BREXIT - Is This Really Still Rumbling On? 😴
Comments
-
rjsterry wrote:Ben6899 wrote:Pross wrote:I quite like rjs image of locally sourced coke grown by a co-operative. Ideally it would be sold on an honesty box system. They'd love that in places like Stroud and Totnes.
I think it's still acid tabs and mushrooms, in Totnes.
"Try this; it's single estate, darling...."
Vintage 'Berry Pomeroy', 2018.seanoconn - gruagach craic!0 -
His idea to raise the income tax threshold might go down well with his base but you would think it would go down like a big sack of poo in a general election. He's also talking about raising the upper ceiling for NI so it's basically a bung for rich pensioners (who don't pay NI), i.e., Tory party members.Robert88 wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:So BoJo’s campaigning for the U.K. to default on some debt.
No one is surprised anymore.
And cut income tax for higher earners..
And impose tariffs on imports from China and Mexico to pay for Irish Wall..
Can't blame him from playing to the crowd I suppose.Paul Johnson, director of the Institute for Fiscal Studies, a think-tank, said the policy would cost almost £10bn. Boris Johnson said he would fund it from some of the £26.6bn set aside by the Treasury as an insurance fund against a no-deal Brexit.
“He wants to fund it from the fund set aside for a no-deal Brexit, but he wants a no-deal Brexit,” said Nicky Morgan, a backer of Mr Gove and chair of the Commons treasury committee. “So how is he going to fund it?”
(https://www.ft.com/content/45da6ac0-8b4 ... bf8f989972)
Doesn't make a lot of sense really. Although Johnson is the champion of the "cake and eat it" policy
0 -
bobmcstuff wrote:
His idea to raise the income tax threshold might go down well with his base but you would think it would go down like a big sack of poo in a general election. He's also talking about raising the upper ceiling for NI so it's basically a bung for rich pensioners (who don't pay NI), i.e., Tory party members.Robert88 wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:So BoJo’s campaigning for the U.K. to default on some debt.
No one is surprised anymore.
And cut income tax for higher earners..
And impose tariffs on imports from China and Mexico to pay for Irish Wall..
Can't blame him from playing to the crowd I suppose.Paul Johnson, director of the Institute for Fiscal Studies, a think-tank, said the policy would cost almost £10bn. Boris Johnson said he would fund it from some of the £26.6bn set aside by the Treasury as an insurance fund against a no-deal Brexit.
“He wants to fund it from the fund set aside for a no-deal Brexit, but he wants a no-deal Brexit,” said Nicky Morgan, a backer of Mr Gove and chair of the Commons treasury committee. “So how is he going to fund it?”
(https://www.ft.com/content/45da6ac0-8b4 ... bf8f989972)
Doesn't make a lot of sense really. Although Johnson is the champion of the "cake and eat it" policy
He understands politics and will pitch his appeal to the next person in front of him; in this case it's party members.
In a few weeks time he will have to unite the party so a change of tack. Then he will have unite (or at least appeal to some) parliament, so another change in policy will emerge. Then he will have to appeal to the EU....
He has no principles to stand by so should go far.0 -
BoJo will hardly soften the EU stance either.
Given that the majority of the electorate wan't either no Brexit or a Brexit with a deal, surely the bulk of the Tory vote will go against him.seanoconn - gruagach craic!0 -
I think you are tragically overestimating the bandwidth between the Tory membership and realityPinno wrote:BoJo will hardly soften the EU stance either.
Given that the majority of the electorate wan't either no Brexit or a Brexit with a deal, surely the bulk of the Tory vote will go against him.0 -
bompington wrote:
I think you are tragically overestimating the bandwidth between the Tory membership and realityPinno wrote:BoJo will hardly soften the EU stance either.
Given that the majority of the electorate wan't either no Brexit or a Brexit with a deal, surely the bulk of the Tory vote will go against him.
I suppose I am.seanoconn - gruagach craic!0 -
Interesting to read about a leading financial services company having to eat humble pie. Why? Because among other things they are unusual among such creatures in being advocates of Brexit. In fact one of their founders claims to have given £3.2m to the Leave campaign.
I refer of course to Hargreaves Lansdown.Hargreaves Lansdown shares have shed nearly a fifth of their value this month following the freezing last week of Neil Woodford’s £3.7bn equity income fund to investor withdrawals.
Shares in the FTSE 100 financial services group have fallen 18.3 per cent just over a week into the month. The stock has had similar monthly drops, but not as great a decline since it fell 19.7 per cent in April 2014. On Monday, shares were recently down 4.5 per cent in London.
