Credit deflation and the reflation cycle to come (part 3)

[spygirl]

The Lords of Easy Money — where the Fed went wrong

Christopher Leonard’s compelling account of central-bank decision-making — and why the 2008 financial crash never really ended

https://www.ft.com/content/4133d4fd-3bf1-48c9-8e2f-249c9411f35c

Comments.

Iirc Tim Young us ex BoE

(Edited)

 

Yes, from around the mid-1990s, the Fed (gradually followed by other central banks) created what I call "double-sided, cumulative, cultural moral hazard". Double-sided, because not only were asset prices propped up encouraging a buy-on-dips mentality, but the way that this was done involved reducing interest rates, so those who stood aside from the boom - sitting in cash waiting for the crash - lost out. The natural restoring forces of a free-market economy were strained. Cumulative, because the bailouts defended progressively higher asset prices, resisting sharp falls in asset prices regardless of their starting point, so that asset prices ratcheted higher, and monetary policy needing to be increasingly easy to engineer each bailout. And cultural, because when this goes on for a generation or more, even parents with a very hazy understanding of what made them asset-rich, advise their kids to do what they did, no matter how crazy asset prices may seem in objective terms.

 

A point I would note here is that it is not necessary for the Fed to reduce the size of its balance sheet to raise interest rates. All the base money created by the Fed to buy government bonds already bears interest at around the Fed funds rate. So all the Fed has to do is raise that rate. The problem, naturally, is that asset prices will fall, but anyone who loses out when short-term interest rates edge up into the low single figures has arguably been reckless anyway. As long as the Fed proceeds carefully so as to avoid a crash in which falling asset prices feed on themselves.

 

Above all, what central banks must not do now, is to accept higher inflation, because this would validate even the present asset prices, and generate a new leg-up of moral hazard.

thumb_upRecommend17replyReply

shareShare

 

flagReport

remove

Axel

 

3 DAYS AGO

 

reply In reply to Tim Young

Inflation is the only way out of massive debt (both public and private)

thumb_upRecommend7replyReply

shareShare

 

flagReport

remove

Tim Young

 

2 DAYS AGO

 

reply In reply to Axel

I don't think so. Many people think that, because inflation reduced debt burdens post WW2, the same trick could be played again, but I would question whether that could be repeated. And when you give it a moment's thought, that should not be a surprise - if you can envisage short-changing existing creditors, potential creditors can envisage that too.

 

My conclusion is that inflation would not provide a "way out" of debt, but just provide what is effectively another form of borrowing. If potential creditors expect to be short-changed, they can be expected to allow for that by demanding a higher return on debt - ie a higher interest rate. And there cannot be any more effective way of making potential creditors expect to be short-changed than having just done it by repaying creditors in diluted money. The result is that inflation will prompt creditors to demand higher interest rates on all new and re-contracted debt, so while the burden of servicing existing debt at low fixed interest rates may reduce in real terms for a while, unless debt is paid off as it matures and further borrowing is eschewed, the real burden of servicing future debt builds back up. Even if inflation is subsequently brought back down, borrowers are stuck with paying these higher interest rates for years. An example of this I give is UK gilts, sold in the mid-1980s with coupons of around 15%, which did not mature until the late 1990s, by which time inflation had been in low single figures for years. Assuming that financial markets are roughly efficient, a borrower can expect to gain nothing in the longer-run from inflation at all, and perhaps even end up paying a bit more as a risk premium. Of course, a currency issuing borrower can up the ante, by borrowing at higher fixed rates and then diluting money even more aggressively, but if you do that, you are on the road to Argentina, where you produce very high inflation in your own currency, and, because creditors demand increasingly high interest rates to lend to you in your own currency, you probably end up borrowing in a hard foreign currency. Turkey may be setting out on that road now.

 

Naturally, the temptation for politicians or ageing taxpayers is to approve of inflation to reduce debt service outlay while they are around, with the likelihood that they will have to pay the cost as it comes through. But I would argue that such an approach is immoral of them, and those who will be around to pay the cost should certainly resist such tricks being played.

thumb_upRecommend3replyReply

shareShare

 

flagReport

 

remove

Enter the Winter

 

3 DAYS AGO

 

reply In reply to Tim Young

They must not talk about "average inflation targeting", and yet, they do so anyway.

thumb_upRecommendreplyReply

shareShare

 

flagReport

remove

Tim Young

 

2 DAYS AGO

 

reply In reply to Enter the Winter

It strikes me that AIT could become a hostage to fortune. But realistically, I expect central bankers to find clever-sounding reasons to dump it when it is prompting them to action that they do not want to take.

