Brexit!

[Captain...]

12 hours ago, EnderbyFox said:

 

How credible is that? I've never heard of byline media and if true/from a reliable source then I'm sure the Guardian or BBC would pick it up.

 

I honestly feel sick thinking that this could be the case.

[danny.]

2 minutes ago, Captain... said:

How credible is that? I've never heard of byline media and if true/from a reliable source then I'm sure the Guardian or BBC would pick it up.

 

I honestly feel sick thinking that this could be the case.

All their sources are linked, check it out for yourself? https://bylinetimes.com/2019/09/11/brexit-disaster-capitalism-8-billion-bet-on-no-deal-crash-out-by-boris-johnsons-leave-backers/

 

They are using https://www.research-tree.com/shortinteresttracker for data.

 

Surely you aren't surprised this is about making the rich richer?

[Saxondale]

1 hour ago, Gordon the Great said:

PROJECT FEAR upgrades!

DAMN THOSE EXPERTS! Tim Martin from Wetherspoons says it be alright and that's good enough for me!

[EnderbyFox]

7 minutes ago, Saxondale said:

DAMN THOSE EXPERTS! Tim Martin from Wetherspoons says it be alright and that's good enough for me!

 

Hedgefund managers stand to make billions on the economy crashing but at least i'll have my blue passport 

[Carl the Llama]

5 minutes ago, Kopfkino said:

 

As a reasonably intelligent person, you must think harder about the benefits of shorting if you don't see a way it can be socially desirable. 

 

It might help to not view Odey's or Marshall Wace's entire short position as Brexiteers taking advantage of no deal and what their short positions on Debenhams, Kier, Intu etc are actually built on. 

Why don't you just explain it instead of being patronising?  It's possible that I'm not as intelligent as you.

[Bellend Sebastian]

I'd lie to the Queen all the time but if I'm honest I rarely get the opportunity

[Jon the Hat]

13 hours ago, HappyHamza said:

"£4,563,350,000 of aggregate short positions on a 'no deal' Brexit have been taken out by hedge funds that directly or indirectly bankrolled Boris Johnson's leadership campaign"

 

https://bylinetimes.com/2019/09/11/brexit-disaster-capitalism-8-billion-bet-on-no-deal-crash-out-by-boris-johnsons-leave-backers/

Hedge funds.  The clue is in the name.

[Jon the Hat]

1 hour ago, Dames said:

Exactly this. No matter what Johnson does he is now the hero of the leavers story. They will overlook pretty much any transgression because they see him as the plucky underdog taking on the established remainer elite.

 

At this point many leavers will be happy to suffer because 1) They will enjoy and revel in the 'Victory' of Brexit and 2) most of them are chomping at the bit to have their 'We survived x' moment hence why the 'We survived two world wars' comments keep cropping up, its a borderline fetish for some people.

 

In terms of immigration and what not, absolutely nothing will change. The rich will get more benefits and tax breaks whilst shifting the focus to the Welfare state and the every day person will have to pay more in taxes and a higher cost of living with no real terms rises in wages. Not to mention that workers rights will absolutely be stripped back in the name of 'stimulating growth' and 'cutting the red tape' - paid leave, maternity pay and sick pay will be a thing of the past so make the most of what you have now.

 

Oh good god.  You are actually insane.  I know the opposition are currently useless, but a drunk rabbit could win an election against any party which proposed to remove paid leave, maternity pay and sick pay.

[Kopfkino]

1 hour ago, Carl the Llama said:

Why don't you just explain it instead of being patronising?  It's possible that I'm not as intelligent as you.

 

I actually thought that if you thought about it you'd come up with some reasons, thought that'd be less patronising than going look I'm right you're wrong. Just find such a blanket view of shorting a lazy caricature.

 

Short-sellers might be unloved, can be undesirable, and the practice is ethically ambiguous. But also they often act as the canary down the coal mine. A lot of research will often go into their positions (Michael Burry spent almost two years looking at mortgage lending before shorting subprime mortgages) so if they are shorting something then its because the fundamentals are telling them to, and it might be wise for others to take heed. For example, they may well expose bad management or problematic corporate behaviour. In recent times, short-sellers seem far better at uncovering dodgy accounting than auditors whose job that is. They help make markets more efficient, help with price discovery, reduce volatility, can increase liquidity. That's just if we think of it as speculation, the other side is shorting is a hedge.