Senior figures at the company withdrew their own investments from the fund shortly before its value dropped whilst continuing to recommend it in the best buy advice.[Peter]Hargreaves financially supported the Leave.EU campaign in 2016,[17][18] and wrote to 15 million UK householders asking them to support the leave campaign in the European Union membership referendum.[19][20]
In May 2016, Hargreaves said that Brexit will lead to insecurity, which will turn out to be very effective.[21] Hargreaves said that Theresa May should reassure the three million EU nationals already in the UK that their current rights would be maintained0 -
-
Shouldn't the fraud squad (or correct other) be investigating this?Robert88 wrote:Senior figures at the company withdrew their own investments from the fund shortly before its value dropped whilst continuing to recommend it in the best buy advice.
Dodgy dealing by any other name.The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
-
Why not?
"I recommend that you buy this stock even though I am selling myself". Dodgy.The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
PBlakeney wrote:Why not?
"I recommend that you buy this stock even though I am selling myself". Dodgy.
Woodford has had bad performance for 23 months in a row.
The reason why it’s all come to a head and why he has had to shut the gates on his fund is partly to do with the way he structured an open ended fund but went for long term value investments in unquoted and illiquid assets. He also bent the rules around limits on investing in unquoted stocks by listing them on weird exchanges and he’s generally done some bad investing.
The fall from grace was pretty rapid when in the last months it became a liquidity problem, which arguably it still is.
And that’s before you get to the decision making at Hargreaves around which funds to allocate assets to and how often they get changed etc etc.
FWIW any investor, retail or otherwise deciding to put money into a fund which has big fixed fees and crap performance ought to blame themselves and not the platform through which they invested.
Nothing to do with Brexit.
A lot of challenges around asset management governance - it’s pretty nuts that a big fund has to shut the gate during normal conditions, but again, not Brexit.0 -
I wasn't referring to Brexit, or even Woodford. Just the specific example of Hargreaves.
How they got there might be relevant but it is not an excuse.The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
Rick Chasey wrote:PBlakeney wrote:Why not?
"I recommend that you buy this stock even though I am selling myself". Dodgy.
Woodford has had bad performance for 23 months in a row.
The reason why it’s all come to a head and why he has had to shut the gates on his fund is partly to do with the way he structured an open ended fund but went for long term value investments in unquoted and illiquid assets. He also bent the rules around limits on investing in unquoted stocks by listing them on weird exchanges and he’s generally done some bad investing.
The fall from grace was pretty rapid when in the last months it became a liquidity problem, which arguably it still is.
And that’s before you get to the decision making at Hargreaves around which funds to allocate assets to and how often they get changed etc etc.
FWIW any investor, retail or otherwise deciding to put money into a fund which has big fixed fees and crap performance ought to blame themselves and not the platform through which they invested.
Nothing to do with Brexit.
A lot of challenges around asset management governance - it’s pretty nuts that a big fund has to shut the gate during normal conditions, but again, not Brexit.
As regards Woodford, it could well be due to Brexit since the stocks in which the fund invested might be low because of uncertainty. A lot of share prices are depressed right now because of Brexit and Trump’s twitter feed. No relief from either in sight. Woodford has been caught between a rock and hard place.
But really this is not about Woodford but Brexit-supporting Hargreaves whose advice was at best incompetent and arrogant.0 -
More concerning than tangential stuff like Hargreaves, is the reaction amongst the EU to the Tory leadership candidates. They liken Johnson to Le Pen and Beppe Grillo, think Raab is a liar, and even more moderate figures like Hunt are not trusted.
They appear to be swinging towards Macron's more hardline approach, so an increased probability of collision with reality for whoever wins the race to replace May.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
not sure how you can increase probability to >1rjsterry wrote:increased probability of collision with reality for whoever wins the race to replace May.0 -
True. I suppose I meant collision as opposed to some less destructive meeting.bompington wrote:
not sure how you can increase probability to >1rjsterry wrote:increased probability of collision with reality for whoever wins the race to replace May.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
Robert88 wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:PBlakeney wrote:Why not?
"I recommend that you buy this stock even though I am selling myself". Dodgy.
Woodford has had bad performance for 23 months in a row.
The reason why it’s all come to a head and why he has had to shut the gates on his fund is partly to do with the way he structured an open ended fund but went for long term value investments in unquoted and illiquid assets. He also bent the rules around limits on investing in unquoted stocks by listing them on weird exchanges and he’s generally done some bad investing.
