under a single authoritarian communist state or something. Guy's a nutter.
gosub
~#
Evergrande Faces Forced Sale of Hong Kong Land It Pledged for Loan
Receivers have been appointed over land in Hong Kong that Evergrande used as collateral for a loan, but the sale of the plot won’t affect the company’s broader restructuring, the troubled developer said.
www.wsj.com
CH1
"Red Guard"(NLYL)
Apparently One Nine Elms is in trouble (a propos China finance problems)
www.constructionenquirer.com
Construction scaled back on £1bn Multiplex Nine Elms site
Main contractor facing payment delays from Chinese client
www.constructionenquirer.com
not-bono-ever
meh
HK land will always be in demand just cos it’s HK , so if there is an asset grab going on , the it’s HK collateral pledge will be the first to go. What’s left after that ,outside the big handful of cities, wiil look like Jaywick in a few years. No creditor with any sense wants to be scrabbling amongst the leftovers. EG could implode very quickly as their quality assets go off the list.
gosub
~#
Nah more China was looking to Nationalise Evergrande and renegotiat with overseas intrests from consolidated position Oaktree managed to get markers down on a couple (so far) Venice Suzhou too) causing pause for thought. But it not just Chinese construction this sends riipples into Belt and Road, Swift vs crypto and LGIV's and LGIV's ain't just green waste bins thats health, education ...And Goldnan's is on record flagging LGIV's at over 8 trillion. 2008 was 5 trillion US Federal spending is currently 6.8
Last edited:
I wonder what effect all these tech company share price crashes might have. Facebook is the latest to drop over 20% in overnight trading, following PayPal yesterday. Spotify is doing the same. All this is against a backdrop of further big drops since the start of January. Netflix has lost almost 40% this year.
In and of itself, this is just the ups and downs of shares. However, we saw in 2008 how fragile the system can be — losses in one place can contaminate other balance sheets. These companies losing heavy valuation are huge parts of the stockmarket. If it’s protracted enough, it could cause other companies to look shakier. It depends who owns the shares, I guess.
In and of itself, this is just the ups and downs of shares. However, we saw in 2008 how fragile the system can be — losses in one place can contaminate other balance sheets. These companies losing heavy valuation are huge parts of the stockmarket. If it’s protracted enough, it could cause other companies to look shakier. It depends who owns the shares, I guess.
gosub
~#
Not sure who is this bloke is, but doesn't matter as its more him reading out what George Soros has said and I do know who he is. Quite ironic his 2008 book on the credit crisis (which wasn't actually that insightful about 2008 pretty much said Invest China to avoid further fallout from 2008 crash.
One thing on Evergrande suppliers ....Under Chinese system, when this sort of collapse happens what the suppliers are required to do is give the failling company is basically keep supplying for a year on tick. That year is pretty much up
platinumsage
HaveMyPassword123
Depends when you plan on retiring. The idea is to only keep such a proportion of it in equities that whatever happens to markets at any point in time won't affect your retirement plans.
Idaho
blah blah blah
Yeah I know the orthodoxy. But I did well by shifting out of equities in early 2019, and buying back in after the 2020 crash. It might have bought me a couple of years of pension.
platinumsage
HaveMyPassword123
You could easily loose a couple of years pension by sitting out waiting for a crash that doesn't come until after you've bought back in. Markets go up more than down, and crashes of sufficient magnitude to make a decent profit happen infrequently. And each one is different so that buying back in at the correct moment is down to luck.
This is why it makes sense to have a balanced portfolio that you keep fully invested - you can than benefit from rising markets but also benefit from crashes by re-balancing to maintain your equity allocation. You get the best of both worlds without taking on the risk of fucking it up by trying to second-guess global stock markets, which for a lone amateur sitting at home vs supercomputers and hedge funds is like playing roulette.
Idaho
blah blah blah
Yes yes, I know the orthodoxy. And as for roulette - all private sector pensions are gambling, whether you balance the portfolio or jump between high risk/gain and so called safe havens (lol to any poor bastard who's been in bonds for the last few years).
You can pretend that you are doing the best thing by putting it all in a lifestyle fund and only checking it every few years - as we are so frequently advised - but you are likely making more money for Prudential/L&G/etc than you are for yourself.
platinumsage
HaveMyPassword123
A balanced portfolio that remains fully invested is a bet only on global capitalism. Those are pretty comfortable odds and if they don't transpire then you'll have a lot more to worry about than not having a decent pension.
On the other hand shifting in and out of the markets is a very easy way to destroy value, and is directly analogous to roulette as the odds are against you. Most people trying to time the markets will get it wrong. The more often you do it the greater the odds of losing out.
Nonsense, try comparing fees on multi-asset tracker funds with annual growth figures.
platinumsage
HaveMyPassword123
The notion that private pensions or any kind of stock market investing is "gambling" is a corrosive one and leads to many people encountering poverty in retirement that they could have easily avoided.
strung out
💩 🤣 🍆 💦 🧐 👻 🐝 🐈⬛
You are dead right. I posted this recently on another thread, but goes just as well on this one:
It might be fun to try and time the market if you can afford to, but if you're relying on it for future retirement plans, then it's an extremely bad idea.
Good article on it here: Timing the market
"If at the beginning of 1986 you had invested £1,000 in the FTSE 250 and left the investment alone for the next 35 years, it might have been worth £43,595 by January 2021 (bear in mind, of course, that past performance is no guarantee of future returns).