 

I used to work in a central bank, so I think I understand the culture. These days, most monetary policy making staff are quite academic economists, and the models that they work with try to capture the economy generally, rather than just its monetary mechanisms. The result is that they can be rather arrogant about their expertise, especially when they can avoid being faced on a level playing field by disagreeing shareholders or electors, and limit access to insiders or admirers of renowned economists, such as namedroppers and fawners like Martin Wolf. Central bank policymakers seem to believe that they know better than to be confined to managing the money supply only, and they feel justified in fobbing off critics with bamboozling words while congratulating themselves on their cleverness - recall the famous Alan Greenspan quote "if you think I have made myself clear, you must be mistaken".

 

In my view, central banks need at least an infusion of different culture. My suggestion would be to install some practical scientists with an layperson's interest in finance and economics into sufficiently senior management and policy positions in central banks to be impossible to fob off when they ask basic questions, in order to test and shake up the assumptions, and to focus on the relatively narrow technical job of managing the money supply, as central banks were originally supposed to do. And to select some economists who approach the key problem of managing the money supply from a monetary - not "monetarist" - perspective, along with some policymakers with practical experience of commercial banking. The trouble is of course that unless the central bankers in their protected position decide to reform themselves, there is no mechanism to make it happen.

thumb_upRecommend6replyReply

shareShare

 

flagReport

remove

Enter the Winter

 

2 DAYS AGO

 

reply In reply to Tim Young

Thanks as always for sharing your thoughts.

My suggestion would be to install some practical scientists with an layperson's interest in finance and economics into sufficiently senior management and policy positions in central banks to be impossible to fob off when they ask basic questions, in order to test and shake up the assumptions, and to focus on the relatively narrow technical job of managing the money supply, as central banks were originally supposed to do.

Sounds like an interesting job. And as a reasonably accomplished STEM PhD (like yourself) with, as you may have gathered, more than a passing interest in finance and economics, I'd like to think I fit that bill. However...

The trouble is of course that unless the central bankers in their protected position decide to reform themselves, there is no mechanism to make it happen.

... I think I shan't be offered the position. 😁

 

Regarding the original point:

It strikes me that AIT could become a hostage to fortune. But realistically, I expect central bankers to find clever-sounding reasons to dump it when it is prompting them to action that they do not want to take.

I think we've agreed before (indirectly) that there's a time-consistency issue regarding this promise, which, btw, I've only heard talked about in the most disturbingly vague of terms by actual central bankers thus far. So as it stands, unless I missed something, we're not even yet at the stage of time inconsistency, and more at the stage of wondering at the answer to the question, "Consistent with what?"

I think the real question here, using your words, is what "action that they do not want to take" is going to end up meaning. My jibe was of course that they're freeing themselves to allow more inflation than they should by statute, i.e. that "action that they do not want to take" would mean "being reasonably hawkish". But put it this way: if I really believed that that wind was never going to blow the other way, I wouldn't be holding nearly as much cash, personally, as I am. It is funny watching (most) people rediscover the fact that they don't much like inflation after all. And from the outside, it sure does look like central banks might be culturally concerned with what people do and don't seem to like.

thumb_upRecommend2replyReply

shareShare

 

flagReport

Tim Young

 

2 DAYS AGO

 

reply In reply to Enter the Winter

One thing about the dilemma you describe is that, for many people, it presents a knife-edge situation that could shape their lives one way or another. Too often, those who have been sceptical about booms and stood aside have ended up losing out, but one day, it could be the other way round, and ruin some. One argument I have made for central banks to give some weight to asset prices in the inflation measure that they target is that central banks often justify stabilising inflation, or even economic activity, as welfare enhancing by reducing volatility, but volatile asset prices must be at least an important to welfare.

