BREXIT - Is This Really Still Rumbling On? 😴

rjsterry

Just to break away from the City jargon for a moment, Rory Stewart is opting for quite a bold strategy. He's suggesting that he is minded to support Labour's attempt to block no-deal. Given that the Government will whip against it and he will be sacked as international development secretary, it's an odd place to start your campaign for leader.

The party will never elect him, which is their loss if they ever want a majority again.

mr_goo

rjsterry wrote:

Just to break away from the City jargon for a moment, Rory Stewart is opting for quite a bold strategy. He's suggesting that he is minded to support Labour's attempt to block no-deal. Given that the Government will whip against it and he will be sacked as international development secretary, it's an odd place to start your campaign for leader.

The party will never elect him, which is their loss if they ever want a majority again.

Shame. I've always felt that Rod Stewart would make an excellent PM. Certainly can't be worse than James Brown.

rjsterry

The various political commentators on Twitter are going nuts for Stewart. Gushing would be a good description. James O'Brien reckons he would "annihilate" Corbyn in a GE, but everyone seems to agree that his party will reject him. I guess they aren't interested in winning.

Edit: now that he's read the Labour motion he's decided he won't vote for it, so he won't need to be sacked.

Also, some interesting reporting that some no-dealers are supporting Johnson because they think he'll make that happen and at the same time he's picking up supporters who think he definitely won't go for no deal. A good trick if you can pull it off, but Mr Corbyn's experience suggests you have to pick a side.

robert88

Rick Chasey wrote:

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.

You are picking on Woodford but maybe his predicament is a straw in the wind. HL's share price doesn't seem to be recovering yet from backing what you suggest is "a classic case of under performance, which all managers go through".

The liquidity problem might prove to be wider and deeper than you suggest. There is also the problem that large companies like HL have large backers in the same game; they hang together lest they be hung out to dry separately.

It may not be another BCCI, Northern Rock or Equitable Life, but when do you find out?

surrey_commuter

Robert88 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

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.

You are picking on Woodford but maybe his predicament is a straw in the wind. HL's share price doesn't seem to be recovering yet from backing what you suggest is "a classic case of under performance, which all managers go through".

The liquidity problem might prove to be wider and deeper than you suggest. There is also the problem that large companies like HL have large backers in the same game; they hang together lest they be hung out to dry separately.

It may not be another BCCI, Northern Rock or Equitable Life, but when do you find out?

Can you explain what you mean about liquidity.

shirley_basso

Investors can't sell their shares in the fund to get their money back because Woodford can't sell the investments the fund holds as they aren't listed shares - there is no exchange to sell them.

tailwindhome

This twitter thread is the best.

https://twitter.com/LanceForman/status/ ... 9554778112

"There's no democracy here!"

tailwindhome

No wait

This one could be better.

https://twitter.com/LanceForman/status/ ... 0292800513

"Thankfully the British taxpayer has paid for a nice fleet of Mercs and very charming drivers."




(Have I been taken in by a parody account? It must be)

rjsterry

Well, Nigel did hand pick the candidates and is obviously worried about anyone stealing any limelight from him, so you just want someone moderately able to follow instructions but unlikely to get any ideas.

robert88

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Robert88 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

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.

You are picking on Woodford but maybe his predicament is a straw in the wind. HL's share price doesn't seem to be recovering yet from backing what you suggest is "a classic case of under performance, which all managers go through".

The liquidity problem might prove to be wider and deeper than you suggest. There is also the problem that large companies like HL have large backers in the same game; they hang together lest they be hung out to dry separately.

It may not be another BCCI, Northern Rock or Equitable Life, but when do you find out?

Can you explain what you mean about liquidity.

For example, it is reported that since the banks had to improve their solvency ratios they have been willing to sell debt to people like Woodford who wanted the level of returns commensurate with the risk the banks wanted to offload. If the likes of Woodford decide they want out who is going to buy the asset at the price he needs?

Woodford was unlikely to be the only investor in such debt and there are other forms of debt with the same profile. A heck of a lot, in fact. Maybe not quite sub-prime mortgage territory but it could be very damaging.

surrey_commuter

Robert88 wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Robert88 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

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.

You are picking on Woodford but maybe his predicament is a straw in the wind. HL's share price doesn't seem to be recovering yet from backing what you suggest is "a classic case of under performance, which all managers go through".

The liquidity problem might prove to be wider and deeper than you suggest. There is also the problem that large companies like HL have large backers in the same game; they hang together lest they be hung out to dry separately.

It may not be another BCCI, Northern Rock or Equitable Life, but when do you find out?

Can you explain what you mean about liquidity.

For example, it is reported that since the banks had to improve their solvency ratios they have been willing to sell debt to people like Woodford who wanted the level of returns commensurate with the risk the banks wanted to offload. If the likes of Woodford decide they want out who is going to buy the asset at the price he needs?

Woodford was unlikely to be the only investor in such debt and there are other forms of debt with the same profile. A heck of a lot, in fact. Maybe not quite sub-prime mortgage territory but it could be very damaging.