 

As for the article in question, I'm just going to us Crispin Odey as an easy example of how the article whips people into a frenzy but would get a low 2:2 at first year undergrad. I don't know Odey's motivations and intentions wrt Brexit, the PM, his positions, and his donations. He could be trying to manipulate markets for his own end and that would obviously be very bad. But it's not like it's a new thing for him to be shorting UK companies and just look at his positions. Many of them would make sense to anyone that read the FT or a good newspaper business section for just a few days and are not necessarily no deal positions which is how the article portrays it. Debenhams, long been in a mess and Odey has been building the position for a while; Lancashire, no idea on the reasons be he has shorted it since 2013; Metro Bank, big issues with how it valued its loan portfolio, needs to raise capital, struggling; Intu, retail property isn't the place to be rn and it has a huge debt pile; IQE, price too high, P/E ratio big, falling revenue. You get the gist. Also the focus on his short positions completely ignores his long positions. A recent interview in The Telegraph has him saying he's £270m long on UK companies. 

 

And Odey himself shows that short-sellers don't always win. It's risky business. It's quickly pointed out how much he made following the referendum result but its rarely followed up by the fact 2016 was his worst year because everything rallied following the initial shock and again focusing on his short position ignored the damage done on his long positions. 

Edited 12 September 2019 by Kopfkino

[hackneyfox]

4 hours ago, Gordon the Great said:

Absolutely one million per cent the opposite

 

 

Another who excels at maths.

 

1 hour ago, Jon the Hat said:

Oh good god.  You are actually insane.  I know the opposition are currently useless, but a drunk rabbit could win an election against any party which proposed to remove paid leave, maternity pay and sick pay.

The tories won’t campaign on it.

Did Thatcher campaign on closing down heavy industry?

[leicsmac]

1 hour ago, Kopfkino said:

 

I actually thought that if you thought about it you'd come up with some reasons, thought that'd be less patronising than going look I'm right you're wrong. Just find such a blanket view of shorting a lazy caricature.

 

Short-sellers might be unloved, can be undesirable, and the practice is ethically ambiguous. But also they often act as the canary down the coal mine. A lot of research will often go into their positions (Michael Burry spent almost two years looking at mortgage lending before shorting subprime mortgages) so if they are shorting something then its because the fundamentals are telling them to, and it might be wise for others to take heed. For example, they may well expose bad management or problematic corporate behaviour. In recent times, short-sellers seem far better at uncovering dodgy accounting than auditors whose job that is. They help make markets more efficient, help with price discovery, reduce volatility, can increase liquidity. That's on the speculation side, the other side to it is shorting is a way of hedging. 

 

As for the article in question, I'm just going to us Crispin Odey as an easy example of how the article whips people into a frenzy but would get a low 2:2 at first year undergrad. I don't know Odey's motivations and intentions wrt Brexit, the PM, his positions, and his donations. He could be trying to manipulate markets for his own end and that would obviously be very bad. But it's not like it's a new thing for him to be shorting UK companies and just look at his positions. Many of them would make sense to anyone that read the FT or a good newspaper business section for just a few days and are not necessarily no deal positions which is how the article portrays it. Debenhams, long been in a mess and Odey has been building the position for a while; Lancashire, no idea on the reasons be he has shorted it since 2013; Metro Bank, big issues with how it valued its loan portfolio, needs to raise capital, struggling; Intu, retail property isn't the place to be rn and it has a huge debt pile; IQE, price too high, P/E ratio big, falling revenue. You get the gist. Also the focus on his short positions completely ignores his long positions. A recent interview in The Telegraph has him saying he's £270m long on UK companies. 

 

And Odey himself shows that short-sellers don't always win. It's risky business. It's quickly pointed out how much he made following the referendum result but its rarely followed up by the fact 2016 was his worst year because everything rallied following the initial shock and again focusing on his short position ignored the damage done on his long positions. 

