Trading the stockmarket (NO Referrals)
- Thread starter mcast123
- Start date
Soldato
- Joined
- 19 Oct 2008
- Posts
- 6,029
This just wasn't expected however. It's a bit of a black swan event.
To be honest, people are just as bad. This is turning into a case of bailing everyone out and I'm not just talking about companies or the low earners who unfortunately hardly make ends meat let alone be able to save, but others earning much higher salaries who spend too much in our debt ridden economy who now need help.
I think we have to step back and look at the bigger picture. I don't see bailouts of companies as money being given away as it will likely be repaid. Some businesses are quite crucial to the economy moving forward as the banks were back in 2008. Lets some of the airlines go bust and we'll see massive increases in airfares probably once it blows over, even worse than what we'll probably see if they remain.
Yep, in an ideal world businesses wouldn't need help now during this crises and the government wouldn't need to pay 80% of many peoples wages either, if they had saved enough.
All this help assistance will unfortunately need to be repaid in the future. Higher taxes here we come.
Last edited:
We are literally bailing out millions of families!
Soldato
- Joined
- 13 Jul 2004
- Posts
- 20,341
- Location
- Stanley Hotel, Colorado
The help is for families who then almost immediately pay it back in taxes. All this spree buying is clocking up 20% vat on tons of it, fuel duty and so on. Normal people cant avoid tax, a giant global enterprise that can drift between regimes cannot be asking for a bailout from 1 particular country. The airlines if they cant handle the burden would have to be partially nationalised and at the call of government or military for any logistics. Thats not ideal but a fair choice I guess.
Lloyds recovered and repaid its subsidy, I actually think they are worth buying now tbh. RBS was not a success, that was far more a global mix (Lloyd was previously straight lace, RBS a mess). Barclays refused any bailout, totally boomed right after the worst sell and is now right back to sub 100p I noticed. All finance qualifies as unpopular but all the loose money is continually a boost for them I think. Just like oil is a gift to any heavy user.
Only the advice not to sell housing makes me think twice at all, I wouldnt want that market to be disrupted but underlying fundamentals are good. My neighbour just sold his house for 900k, nice house sure but it was 90% less when he moved in the 80's, the reason being that loose money makes mortgages despite previous mistakes profitable and safe business for the banks. If we ever get defaults, hard money and all that then its far more a question but QE is not ending right now imo. The ending is likely to be an unwinding of any standard ie. 70's style inflation which gives assets the advantage vs debt.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/investi...t-coronavirus-bail-says-40-year-veteran-fund/
Go via a SIPP and they add on 20% or more on top which is hard to beat. Also stops the bad idea of taking a short term perspective as it cant be taken back out to cash until retirement but the restrictions on cashing out are pretty lax nowadays.
You can always adjust contributions to reflect gains within the SIPP, net effect being you see a gain in your available cash same as an ISA but with +20%
Lloyds recovered and repaid its subsidy, I actually think they are worth buying now tbh. RBS was not a success, that was far more a global mix (Lloyd was previously straight lace, RBS a mess). Barclays refused any bailout, totally boomed right after the worst sell and is now right back to sub 100p I noticed. All finance qualifies as unpopular but all the loose money is continually a boost for them I think. Just like oil is a gift to any heavy user.
Only the advice not to sell housing makes me think twice at all, I wouldnt want that market to be disrupted but underlying fundamentals are good. My neighbour just sold his house for 900k, nice house sure but it was 90% less when he moved in the 80's, the reason being that loose money makes mortgages despite previous mistakes profitable and safe business for the banks. If we ever get defaults, hard money and all that then its far more a question but QE is not ending right now imo. The ending is likely to be an unwinding of any standard ie. 70's style inflation which gives assets the advantage vs debt.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/investi...t-coronavirus-bail-says-40-year-veteran-fund/
Go via a SIPP and they add on 20% or more on top which is hard to beat. Also stops the bad idea of taking a short term perspective as it cant be taken back out to cash until retirement but the restrictions on cashing out are pretty lax nowadays.
You can always adjust contributions to reflect gains within the SIPP, net effect being you see a gain in your available cash same as an ISA but with +20%
Last edited:
I mean it is shocking that families in their 30s and 40s dont have six months emergency fund.
Well yeah, I think we've spent a long time building a culture of irresponsibility which will be very hard to reverse now.