 

My sister, whose main asset has always been a terraced house, sold it a few years ago, when she thought house prices were crazy, and wanted flexibility as she was thinking of moving, and now finds herself frustrated as, despite the pandemic and the end of the stamp duty holiday, house prices have risen significantly. I hope I did not influence her, but if house prices do not come down, she is in a mess, because the proceeds of her house in the bank will not buy her much. When house prices are so volatile that three or four years out of the market can make so much difference, it strikes me that there is every bit as much reason to stabilise house prices as consumer prices.

thumb_upRecommend4replyReply

shareShare

 

flagReport

 

Enter the Winter

 

2 DAYS AGO

 

reply In reply to Tim Young

Yup. Asset price rises are so fun until it becomes clear what a distributional scam they are.

 

This is why England gets to choose between letting go of its precious, or watching its birthrate go Greek/Japanese. Having any more than one kid brings the issue into uncomfortably sharp focus.

 

But hey, look at SP500 right now. Let's see what happens. I don't think the story is "over" yet (whatever that would mean).

thumb_upRecommend1replyReply

shareShare

 

flagReport

 

remove

rednahc

 

7 HOURS AGO

 

reply In reply to Tim Young

Considering fin sector leverage, some hope for avoiding an asset price crash.

thumb_upRecommendreplyReply

shareShare

 

flagReport

remove

Tim Young

 

7 HOURS AGO

 

reply In reply to rednahc

I actually think that something like a crash is needed, to revitalise the natural restoring forces I mentioned. But the more extended the situation becomes, the more risky trying to release the tension becomes. What is needed is a big enough decline in asset prices to be salutary, and dispel the idea that they are a one-way bet because they will always be bailed out, without provoking utter despair and a reluctance to take on risk or illiquidity.

thumb_upRecommendreplyReply

shareShare

 

flagReport

remove

rednahc

 

6 HOURS AGO

 

reply In reply to Tim Young

Do think of the poor banks’ collateral.

their loans will be under water.

Always the rationale for qe, not so much eco recovery or jobs as the masses have been fooled into thinking.

A loaded system

thumb_upRecommend1replyReply

shareShare

 

flagReport

Tim Young

 

6 HOURS AGO

 

reply In reply to rednahc

In the UK, where the assets concerned are largely houses, I think the banks would be fine because house prices have appreciated so much that the collateral value could fall a lot before its value no longer covered the loan, so I do not think falling house prices would produce a systemic problem.

 

The real problem is political, but I think that if we could get through that, it would be for the best. The best economic years of my lifetime were in the decade from the mid-1990s to the mid-2000s, when the ERM had forced monetary policy to remain tight in spite of political considerations, and had, as a result, dispelled some of the UK house price mania. Despite people moaning about "recession", the UK economy was actually growing robustly, and we were, very unusually for the UK, close to external balance, and had a low national debt.

 

Of course, under the present shyster Tory government and with a flabby BoE, there is not much chance of that.

thumb_upRecommendreplyReply

shareShare

 

flagReport

 

remove

alpen

 

3 DAYS AGO

(Edited)

 

Great review. Ram it down your colleague's throats (Wolf, Sandbu, Wigglesworth, Tett et al).

thumb_upRecommend16replyReply

shareShare

 

flagReport

remove

Hamlet

 

3 DAYS AGO

 

reply In reply to alpen

The FT just followed the herd of the vast majority of economists, think tanks and official bodies like the OECD and even the IMF. The Bank for International Settlements was uncomfortable and tried to warn about the risk of asset price inflation but then went strangely quiet.

thumb_upRecommend13replyReply

shareShare

 

flagReport

 

remove

London Lawyer Redux

 

2 DAYS AGO

 

reply In reply to alpen

Agree about Martin Wolf, he has been cheering the printing of money and manipulation of interest rates for years. But I don't think that Gillian Tett did, I feel she is more likely to be on the side of Hoenig on this one.

thumb_upRecommend4replyReply

shareShare

 

flagReport

remove

alpen

 

2 DAYS AGO

(Edited)

 

reply In reply to London Lawyer Redux

Gillian Tett was an independent thinker prior to the GFC but has become full on insider the past 10 years and now sings from the same hymn sheet as the rest. I think she had the chat with Larry and you can see which side she came down on.

thumb_upRecommend2replyReply

shareShare

 

flagReport

 

remove

ValueHunter

 

2 DAYS AGO

 

reply In reply to London Lawyer Redux

He also wants to abolish cash. - Just for perspective.

thumb_upRecommend2replyReply

shareShare

 

flagReport

 

remove

Riverwalk

 

3 DAYS AGO

 

Sounds like a story worth getting out. Perhaps the FT could do a round up of the current literature on this subject soon.

thumb_upRecommend14replyReply

shareShare

 

flagReport

remove

doc martin

 

3 DAYS AGO

 

reply In reply to Riverwalk

they won't. they worship at the lords of central banksters and no amount of empirical evidence will work on them. I know I have been working since the gfc. they attack trump, but they are literally just as delusional about monetary policy.