Interesting explanation.

 

An observation though: if we're relying on ethically ambiguous (and that's being extremely generous) shorters to point out the mistakes a company is making, then that's a failure of whoever is in charge of oversight and it is that should be remedied, rather than continuing to rely upon them.

 

Additionally, though that field of economics is hardly the only ethically sketchy area of "science" (legal science being another), if short-sellers are so concerned by people thinking they're morally bankrupt then they could change their act and get into physics (obviously they're good at maths, after all) and do some proper science with a clear conscience and without such ethical concerns, instead.

Edited 12 September 2019 by leicsmac

[Carl the Llama]

1 minute ago, Kopfkino said:

 

I actually thought that if you thought about it you'd come up with some reasons, thought that'd be less patronising than going look I'm right you're wrong. Just find such a blanket view of shorting a lazy caricature.

 

Short-sellers might be unloved, can be undesirable, and the practice is ethically ambiguous. But also they often act as the canary down the coal mine. A lot of research will often go into their positions (Michael Burry spent almost two years looking at mortgage lending before shorting subprime mortgages) so if they are shorting something then its because the fundamentals are telling them to, and it might be wise for others to take heed. For example, they may well expose bad management or problematic corporate behaviour. In recent times, short-sellers seem far better at uncovering dodgy accounting than auditors whose job that is. They help make markets more efficient, help with price discovery, reduce volatility, can increase liquidity. That's on the speculation side, the other side to it is shorting is a way of hedging. 

 

As for the article in question, I'm just going to us Crispin Odey as an easy example of how the article whips people into a frenzy but would get a low 2:2 at first year undergrad. I don't know Odey's motivations and intentions wrt Brexit, the PM, his positions, and his donations. He could be trying to manipulate markets for his own end and that would obviously be very bad. But it's not like it's a new thing for him to be shorting UK companies and just look at his positions. Many of them would make sense to anyone that read the FT or a good newspaper business section for just a few days and are not necessarily no deal positions which is how the article portrays it. Debenhams, long been in a mess and Odey has been building the position for a while; Lancashire, no idea on the reasons be he has shorted it since 2013; Metro Bank, big issues with how it valued its loan portfolio, needs to raise capital, struggling; Intu, retail property isn't the place to be rn and it has a huge debt pile; IQE, price too high, P/E ratio big, falling revenue. You get the gist. Also the focus on his short positions completely ignores his long positions. A recent interview in The Telegraph has him saying he's £270m long on UK companies. 

 

And Odey himself shows that short-sellers don't always win. It's risky business. It's quickly pointed out how much he made following the referendum result but its rarely followed up by the fact 2016 was his worst year because everything rallied following the initial shock and again focusing on his short position ignored the damage done on his long positions. 

And the banks all laughed at the position until the economy started tumbling around them.  Some canary.

 

And for all of that, it doesn't really address my key point that it provides fiscal incentive for influential people to manipulate political outcomes for the worse.  If that can be regulated for then great, let's get on it, otherwise maybe we should consider that the positives don't outweigh the potentially disastrous negatives.

[Kopfkino]

16 minutes ago, Carl the Llama said:

And the banks all laughed at the position until the economy started tumbling around them.  Some canary.

 

And for all of that, it doesn't really address my key point that it provides fiscal incentive for influential people to manipulate political outcomes for the worse.  If that can be regulated for then great, let's get on it, otherwise maybe we should consider that the positives don't outweigh the potentially disastrous negatives.

So you've acknowledged the bad guys were the traders, the people that ran the banks and the regulators that ignored the warning signs and concluded its the ones that saw what was coming that might need banning.

 

Lots of influential people have the ability to manipulate political outcomes, it's hardly unique to short-sellers and hedge fund managers. 

[Kopfkino]

56 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Interesting explanation.

 

An observation though: if we're relying on ethically ambiguous (and that's being extremely generous) shorters to point out the mistakes a company is making, then that's a failure of whoever is in charge of oversight and it is that should be remedied, rather than continuing to rely upon them.