I would take expensive air travel over higher taxes in a heartbeat, if that's what the market dictates. My silly libertarian views don't matter these days anyway. Bigger state and more 'too big to fail' companies, here we come!
This is why it's frustrating that capitalism gets the blame for everything, it isn't capitalism when big corps get bailed out. Capitalism would have seen them failed and the next company that came along to take it its place would be very weary that there is no safety net. There is a hidden conservatism with running the company properly with capitalism .
I was reading the economics of fascism the other day, its scary how similar the last 30 years has been to it
I was reading the economics of fascism the other day, its scary how similar the last 30 years has been to it
Last edited:
Indeed, the whole idea should be to promote responsibility and accountability which in turn prevents corporations getting so ridiculously big, but that ship sailed such a long time ago now that I'm not sure we can get back there without an almighty crash (which may or may not be just about to happen) to bring us back down to earth.
Well, they do say the best leveller is when everything is burnt down.
It's why people who have nothing are sometimes more inclined to burn the whole system down, they have nothing to lose and the starting point afterwards is a level playing field for everyone.
It's why people who have nothing are sometimes more inclined to burn the whole system down, they have nothing to lose and the starting point afterwards is a level playing field for everyone.
Soldato
- Joined
- 13 Jul 2004
- Posts
- 20,341
- Location
- Stanley Hotel, Colorado
That attitude makes society, the uk economy poorer in the end though. Being equal in a poor country kinda sucks from what I've seen 
Taking up 20% of a company that gets easy money is a fair compromise and it makes them think twice and search for alternatives.
I wish they'd given SXX a billion and took up a large equity position but sadly no (imo its lower risk), they cant be picking favourites like this. Its always about jobs - SXX will export 20bn in revenue at some point , really will be a big deal eventually but it was left to private equity. Probably thats the way it has to be tbh.
I wanted to say the positive from negative events imo is the fixed payout on SXX while low comes at a point when it'll buy more AAL shares . It pays a yield on operations already in progress while capital goes into future investment. That's what I'll do, I've owned them before in '08 era and in theory it comes with the benefit I'm no longer taking quite as high a risk.
Likely we pull back some this forthcoming week and even after that they'll be time to consider a buy(s).
but its very quick summary anyhow:
https://www.halifax.co.uk/investing/start-investing/choose-your-own-investments/charges/
https://page.ei.fidelity.co.uk/rs/143-JRM-032/images/Fidelity-12-2020.pdf?utm_term=pi_weekly_newsletter&utm_campaign=pi_citywire_200328&utm_medium=email&utm_source=marketo&utm_content=pi_citywire&mkt_tok=eyJpIjoiWVdSbE1tTmpNemxrTW1ZMiIsInQiOiIyZG9GMDJQMHBPNkRGOThaVWJLZGR3SUZLVVhTWEZjYmhcL1dzREp6bXJDMm5SWVwvXC9UQkxaV2dzOHhXZmxSRkF3SUdVRU1raThreTZSOG5GaG5DK0ZSbXdwMW1zREJmNXB6NThlQUVqd2pEUVloYkhkRXhTS1FsMUtqVkRcL1hmakcifQ==#page=3
Taking up 20% of a company that gets easy money is a fair compromise and it makes them think twice and search for alternatives.I wish they'd given SXX a billion and took up a large equity position but sadly no (imo its lower risk), they cant be picking favourites like this. Its always about jobs - SXX will export 20bn in revenue at some point , really will be a big deal eventually but it was left to private equity. Probably thats the way it has to be tbh.
I wanted to say the positive from negative events imo is the fixed payout on SXX while low comes at a point when it'll buy more AAL shares . It pays a yield on operations already in progress while capital goes into future investment. That's what I'll do, I've owned them before in '08 era and in theory it comes with the benefit I'm no longer taking quite as high a risk.
Likely we pull back some this forthcoming week and even after that they'll be time to consider a buy(s).