 

It's sickening.

thumb_upRecommend4replyReply

shareShare

 

flagReport

 

remove

duvinrouge

 

2 DAYS AGO

 

Good article that gets to the heart of the trouble capitalism is in.

Now the easy-money can has hit the inflationary wall, central bankers have run out of road.

The crash will be historical.

thumb_upRecommend12replyReply

shareShare

 

flagReport

 

remove

Hamlet

 

3 DAYS AGO

 

The ironi is that what broke the camel’s back wasn’t obviously the looseness of monetary policy, but the joint effects of fiscal stimuli, the release of pent-up demand following the initial lockdowns, and the massive reallocation of demand from services to manufactured consumer goods. In contrast, in tune with what we have observed during the long period of QE, monetary policy mainly helped to lift already inflated asset prices even further.

 

Yet, it is now monetary policy that is supposed to bring back inflation to an acceptable level. This is like trying to slow a speeding car by applying the handbrake while continuing to floor the gas pedal.

[JMD]

44 minutes ago, Hancock said:

https://katusaresearch.com/the-way-of-the-alligator/

Most people who have earned enough money to invest have the natural urge to “do something” and “stay busy.” That’s how we got the money in the first place.

But unless you’re a skilled, lightning-fast day trader, the market does not reward frequent activity. In fact, it penalizes it.

The urge to “do something” leads you to be impatient and less selective with your investments. It forces you into mediocre opportunities. Said another way, the quality of your investments typically moves inversely to the quantity of your investments.

For investors who look to hold positions for months and years, the market simply does not serve up truly great opportunities every day.

Sometimes, we only get two or three per year. Just like doing nothing and waiting for a great opportunity is often the right move for an alligator, it’s also often the right move for investors.

To many investors, having a large cash balance in an investment account feels like having a wad of cash in a casino. Why let it sit there and do nothing when you can “play” with the money? Why not at least take a shot at something?

This amateur thinking is why casinos earn billions of dollars in profit at the expense of impatient, probability-ignorant gamblers. Doing nothing, staying patient, and waiting for a no-brainer opportunity is often the right move.

Oops, it was all along an 'alligator'! How embarrassing!?!...  But tbh I much prefer 'crocodile'... must be something to do with the brilliant Captain Hook character... tic-toc, tic-toc!!!

[Axeman123]

Gove's cunning plan to solve the flammable cladding remediation crisis looks to be "shake down private companies". I wonder how many other difficult issues will be reframed in the same way by governments over the cycle, now that just writting a big cheque isn't such an appealing option?

https://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/gove-threatens-trading-ban-cladding-165436368.html

[THE SOUP DRAGON]

7 hours ago, Hancock said:

I'd say so many young people being indocrinated at university over the last 20 odd years, aligned with having social media to spread their drivel and look "nice" is the no.1 factor.

I think it starts long before university, more like the minute they start reception class.

[Hancock]

13 minutes ago, JMD said:

Oops, it was all along an 'alligator'! How embarrassing!?!...  But tbh I much prefer 'crocodile'... must be something to do with the brilliant Captain Hook character... tic-toc, tic-toc!!!

Give me a wonderful word ...

 

[moneyscam]

19 minutes ago, THE SOUP DRAGON said:

I think it starts long before university, more like the minute they start reception class.

Correct and it's the reason behind the push to get kids into the system at 3 rather than 6 which I imagine is when most on here started formal education. The reason for this being that they discovered by the age of 6 children had largely absorbed the values of their parents and were far less malleable and able to be indoctrinated. At 3 the parent's values have not been embedded enough and therefore more primed for state indoctrination.