 

Additionally, though that field of economics is hardly the only ethically sketchy area of "science" (legal science being another), if short-sellers are so concerned by people thinking they're morally bankrupt then they could change their act and and get into physics (obviously they're good at maths, after all) and do some proper science with a clear conscience and without such ethical concerns, instead.

You say that as if its desirable, optimal, or even possible to have an oversight agency that points out or reports on these things? That's kinda the virtue of a marketplace.

 

And those involved in the Manhattan Project could have done a lot of people a favour by being economists rather than scientists (Probably more physicists than anything else in hedge funds anyway)

[leicsmac]

1 minute ago, Kopfkino said:

You say that as if its desirable, optimal, or even possible to have an oversight agency that points out or reports on these things? That's kinda the virtue of a marketplace.

 

And those involved in the Manhattan Project could have done a lot of people a favour by being economists rather than scientists (Probably more physicists than anything else in hedge funds anyway)

I would hope that there would be some kind of oversight solution that wasn't massively sketchy ethically, yeah. I think that's possible, but I might be wrong.

 

And what...the guys who made World War III an impossibility without mutual annihilation should have been economists? Nah.

[Dames]

2 hours ago, Jon the Hat said:

Oh good god.  You are actually insane.  I know the opposition are currently useless, but a drunk rabbit could win an election against any party which proposed to remove paid leave, maternity pay and sick pay.

I’m not insane... A quick bit of research will show how many Tories are openly against these things as well as the current Human rights act. They have also sidestepped the question time and time again if Britain will implement a similar version into law for when we leave the EU.

 

Of course they won’t be printing that on any manifestos but honestly even if they did in the current climate many people will ‘sacrifice’ those things for Brexit because its become an obsession. 

 

 

 

 

[Jon the Hat]

2 hours ago, Dames said:

I’m not insane... A quick bit of research will show how many Tories are openly against these things as well as the current Human rights act. They have also sidestepped the question time and time again if Britain will implement a similar version into law for when we leave the EU.

 

Of course they won’t be printing that on any manifestos but honestly even if they did in the current climate many people will ‘sacrifice’ those things for Brexit because its become an obsession. 

I think you are completely deluded if you think any British government would remove those rights.  The UK will need to compete more for talent not less.  This is complete nonsense. There would be a general strike seriously.  I would strike!

[Beechey]

A lot of talk today that the UK government might move for a Northern Ireland only backstop (and EU is open to it), leaving NI in the Customs Union and taking Great Britain out of it.

Edited 12 September 2019 by Beechey

[danny.]

48 minutes ago, Jon the Hat said:

I think you are completely deluded if you think any British government would remove those rights.  The UK will need to compete more for talent not less.  This is complete nonsense. There would be a general strike seriously.  I would strike!

As long as the papers told the general populous it was in the interest of <make something up here> I doubt there would be much grumbling, just keep the political opposition silenced with made up racism stories or pictures of them eating a cheeseburger etc.

[Jon the Hat]

45 minutes ago, danny. said:

As long as the papers told the general populous it was in the interest of <make something up here> I doubt there would be much grumbling, just keep the political opposition silenced with made up racism stories or pictures of them eating a cheeseburger etc.

Seriously?  If employers stopped paying holiday pay? 

[HappyHamza]

1 hour ago, Jon the Hat said:

Seriously?  If employers stopped paying holiday pay? 

Paid annual leave only became law in 1995 because of the European Working Time Directive.

[Benguin]

23 hours ago, EnderbyFox said:

 

People are determined to make things like Brexit, Trump etc look as though some conspiracy is the cause behind 17 million people’s vote. It’s really very simple:

 

1. People don’t like being told what to do. (A major attribute of liberals today)

2. People don’t feel the government listens.

 

Remainers May have found lots of ways to derail Brexit, but it’s going to happen and quiet majority are getting angrier. 

 

[reynard]

On 10/09/2019 at 22:57, z-layrex said:

I don't want to stop immigration though. I work in healthcare and we'd be absolutely dead without a global workforce, as would any other sector.  I want the skilled immigration this country needs by offering generous, targeted relocation packages in sectors we need like countries like Australia and Canada do. For unskilled immigration we can have regulated programmes for that too, again in industries where the workforce is needed. In a perfect world this would help reduce the chance for exploitation.