The fall from grace was pretty rapid when in the last months it became a liquidity problem, which arguably it still is.
And that’s before you get to the decision making at Hargreaves around which funds to allocate assets to and how often they get changed etc etc.
FWIW any investor, retail or otherwise deciding to put money into a fund which has big fixed fees and crap performance ought to blame themselves and not the platform through which they invested.
Nothing to do with Brexit.
A lot of challenges around asset management governance - it’s pretty nuts that a big fund has to shut the gate during normal conditions, but again, not Brexit.
As regards Woodford, it could well be due to Brexit since the stocks in which the fund invested might be low because of uncertainty. A lot of share prices are depressed right now because of Brexit and Trump’s twitter feed. No relief from either in sight. Woodford has been caught between a rock and hard place.
But really this is not about Woodford but Brexit-supporting Hargreaves whose advice was at best incompetent and arrogant.
Listen to Rick - it is nothing to do with Brexit.
Many of his investments did not have share prices to be depressed. The cavalry is not coming to rescue Woodford he is absolutely farked.0 -
As someone described it to me; he was a star cricket player, so he thought he'd go play baseball with his own umpires.0
-
Surrey Commuter wrote:Robert88 wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:PBlakeney wrote:Why not?
"I recommend that you buy this stock even though I am selling myself". Dodgy.
Woodford has had bad performance for 23 months in a row.
The reason why it’s all come to a head and why he has had to shut the gates on his fund is partly to do with the way he structured an open ended fund but went for long term value investments in unquoted and illiquid assets. He also bent the rules around limits on investing in unquoted stocks by listing them on weird exchanges and he’s generally done some bad investing.
The fall from grace was pretty rapid when in the last months it became a liquidity problem, which arguably it still is.
And that’s before you get to the decision making at Hargreaves around which funds to allocate assets to and how often they get changed etc etc.
FWIW any investor, retail or otherwise deciding to put money into a fund which has big fixed fees and crap performance ought to blame themselves and not the platform through which they invested.
Nothing to do with Brexit.
A lot of challenges around asset management governance - it’s pretty nuts that a big fund has to shut the gate during normal conditions, but again, not Brexit.
As regards Woodford, it could well be due to Brexit since the stocks in which the fund invested might be low because of uncertainty. A lot of share prices are depressed right now because of Brexit and Trump’s twitter feed. No relief from either in sight. Woodford has been caught between a rock and hard place.
But really this is not about Woodford but Brexit-supporting Hargreaves whose advice was at best incompetent and arrogant.
Listen to Rick - it is nothing to do with Brexit.
Many of his investments did not have share prices to be depressed. The cavalry is not coming to rescue Woodford he is absolutely farked.
Yes but the point is that Hargreaves Lansdown recommended a course of action that led to meltdown for some of their investors; they also believe in Brexit and one of them supported it to the extent of a £3.2m donation.
As for Woodford he had apparently invested a great deal in UK small businesses and start ups, it doesn't seem to have worked out so far. (One of my favourite stocks is one he sold out of and I am doing ok out of it, it's British but considerably less so since June 2016)0 -
Rick Chasey wrote:PBlakeney wrote:Why not?
"I recommend that you buy this stock even though I am selling myself". Dodgy.
Woodford has had bad performance for 23 months in a row.
The reason why it’s all come to a head and why he has had to shut the gates on his fund is partly to do with the way he structured an open ended fund but went for long term value investments in unquoted and illiquid assets. He also bent the rules around limits on investing in unquoted stocks by listing them on weird exchanges and he’s generally done some bad investing.
The fall from grace was pretty rapid when in the last months it became a liquidity problem, which arguably it still is.
And that’s before you get to the decision making at Hargreaves around which funds to allocate assets to and how often they get changed etc etc.
FWIW any investor, retail or otherwise deciding to put money into a fund which has big fixed fees and crap performance ought to blame themselves and not the platform through which they invested.
Nothing to do with Brexit.
A lot of challenges around asset management governance - it’s pretty nuts that a big fund has to shut the gate during normal conditions, but again, not Brexit.
It's tangentially connected to Brexit, as his investment strategy moved to buy shares in companies that have been affected by Brexit fears, in the expectation that the fears were overdone and the shares are cheap in the long term. This can't actually start to pay (if it does) until after we actually leave.