I was not aware Woodford was buying debt off the banks, if he did it has not been widely reported. His problem is that he owns shares that are not traded on any exchange.

Most funds hold very small % of listed companies so they can easily sell and pay back investors.

Funds with illiquid assets such as property and corporate bonds are only available to institutional and professional investors who tend not to act irrationally. Some property funds were gated in 2007 and post referendum but there was no stampede when they reopened

If you want to worry about something then check out public sector unfounded pension liabilities or at a push car finance.

mrfpb

The first time Rory Stewart was suggested as leadership contender I thought he was the "John Major " candidate of the race. Not many friends compared to the "names" but far fewer enemies.

However he will be anhilated by the membership vote, if he makes it that far.

darkhairedlord

mrfpb wrote:

The first time Rory Stewart was suggested as leadership contender I thought he was the "John Major " candidate of the race. Not many friends compared to the "names" but far fewer enemies.

However he will be anhilated by the membership vote, if he makes it that far.

Not so sure. If Johnson implodes he might get in. I wonder how much he has spent on NDA's this month.

rick_chasey

Robert88 wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Robert88 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

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.

You are picking on Woodford but maybe his predicament is a straw in the wind. HL's share price doesn't seem to be recovering yet from backing what you suggest is "a classic case of under performance, which all managers go through".

The liquidity problem might prove to be wider and deeper than you suggest. There is also the problem that large companies like HL have large backers in the same game; they hang together lest they be hung out to dry separately.

It may not be another BCCI, Northern Rock or Equitable Life, but when do you find out?

Can you explain what you mean about liquidity.

For example, it is reported that since the banks had to improve their solvency ratios they have been willing to sell debt to people like Woodford who wanted the level of returns commensurate with the risk the banks wanted to offload. If the likes of Woodford decide they want out who is going to buy the asset at the price he needs?

Woodford was unlikely to be the only investor in such debt and there are other forms of debt with the same profile. A heck of a lot, in fact. Maybe not quite sub-prime mortgage territory but it could be very damaging.

Mate it’s an equity fund.

Liquidity is just how many buyers and sellers there are.

Woodford’s problem is he has a load of unquoted weird sh!t in his fund and if enough people wanted their money back he’d have to sell them and it’d be an absolute fire sale, so the valuations he’s been goving would fall through the floor and lose the remaining investors a d!ck tonne.

It’s nout to do with solvency. It’s a fund. Either people put their money in or they take it out.

robert88

Rick Chasey wrote:

Robert88 wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Robert88 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

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.

You are picking on Woodford but maybe his predicament is a straw in the wind. HL's share price doesn't seem to be recovering yet from backing what you suggest is "a classic case of under performance, which all managers go through".

The liquidity problem might prove to be wider and deeper than you suggest. There is also the problem that large companies like HL have large backers in the same game; they hang together lest they be hung out to dry separately.

It may not be another BCCI, Northern Rock or Equitable Life, but when do you find out?

Can you explain what you mean about liquidity.

For example, it is reported that since the banks had to improve their solvency ratios they have been willing to sell debt to people like Woodford who wanted the level of returns commensurate with the risk the banks wanted to offload. If the likes of Woodford decide they want out who is going to buy the asset at the price he needs?

Woodford was unlikely to be the only investor in such debt and there are other forms of debt with the same profile. A heck of a lot, in fact. Maybe not quite sub-prime mortgage territory but it could be very damaging.

Mate it’s an equity fund.

Liquidity is just how many buyers and sellers there are.

Woodford’s problem is he has a load of unquoted weird sh!t in his fund and if enough people wanted their money back he’d have to sell them and it’d be an absolute fire sale, so the valuations he’s been goving would fall through the floor and lose the remaining investors a d!ck tonne.

It’s nout to do with solvency. It’s a fund. Either people put their money in or they take it out.

Yes. You seemed to have grasped some of it.

rick_chasey

Sure, but you're talking about debt but Woodford is an equity investor and the fund in question is an equity fund.

robert88

Rick Chasey wrote:

Sure, but you're talking about debt but Woodford is an equity investor and the fund in question is an equity fund.

Equity can be viewed as a form of debt.

But in the context of this thread, the issue is that if you invest in the UK economy right now as a professional with targets to meet and you own assets whose value is affected by Brexit then, as Woodford has discovered, now is not a good moment for people to want their money back. Lots more people might get twitchy and want their money back. Remember the queues outside Northern Rock? He is no doubt praying for more time and that things will improve and yet our future leaders are walking us towards no-deal. It is reported that only a small proportion of UK businesses are prepared for no-deal.

Is Woodford is playing the canary in the coal mine?

rjsterry

Robert88 wrote:

Equity can be viewed as a form of debt.

?

Not sure you need Woodford to know that businesses in the UK are holding their breath at the moment.

rick_chasey

Robert88 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Sure, but you're talking about debt but Woodford is an equity investor and the fund in question is an equity fund.