 

I know it's not a popular outlook, but you can still be pro-European and pro-immigration while still being anti-free movement. I want out of the EU because I will never agree with Schengen.

An excellent illustration of the polarisation of views. I'm completely the opposite. I see Schengen and the freedom of movement as one of the greatest achievements of the post war generation. A brilliant piece of legislation that allowed people to enhance their chances in life and to seek betterment for their families. The saddest thing about Brexit for me is that we are chucking that away and in so doing significantly decreasing such opportunuties of future generations of our own people. Also I do wonder what Europe would have looked like if the Eu had existed in 1934 along with Schengen.

The failure by succesive UK governements to control immigration is, I'm afraid, largely incorrectly laid at the door of the EU. For eg. The net figures, as produced by migration Watch, an independent and non-political organisation, for the year ending December 2018 were as follows.

"More British citizens leave the country than arrive. EU net migration is currently 74,000 compared to 232,000 from outside the EU."  This 232,000 from outside the UK could all have been prevented from coming had we so wished to.

My mother was in hospital last year for a lengthy period. During my visits I did not see beds blocked by immigrants but rather by  largely middle aged and elderly white British people. However, when it came to cleaning the wards, toilets, serving the food, the workers were predominantly immigrants. I was also told by a senior member of staff that over 35% of the nursing staff were from the EU, encouraged to come here by the easy freedom of movement. In the first year after the brexit vote the total first 6 months figure for new nursing staff into our national health service had fallen from 2000 to just 96 applicants. This may have changed but why on earth would a qualified person in the EU come to the UK post brexit when it is far easier to get employment in any of the remaing member states.

[Paninistickers]

23 minutes ago, reynard said:

An excellent illustration of the polarisation of views. I'm completely the opposite. I see Schengen and the freedom of movement as one of the greatest achievements of the post war generation. A brilliant piece of legislation that allowed people to enhance their chances in life and to seek betterment for their families. The saddest thing about Brexit for me is that we are chucking that away and in so doing significantly decreasing such opportunuties of future generations of our own people. Also I do wonder what Europe would have looked like if the Eu had existed in 1934 along with Schengen.

The failure by succesive UK governements to control immigration is, I'm afraid, largely incorrectly laid at the door of the EU. For eg. The net figures, as produced by migration Watch, an independent and non-political organisation, for the year ending December 2018 were as follows.

"More British citizens leave the country than arrive. EU net migration is currently 74,000 compared to 232,000 from outside the EU."  This 232,000 from outside the UK could all have been prevented from coming had we so wished to.

My mother was in hospital last year for a lengthy period. During my visits I did not see beds blocked by immigrants but rather by  largely middle aged and elderly white British people. However, when it came to cleaning the wards, toilets, serving the food, the workers were predominantly immigrants. I was also told by a senior member of staff that over 35% of the nursing staff were from the EU, encouraged to come here by the easy freedom of movement. In the first year after the brexit vote the total first 6 months figure for new nursing staff into our national health service had fallen from 2000 to just 96 applicants. This may have changed but why on earth would a qualified person in the EU come to the UK post brexit when it is far easier to get employment in any of the remaing member states.

Our giving up of FOM is a tragedy. I really mean that word. A destruction of one of the purest freedoms we have. The points you've made are excellently put.

 

And it's all for nothing. If I take my dad as an example - a reasonably intelligent fella and in no way racist - he's an arch leaver chiefly because of FOM. To him (and i guess literally millions.of other leave leaning pensioners) FOM means

 

Syrian refugees 

Turkish gangs 

Millions of benefit claimants

Bed blocking 

 

...it wouldn't mind if his POV was accurate, but it is so distressingly wrong ( wtf has Turkey got to do with FOM, I'll never know)   it's beyond parody.

 

 

[Phube]

Even super Pro-Brexiter Marshy is struggling, reading this tweet! 

 

 

 

 

 

I’d imagine we’re all just waiting for Project “Goldfich” where all the amazing benefits the 95% of us will receive from Brexit!

Edited 12 September 2019 by Phube