However, the outcome would have been very different if you had tried to time your entry in and out of the market.
During the same period, if you missed out on the FTSE250 index’s 30 best days the same investment might now be worth £10,627, or £32,968 less, not adjusted for the effect of charges or inflation.
Over the last 35 years your original £1,000 investment in the FTSE 250 could have made:
- 11.4% per year if you stayed invested the whole time
- 9.5% per year if you missed the 10 best days
- 8.1% per year if you missed the 20 best days
- 7% per year if you missed the 30 best days
Idaho
blah blah blah
Unless it presents some countervailing sums on missing the worst 30 days, I'm not sure it's a very useful guide.
Idaho
blah blah blah
Yes just knuckle down and join in the system. All these people talking capitalism down are the problem.
platinumsage
HaveMyPassword123
We’re talking about playing the system sensibly so you dont live in poverty vs playing the system badly to your own detriment.
Although the idea that your cunning plan of switching between a fully invested pension and cash in order to try and time the market is sticking it to the man is pretty funny, so thanks for that.
Last edited:
Hollis
bloody furious
Another convention seems to be that by the time you hit retirement age you should hold 40% of your pension in bonds.. I've never quite seen the point given you could be living another 20-30 years.. I don't really see much point in holding bonds at all.. though happy to be demonstrated why I'm wrong on this..
This is the only article I've found against investing in bonds, which pretty much sums up my thinking.
The argument against holding bonds: Your portfolio is better off without them over the long haul - Longview Asset Management
I intend to keep a rolling 2-3 years of spend in lower risk funds (mix equity/bonds) and the rest can take its luck on diversified equity funds - I figure barring this will give the overall higher returns in the long run. e.g. the hits I've taken this month on global small-cap funds have hopefully 20+ years to recover.
This is the only article I've found against investing in bonds, which pretty much sums up my thinking.
The argument against holding bonds: Your portfolio is better off without them over the long haul - Longview Asset Management
I intend to keep a rolling 2-3 years of spend in lower risk funds (mix equity/bonds) and the rest can take its luck on diversified equity funds - I figure barring this will give the overall higher returns in the long run. e.g. the hits I've taken this month on global small-cap funds have hopefully 20+ years to recover.
Idaho
blah blah blah
Although my crazy scheme has worked twice before. I've no idea why you are so threatened by the idea. What's it to you? Or do you want me to validate your choices?We’re talking about playing the system sensibly so you dont live in poverty vs playing the system badly to your own detriment.
Although the idea that your cunning plan of switching between a fully invested pension and cash in order to try and time the market is sticking it to the man is pretty funny, so thanks for that.
platinumsage
HaveMyPassword123
Well. you presented the question so I gave my opinion. Of course I couldn’t care less what you do with your pension, use it all to buy an NFT of a pixelated screenshot of this post if you want.
ska invita
back on the other side
what is causing the tech crash?
FT says Amazon shares are boosting so I presume its not all tech. Facebook particularly shit? Is it just that Facebook is bloated and out of favour?
FT says Amazon shares are boosting so I presume its not all tech. Facebook particularly shit? Is it just that Facebook is bloated and out of favour?
Winot
I wholeheartedley agree with your viewpoint
Correction to the hype I think.
I’d say it’s mostly that investors have been willing to bet on enormous rates of growth for these shares. There are signs of that growth levelling off now, though. That’s making the valuations look overblown.
A common measure of whether a company seems good value or not is to compare its price to what profit the company actually makes each year. Typically, historically, people look for a benchmark of the former being about 20 times the latter (depending on how “profit” is specifically defined). So if a company makes a profit of £10m per year, you would expect the total value of all its shares to be worth £200m. This ratio of price to profit (or “earnings”) is called P/E.
The big tech companies totally break this. They have often have a P/E over 50. This is because the E part is expected to grow, so the price might look a lot now but the same price will look cheap in the future. The rest of the S&P have an historically high P/E but not astronomically so —it is about 25.
However, Facebook’s user base has just dropped for the first time in its history, and its profit forecast for the coming year has shrunk. Suddenly, it isn’t a growth stock so much any more. That P/E ratio is being re-evaluated in line with this. If the future E is going to be smaller, the P needs to shrink accordingly.
It has contagion to other tech stocks because it presents signs of where the limits are, and they are lower than some people previously might have thought.
A common measure of whether a company seems good value or not is to compare its price to what profit the company actually makes each year. Typically, historically, people look for a benchmark of the former being about 20 times the latter (depending on how “profit” is specifically defined). So if a company makes a profit of £10m per year, you would expect the total value of all its shares to be worth £200m. This ratio of price to profit (or “earnings”) is called P/E.
The big tech companies totally break this. They have often have a P/E over 50. This is because the E part is expected to grow, so the price might look a lot now but the same price will look cheap in the future. The rest of the S&P have an historically high P/E but not astronomically so —it is about 25.
However, Facebook’s user base has just dropped for the first time in its history, and its profit forecast for the coming year has shrunk. Suddenly, it isn’t a growth stock so much any more. That P/E ratio is being re-evaluated in line with this. If the future E is going to be smaller, the P needs to shrink accordingly.
It has contagion to other tech stocks because it presents signs of where the limits are, and they are lower than some people previously might have thought.
Similar threads