Anyhow spotted this comparison. I dont advise using banks for advice, goto forums.moneysavingexpert.com
but its very quick summary anyhow:
https://www.halifax.co.uk/investing/start-investing/choose-your-own-investments/charges/
https://page.ei.fidelity.co.uk/rs/143-JRM-032/images/Fidelity-12-2020.pdf?utm_term=pi_weekly_newsletter&utm_campaign=pi_citywire_200328&utm_medium=email&utm_source=marketo&utm_content=pi_citywire&mkt_tok=eyJpIjoiWVdSbE1tTmpNemxrTW1ZMiIsInQiOiIyZG9GMDJQMHBPNkRGOThaVWJLZGR3SUZLVVhTWEZjYmhcL1dzREp6bXJDMm5SWVwvXC9UQkxaV2dzOHhXZmxSRkF3SUdVRU1raThreTZSOG5GaG5DK0ZSbXdwMW1zREJmNXB6NThlQUVqd2pEUVloYkhkRXhTS1FsMUtqVkRcL1hmakcifQ==#page=3
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/28/world/americas/venezuela-rosneft-oil.html
Last edited:
Assuming you take part in the democratic process, aren't you taciturnly supporting this path though? When is it too much? Have we lost control?
Yea, we are voting for the lesser of evils in politics, but there is a lot more than just economics in the mixer. For or against abortion for example..
I think we've definitely lost control, the amount of debt and our ability to pay it back would suggest that. I've no idea what the solution is bar tearing the whole thing down and starting again, that isn't feasible though.
I'm not against bailouts per se, it depends on the case..
Last edited:
To be honest it is just irresponsible to start a family and not have an emergency fund in place, I get that people do not earn lots, but put off having a child for a bit so you can save up for life's emergencys
I thought this the other day.
I mean the likelihood of needing such a fund and events like these occurring are probably quite low but to not have something or anything behind you, in favour of living beyond your means (holidays and other unnecessary spending) baffles me.
Most people just aren’t as sensible as they ought to be and mis-prioritise what to spend and what to save.
Then again having a significant amount of savings seems to render you ineligible for help in the current crisis and rightly so.
But does raise the argument that your neighbour gets to have his cake and eat it by way of a handout (albeit stressfully) and you don’t due to being prepared.
I agree, bigger companys should have an emergency fund just like normal people are expected to have, they have got to that size over many years so there is really no excuse not to have an emergency cash pile, unfortunately they know that once they get so big the government will need to step in to protect jobs if they are going to fail at any point.
Yeah it seems that people who have saved over the years ready for an emergency such as we have got now are bring penalised, those that have got them selves into loads of cheap debt off the back of low interest rates are getting bailed out, 80% pay to stay at home when you will not be spending anything on going out is quite a lot and also a 3 month mortgage holiday as well, again the sensible people with emergency funds would not need this, but everyone will end up paying for it with higher taxes in future. Seems recklessness wins yet again.
I’m all for having an emergency fund- six month's spending is ideal if you can do it. But what would the alternative be to providing 80% of salaries for those that can’t work (a scheme I’m on myself)? I still get to keep the savings I’ve built up, so stay in the strong position I was in beforehand.
Repossesions and homelessness would sky rocket. We’d possibly see whole industries decimated in a way we’ve not seen since the early 80s recession or even the 1930s. That is not a path you want to be putting yourself on, as it can take years or decades to recover from. In some cases, the recovery never truly comes.
Repossesions and homelessness would sky rocket. We’d possibly see whole industries decimated in a way we’ve not seen since the early 80s recession or even the 1930s. That is not a path you want to be putting yourself on, as it can take years or decades to recover from. In some cases, the recovery never truly comes.
Soldato
- Joined
- 19 Oct 2008
- Posts
- 6,029
Definatley. And as if people don't need much encouragement anyway but 10000000001 ways to spend your money is pumped into our faces constantly. Who'd have thought years ago people would be paying £1000 for a mobile phone for example.
I agree from personal perspective but it's about maintaining capitalism and the economy too once the temporary event ends, losing airlines could be bad in that respect. Back in 2008 if the banks were allowed to go under, many with savings with those banks would have lost everything too - a big kick in the teeth for capitalism too as banks are pretty key to our way of life.
I suspect the airlines will have to repay any help they receive. Higher taxes will be about the 'peoples' bailout, probably.
Last edited:
There is a simple solution to this problem. It's the German system of compulsory unemployment insurance.
Everyone pays a small percentage of their income on the insurance. If you are made unemployed for whatever reason, you get 60 percent of your salary (up to a cap) each month, for 12 months, then it tapers for a further year.
You also get access to training grants during that time to skill up while job hunting.
Can't even be accused of being red-under-the-bed communism. It's just straight common sense approach to an employment safety net.
Soldato
- Joined
- 22 Apr 2009
- Posts
- 3,748
- Location
- North-West
Has anyone ever heard of used the Freetrade app here?