But you're right, that's not the reason he had to shut the doors, but may be the reason for the poor performance.0 -
Provident, Purplebricks, AA,Imperial brands - none of these disaster performances were to do with Brexit. In order, it was; calamitous strategic management decision in a controversial sector, overexpansion into the US and Australia, unexpectedly high costs due to potholes creates by the Beast from the east and a board punch up and a key player in an industry which is correctly in decline.0
-
Robert88 wrote:Surrey Commuter wrote:Robert88 wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:PBlakeney wrote:Why not?
"I recommend that you buy this stock even though I am selling myself". Dodgy.
Woodford has had bad performance for 23 months in a row.
The reason why it’s all come to a head and why he has had to shut the gates on his fund is partly to do with the way he structured an open ended fund but went for long term value investments in unquoted and illiquid assets. He also bent the rules around limits on investing in unquoted stocks by listing them on weird exchanges and he’s generally done some bad investing.
The fall from grace was pretty rapid when in the last months it became a liquidity problem, which arguably it still is.
And that’s before you get to the decision making at Hargreaves around which funds to allocate assets to and how often they get changed etc etc.
FWIW any investor, retail or otherwise deciding to put money into a fund which has big fixed fees and crap performance ought to blame themselves and not the platform through which they invested.
Nothing to do with Brexit.
A lot of challenges around asset management governance - it’s pretty nuts that a big fund has to shut the gate during normal conditions, but again, not Brexit.
As regards Woodford, it could well be due to Brexit since the stocks in which the fund invested might be low because of uncertainty. A lot of share prices are depressed right now because of Brexit and Trump’s twitter feed. No relief from either in sight. Woodford has been caught between a rock and hard place.
But really this is not about Woodford but Brexit-supporting Hargreaves whose advice was at best incompetent and arrogant.
Listen to Rick - it is nothing to do with Brexit.
Many of his investments did not have share prices to be depressed. The cavalry is not coming to rescue Woodford he is absolutely farked.
Yes but the point is that Hargreaves Lansdown recommended a course of action that led to meltdown for some of their investors; they also believe in Brexit and one of them supported it to the extent of a £3.2m donation.
As for Woodford he had apparently invested a great deal in UK small businesses and start ups, it doesn't seem to have worked out so far. (One of my favourite stocks is one he sold out of and I am doing ok out of it, it's British but considerably less so since June 2016)
I suspect that including Woodford in it's Wealth50 will not count as recommending a course of action as that would open them up to a world of pain with the FCA.
Hargreaves Lansdown is a company (a massive one) so does not "believe" in Brexit. Peter Hargreaves is retired but still retains a minority shareholding, he is an ardent Brexiteer so three three cheers that his net wealth has taken a battering.
The fund in question was called "Equity Income" so should not have been invested in unlisted companies0 -
Some startling facts reported in the FT today.
https://www.ft.com/content/93c681ca-7c9 ... 85092ab560The total amount of capital invested in the EU27 surged 43 per cent in the three years to the first quarter of 2019, compared with the preceding three years, according to fDi Markets, an FT-owned database of cross-border investment. This is in sharp contrast to the UK, which has experienced a 30 per cent drop in investment.
About $340bn of capital has been invested in the 27 remaining EU states in that period, up from $237bn in the previous three years, fDi found. The biggest increase came from European companies spending beyond their national borders, including companies from the UK investing in another EU country.
Over the same period, the capital invested by foreign firms in greenfield projects in the UK dropped by $36bn to $85bn, despite a slight increase in 2018.0 -
Surrey Commuter wrote:Robert88 wrote:Surrey Commuter wrote:Robert88 wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:PBlakeney wrote:Why not?
"I recommend that you buy this stock even though I am selling myself". Dodgy.
Woodford has had bad performance for 23 months in a row.
The reason why it’s all come to a head and why he has had to shut the gates on his fund is partly to do with the way he structured an open ended fund but went for long term value investments in unquoted and illiquid assets. He also bent the rules around limits on investing in unquoted stocks by listing them on weird exchanges and he’s generally done some bad investing.
The fall from grace was pretty rapid when in the last months it became a liquidity problem, which arguably it still is.
And that’s before you get to the decision making at Hargreaves around which funds to allocate assets to and how often they get changed etc etc.
FWIW any investor, retail or otherwise deciding to put money into a fund which has big fixed fees and crap performance ought to blame themselves and not the platform through which they invested.
Nothing to do with Brexit.
A lot of challenges around asset management governance - it’s pretty nuts that a big fund has to shut the gate during normal conditions, but again, not Brexit.