[Majorpain]

58 minutes ago, Axeman123 said:

Gove's cunning plan to solve the flammable cladding remediation crisis looks to be "shake down private companies". I wonder how many other difficult issues will be reframed in the same way by governments over the cycle, now that just writting a big cheque isn't such an appealing option?

https://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/gove-threatens-trading-ban-cladding-165436368.html

The problem is that he is actually right, the companies knew they were putting a product on a building, that if caught fire, would likely burn until it ran out of things to burn.  There but for the grace of god go I!

This happens quite a lot in construction, current money saving wheeze is to use cheap non-moisture resistant MDF as a frame for plumbed panels in hospitals.  Problem is if it gets wet it turns into weetabix, NHS trust down south were very upset when a poorly fitted 30kg odd panel nearly fell on someone.

[Joncrete Cungle]

1 hour ago, THE SOUP DRAGON said:

I think it starts long before university, more like the minute they start reception class.

I recall a primary school teacher who didn't like the fact I came from a farming family, went fishing and had an airgun and she didn't hide the fact.

One of the kids homework was a very one sided piece about Hen Harriers and Grouse moors. So we dug out the facts and figures that show Hen Harriers on Grouse moors successfully rear more chick's than those nesting on RSPB sites. The teacher was livid and marked it poorly despite all the facts and figures backing up our claim being printed out and included in the work.

Complained to the school who gave the work to another teacher who marked it without blinkers on and gave it top marks. Will be interesting when the younger gets into the same year the first teacher teaches for a year.....

[Democorruptcy]

Grantham doesn't see Dave's imminent melt up. He thinks his own predicted 50% fall is now underway

Quote

 

Jeremy Grantham, the famed investor who for decades has been calling market bubbles, said the historic collapse in stocks he predicted a year ago is underway and even intervention by the Federal Reserve can’t prevent an eventual plunge of almost 50%.

In a note posted Thursday, Grantham, the co-founder of Boston asset manager GMO, describes U.S. stocks as being in a “super bubble,” only the fourth of the past century. And just as they did in the crash of 1929, the dot-com bust of 2000 and the financial crisis of 2008, he’s certain this bubble will burst, sending indexes back to statistical norms and possibly further.

That, he said, involves the S&P 500 dropping some 45% from Wednesday’s close -- and 48% from its Jan. 4 peak -- to a level of 2500. The Nasdaq Composite, already down 8.3% this month, may sustain an even bigger correction.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-01-20/grantham-doubles-down-on-crash-call-says-selloff-has-started

 

Edit to add, the Bloomberg bit above relates to this Grantham piece on Wed

Oh well.... it will either go up or down!

[CannonFodder]

Had a report from my company pension provider SL which had blurb at start explaining how good they were. Self gratification.

The default fund is a lifestyle age thing that goes 60/40 as one ages where the default ftse equity section is becoming ESG so they selling the oil and miners and the bonds are gilt i think. High fees, total rubbish 

They went on and on about their esg values.

The interesting thing was they said 90% of my colleagues were in the default fund as its so good rather than they too lazy to change, i was very surprised as bright and well educated people.

Finally after a few pages, i found figures for my non-esg bespoke holdings which were doing quite nicely.

 

 

[Axeman123]

1 hour ago, Majorpain said:

The problem is that he is actually right, the companies knew they were putting a product on a building, that if caught fire, would likely burn until it ran out of things to burn.

Morally yes, but even then there was blame shared between various parties. Cladding manufacturers, cladding installers, industry bodies etc. Arguably the regulatory bodies facilitated all this too, by giving too much leeway for self-certification. Legally the consensus until recently was that there was no individual point of blame, and no court would rule otherwise. It is dangerous to future investment flows for that certainty the of rule of law to be subject to arbitrary political interference. Frankly it is more something you would associate with France or Italy.

I am still not convinced there will be a happy ending to this story. Hints of backpedaling in the article, with reference to "contribution". Gove's position seems to be focused on wanting an offer from the other side, presumably so he can spin this as voluntary. If they just keep stalling and the treasury won't provide any funding, I suspect this all comes to nothing.

[Yellow_Reduced_Sticker]

21 hours ago, DurhamBorn said:

....I watched an old Dr Who the other night,fantastic story,acting etc,then the new one just on,utter woke garbage....

 

Bet it was one with Peri Brown (Nicola Bryant) ?

 

Sorry to be a perv...i'll get my coat!