Equity can be viewed as a form of debt.

You brought it up in the context of banks selling off debt to investors.

Robert88 wrote:

For example, it is reported that since the banks had to improve their solvency ratios they have been willing to sell debt to people like Woodford who wanted the level of returns commensurate with the risk the banks wanted to offload. If the likes of Woodford decide they want out who is going to buy the asset at the price he needs?

Woodford was unlikely to be the only investor in such debt and there are other forms of debt with the same profile. A heck of a lot, in fact. Maybe not quite sub-prime mortgage territory but it could be very damaging.

Equity is not debt. Debt is debt. Equity is equity. It's not in the eye of the beholder.

And in answer to your question - if I may reply with one of my own - Woodford is the canary in the coalmine for what exactly?

Ben6899

rjsterry wrote:

The various political commentators on Twitter are going nuts for Stewart. Gushing would be a good description. James O'Brien reckons he would "annihilate" Corbyn in a GE, but everyone seems to agree that his party will reject him. I guess they aren't interested in winning.

Edit: now that he's read the Labour motion he's decided he won't vote for it, so he won't need to be sacked.

Also, some interesting reporting that some no-dealers are supporting Johnson because they think he'll make that happen and at the same time he's picking up supporters who think he definitely won't go for no deal. A good trick if you can pull it off, but Mr Corbyn's experience suggests you have to pick a side.

He's too centrist for your average Tory. Which is a shame ( ) for them because he would indeed pull votes from disillusioned other party supporters.

darkhairedlord

Ben6899 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

The various political commentators on Twitter are going nuts for Stewart. Gushing would be a good description. James O'Brien reckons he would "annihilate" Corbyn in a GE, but everyone seems to agree that his party will reject him. I guess they aren't interested in winning.

Edit: now that he's read the Labour motion he's decided he won't vote for it, so he won't need to be sacked.

Also, some interesting reporting that some no-dealers are supporting Johnson because they think he'll make that happen and at the same time he's picking up supporters who think he definitely won't go for no deal. A good trick if you can pull it off, but Mr Corbyn's experience suggests you have to pick a side.

He's too centrist for your average Tory. Which is a shame ( ) for them because he would indeed pull votes from disillusioned other party supporters.

If he did get in he would still have same to$$ers sat around the cabinet table.

pinno

darkhairedlord wrote:

If he did get in he would have the cream of the to$$ers sat around the cabinet table.

FTFY

Stevo_666

Robert88 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Sure, but you're talking about debt but Woodford is an equity investor and the fund in question is an equity fund.

Equity can be viewed as a form of debt.

Please explain...I've ever never come across this view before in my career.

rjsterry

Stevo 666 wrote:

Robert88 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Sure, but you're talking about debt but Woodford is an equity investor and the fund in question is an equity fund.

Equity can be viewed as a form of debt.

Please explain...I've ever never come across this view before in my career.

We're in a post-truth world now, Stevo. Equity can also be viewed as a form of custard.

pinno

rjsterry wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Robert88 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Sure, but you're talking about debt but Woodford is an equity investor and the fund in question is an equity fund.

Equity can be viewed as a form of debt.

Please explain...I've ever never come across this view before in my career.

We're in a post-truth world now, Stevo. Equity can also be viewed as a form of custard.

In other spheres RJS, Equity can also be giving up vaping.

robert88

Stevo 666 wrote:

Robert88 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Sure, but you're talking about debt but Woodford is an equity investor and the fund in question is an equity fund.

Equity can be viewed as a form of debt.

Please explain...I've ever never come across this view before in my career.

A very simple example:

An inventor may wish to borrow money to patent and develop an idea. An investor might simply lend the money to be repaid in instalments or prefer to take a stake in the company (equity) in the hope of making more through its profits.

Stevo_666

rjsterry wrote:

We're in a post-truth world now, Stevo.

Is that a polite way of saying he's talking bollox?

cycleclinic

Is it still happening?

Stevo_666

Robert88 wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Robert88 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Sure, but you're talking about debt but Woodford is an equity investor and the fund in question is an equity fund.

Equity can be viewed as a form of debt.

Please explain...I've ever never come across this view before in my career.

A very simple example:

An inventor may wish to borrow money to patent and develop an idea. An investor might simply lend the money to be repaid in instalments or prefer to take a stake in the company (equity) in the hope of making more through its profits.

That's nothing to do with equity being a form of debt. Just two different ways of funding, one being equity and one being debt.

TheBigBean

Robert88 wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Robert88 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Sure, but you're talking about debt but Woodford is an equity investor and the fund in question is an equity fund.

Equity can be viewed as a form of debt.

Please explain...I've ever never come across this view before in my career.

A very simple example:

An inventor may wish to borrow money to patent and develop an idea. An investor might simply lend the money to be repaid in instalments or prefer to take a stake in the company (equity) in the hope of making more through its profits.

Somone may choose to invest equity instead of lending debt. In the same way, someone may choose to buy apples instead of bananas.