As regards Woodford, it could well be due to Brexit since the stocks in which the fund invested might be low because of uncertainty. A lot of share prices are depressed right now because of Brexit and Trump’s twitter feed. No relief from either in sight. Woodford has been caught between a rock and hard place.
But really this is not about Woodford but Brexit-supporting Hargreaves whose advice was at best incompetent and arrogant.
Listen to Rick - it is nothing to do with Brexit.
Many of his investments did not have share prices to be depressed. The cavalry is not coming to rescue Woodford he is absolutely farked.
Yes but the point is that Hargreaves Lansdown recommended a course of action that led to meltdown for some of their investors; they also believe in Brexit and one of them supported it to the extent of a £3.2m donation.
As for Woodford he had apparently invested a great deal in UK small businesses and start ups, it doesn't seem to have worked out so far. (One of my favourite stocks is one he sold out of and I am doing ok out of it, it's British but considerably less so since June 2016)
I suspect that including Woodford in it's Wealth50 will not count as recommending a course of action as that would open them up to a world of pain with the FCA.
Hargreaves Lansdown is a company (a massive one) so does not "believe" in Brexit. Peter Hargreaves is retired but still retains a minority shareholding, he is an ardent Brexiteer so three three cheers that his net wealth has taken a battering.
The fund in question was called "Equity Income" so should not have been invested in unlisted companies
Why not? So long as they were paying dividends....0 -
Shirley Basso wrote:Surrey Commuter wrote:Robert88 wrote:Surrey Commuter wrote:Robert88 wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:PBlakeney wrote:Why not?
"I recommend that you buy this stock even though I am selling myself". Dodgy.
Woodford has had bad performance for 23 months in a row.
The reason why it’s all come to a head and why he has had to shut the gates on his fund is partly to do with the way he structured an open ended fund but went for long term value investments in unquoted and illiquid assets. He also bent the rules around limits on investing in unquoted stocks by listing them on weird exchanges and he’s generally done some bad investing.
The fall from grace was pretty rapid when in the last months it became a liquidity problem, which arguably it still is.
And that’s before you get to the decision making at Hargreaves around which funds to allocate assets to and how often they get changed etc etc.
FWIW any investor, retail or otherwise deciding to put money into a fund which has big fixed fees and crap performance ought to blame themselves and not the platform through which they invested.
Nothing to do with Brexit.
A lot of challenges around asset management governance - it’s pretty nuts that a big fund has to shut the gate during normal conditions, but again, not Brexit.
As regards Woodford, it could well be due to Brexit since the stocks in which the fund invested might be low because of uncertainty. A lot of share prices are depressed right now because of Brexit and Trump’s twitter feed. No relief from either in sight. Woodford has been caught between a rock and hard place.
But really this is not about Woodford but Brexit-supporting Hargreaves whose advice was at best incompetent and arrogant.
Listen to Rick - it is nothing to do with Brexit.
Many of his investments did not have share prices to be depressed. The cavalry is not coming to rescue Woodford he is absolutely farked.
Yes but the point is that Hargreaves Lansdown recommended a course of action that led to meltdown for some of their investors; they also believe in Brexit and one of them supported it to the extent of a £3.2m donation.
As for Woodford he had apparently invested a great deal in UK small businesses and start ups, it doesn't seem to have worked out so far. (One of my favourite stocks is one he sold out of and I am doing ok out of it, it's British but considerably less so since June 2016)
I suspect that including Woodford in it's Wealth50 will not count as recommending a course of action as that would open them up to a world of pain with the FCA.
Hargreaves Lansdown is a company (a massive one) so does not "believe" in Brexit. Peter Hargreaves is retired but still retains a minority shareholding, he is an ardent Brexiteer so three three cheers that his net wealth has taken a battering.
The fund in question was called "Equity Income" so should not have been invested in unlisted companies
Why not? So long as they were paying dividends....
they are not0 -
Ah.0
-
Shirley Basso wrote:Ah.
even worse they are likely (if successful) to need extra rounds of funding0 -
Surrey Commuter wrote:Shirley Basso wrote:Ah.
even worse they are likely (if successful) to need extra rounds of funding
If you run an open ended find with lots of illiquid investments (because you are a “long term investor”) you better make bloody sure your liquid investments are on the money, and not who’s-who of ftse100 & 250 car crashes.
He’s made a classic case of underperformance, which all managers go through, and turned it into an existential liquidity problem.0