 

 

 

[wherebee]

5 hours ago, Hancock said:

https://katusaresearch.com/the-way-of-the-alligator/

Most people who have earned enough money to invest have the natural urge to “do something” and “stay busy.” That’s how we got the money in the first place.

But unless you’re a skilled, lightning-fast day trader, the market does not reward frequent activity. In fact, it penalizes it.

The urge to “do something” leads you to be impatient and less selective with your investments. It forces you into mediocre opportunities. Said another way, the quality of your investments typically moves inversely to the quantity of your investments.

For investors who look to hold positions for months and years, the market simply does not serve up truly great opportunities every day.

Sometimes, we only get two or three per year. Just like doing nothing and waiting for a great opportunity is often the right move for an alligator, it’s also often the right move for investors.

To many investors, having a large cash balance in an investment account feels like having a wad of cash in a casino. Why let it sit there and do nothing when you can “play” with the money? Why not at least take a shot at something?

This amateur thinking is why casinos earn billions of dollars in profit at the expense of impatient, probability-ignorant gamblers. Doing nothing, staying patient, and waiting for a no-brainer opportunity is often the right move.

I'd counter that by saying that if inflation is running at 5% (conservative), if you sit waiting for a year to invest to get that perfect price, you have lost 5% immediately AND you might never see the perfect target.

[Hancock]

12 minutes ago, wherebee said:

I'd counter that by saying that if inflation is running at 5% (conservative), if you sit waiting for a year to invest to get that perfect price, you have lost 5% immediately AND you might never see the perfect target.

Yes but that 5% inflation is in chickens, energy and Chinese made stuff ... so long as i'm not looking to invest all my money in those things then the inflation figure is relatively irrelevant.

The circa 100% rise of the S&P 500 since March 2020, or the 40% rise since Feb 2020 is more relevant.

 

[Harley]

2 hours ago, Axeman123 said:

Morally yes, but even then there was blame shared between various parties. Cladding manufacturers, cladding installers, industry bodies etc. Arguably the regulatory bodies facilitated all this too, by giving too much leeway for self-certification. Legally the consensus until recently was that there was no individual point of blame, and no court would rule otherwise. It is dangerous to future investment flows for that certainty the of rule of law to be subject to arbitrary political interference. Frankly it is more something you would associate with France or Italy.

I am still not convinced there will be a happy ending to this story. Hints of backpedaling in the article, with reference to "contribution". Gove's position seems to be focused on wanting an offer from the other side, presumably so he can spin this as voluntary. If they just keep stalling and the treasury won't provide any funding, I suspect this all comes to nothing.

Regulatory capture.  Happened here, happening everywhere.

[DurhamBorn]

3 hours ago, CannonFodder said:

Had a report from my company pension provider SL which had blurb at start explaining how good they were. Self gratification.

The default fund is a lifestyle age thing that goes 60/40 as one ages where the default ftse equity section is becoming ESG so they selling the oil and miners and the bonds are gilt i think. High fees, total rubbish 

They went on and on about their esg values.

The interesting thing was they said 90% of my colleagues were in the default fund as its so good rather than they too lazy to change, i was very surprised as bright and well educated people.

Finally after a few pages, i found figures for my non-esg bespoke holdings which were doing quite nicely.

 

 

Please thank your colleagues for paying their fees on those 60/40 type funds so Abrdn can send me the divis.I invest them in none ESG.

[Pip321]

9 hours ago, wherebee said:

I'd counter that by saying that if inflation is running at 5% (conservative), if you sit waiting for a year to invest to get that perfect price, you have lost 5% immediately AND you might never see the perfect target.

You are right but waiting in cash (short term ie 3/6 even 12 months) is an interesting loss.

A fund manager can’t wait that because they need to earn their wages and also if they sit in cash peers could outperform them and he could get sacked….so they all invest so if they all lose 30% then it’s ‘a bad year due to the markets’ but no one gets sacked. 

However, as a private investor sitting at the sides and watching 10/20 big stocks then a 5% loss with a guarantee of keeping nominal capital intact can be useful. Particularly as it’s fairly guaranteed in a weak market 2/3 of those businesses will have some bad press (and not fundamental issues) with over reactions and then one can buy at perhaps 40% cheaper than the high the market managers bought in at.

There are some huge companies worth watching eg BT, BP, Shell, Lloyds, Unilever, Rio, BAT, Imperial etc etc, many more…… that will suddenly move out of favour and drops can be huge. I am not recommending these as investments but what I mean is once you start circling them and really believe in these businesses long term (and the market is generally wobbly) then one will drop substantially.

Buying at the bottom is almost impossible though…so setting a rough buy price is a good idea. You are completely right….you never get them at a ‘perfect price’. I have tried and that usually means I miss out 🤦🏻‍♂️

[Bricormortis]

17 hours ago, JMD said:

The only satisfying thing Is that the Dr Who viewing figures are going down-down-down, along with their other main program EastEnders.                                                                                                                                                     Talking of figures, I expect that BBC News hasn't reported that GBNews got their foi request last week, where the ONS released/admitted that the actual number of people in UK dying OF covid (ie not with covid) since March 2020 was 17,000!    ...I didn't know this statistic was even maintained, but it took a non-BBC organisation to obtain it - and puts I think the whole MSM to shame.

I was a bit shocked to read this re the ONS covid death issue. Haveing downloaded 2 spreadsheets from the ONS re this,  it seems their website is opaque on the issue, no surprise there, I have done a quick further search to corroborate this statistic and have not succeeded. If anyone can corroborate with a link I would be much obliged.

[MrXxxx]

On 22/01/2022 at 11:30, working woman said:

where is the big publicity campaign on this????

Publicity campaign on common courtesy?....I am amazed at the amount of drives who believe the road ahead finished one inch beyond their bumpers...the times I've seen pedestrians nearly run over as a driver has 'jumped' a Zebra crossing or soaked as they've drived through a puddle they could have avoided. I think part of the issue is that there are too many distractions inside i.e. hands free phone and/or touch screen panels and/or Satnavs.

[dnb24]

42 minutes ago, Bricormortis said:

I was a bit shocked to read this re the ONS covid death issue. Haveing downloaded 2 spreadsheets from the ONS re this,  it seems their website is opaque on the issue, no surprise there, I have done a quick further search to corroborate this statistic and have not succeeded. If anyone can corroborate with a link I would be much obliged.

https://www.ons.gov.uk/aboutus/transparencyandgovernance/freedomofinformationfoi/covid19deathsandautopsiesfeb2020todec2021

[AWW]

On 22/01/2022 at 11:30, working woman said:

My husband has been looking at the new rules - coming in soon Where drivers have to give way to pedestrians at junctions, who look like they are about to cross - where is the big publicity campaign on this???? Lots of confusion and accidents inbound. 

I would suggest that if you need to change your driving style to account for that rule, you were driving like a twat in the first place.

[Libspero]

1 hour ago, Pip321 said:

A fund manager can’t wait that because they need to earn their wages and also if they sit in cash peers could outperform them and he could get sacked….so they all invest so if they all lose 30% then it’s ‘a bad year due to the markets’ but no one gets sacked. 

Good post.  Regarding the above bit,  I thought most fund managers invested in bonds if they really expected an across the board equities sell off?   Effectively cash,  but with a yield?

[HousePriceMania]

I do like a superimposed graph

[MrXxxx]

GOG the new Macbeth?

https://www.business-live.co.uk/enterprise/transport-group-go-ahead-delays-22849014

So it now looks like the end of Feb for FY results...unless of course they delay it for a FOURTH time!?

I can see this going one of two ways, either bombing big time [on negative] or surging up [on good news]. If the latter I think there will be a 'rush for the door' in retail investors so the surge will be short lived.

[MrXxxx]

On 22/01/2022 at 18:39, Bobthebuilder said:

That's how I used to think before spending way too much time on this thread. I prefer to ladder into stocks nowadays, the big boys on the thread got that one right.

To give an example, I bought a load of Lloyds in 2008 at around 25p. I set up a monthly drip feed and sort of forgot about it, bought every month all the way up to 90p. They have never been that price since.

I am happy to wait for the market to come to me, bought a lot of ladders over the past two years, really happy with those, so much, so I don't want to buy anything at these prices at the moment.

Depends on the time scale that you are considering/comparing across i.e. the market in the last two years has not been 'typical' so if you compared across the last 50 years 'drip feeding' MAY be the better policy....although either way I think keeping trading costs low and buying at market top is probably the 'make or break' on most portfolios.