BREXIT - Is This Really Still Rumbling On? 😴

rjsterry

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.

Those are two ways that someone with money can make a bit more money, but the latter has nothing to do with debt.

rjsterry

Pinno wrote:

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.

Took me a moment to get that one

robert88

Stevo 666 wrote:

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.

Whatever. I understand it and you don't.

(In fact it's more likely that the concept of equity being debt does rather shake the foundations of Tory arguments against government spending)

kingstongraham

Robert88 wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

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.

Whatever. I understand it and you don't.

(In fact it's more likely that the concept of equity being debt does rather shake the foundations of Tory arguments against government spending)

It could be a dunning-kruger.

Stevo_666

Robert88 wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

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.

Whatever. I understand it and you don't.

(In fact it's more likely that the concept of equity being debt does rather shake the foundations of Tory arguments against government spending)

You're in a minority of one on this, based on the other comments above. I guess you thought you could bluff it but it didn't work

rick_chasey

Absolute nonsense, unless the entire investment industry has it wrong and Robert has it right.

The holdings Woodford has are publicly available.

TheBigBean

Brings a whole new meaning to a debt to equity ratio.

rolf_f

Reminds me of how my organisation decided that Ebay would be blocked from the work network because "it is gambling".......

cruff

Robert88 wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

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.

Whatever. I understand it and you don't.

(In fact it's more likely that the concept of equity being debt does rather shake the foundations of Tory arguments against government spending)

Christ, I hope you're not working anywhere that you're looking after any of my money! :shock:

FocusZing

Thankfully property prices haven't been impacted by Brexit and we aren't seeing negative equity.

darkhairedlord

FocusZing wrote:

Thankfully property prices haven't been impacted by Brexit and we aren't seeing negative equity.

All that money spanked on no deal contingencies. Now that's drying up we could see a downturn.

rick_chasey

FocusZing wrote:

Thankfully property prices haven't been impacted by Brexit and we aren't seeing negative equity.

.....outside of London.....

bobmcstuff

TheBigBean wrote:

Brings a whole new meaning to a debt to equity ratio.

It's always 1, apparently.

Or is it more like Schrodinger's cat, where it is either debt or equity until you observe it? Or decide what it is.

bobmcstuff

Stevo 666 wrote:

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.

It's quite a nice explanation of the difference between debt and equity actually!

Stevo_666

Rick Chasey wrote:

Absolute nonsense, unless the entire investment industry has it wrong and Robert has it right.

The holdings Woodford has are publicly available.

I may have a look and see of much this debt his equity fund holds, if any.

One of those rare occasions when we are in complete agreement Rick.

Stevo_666

TheBigBean wrote:

Brings a whole new meaning to a debt to equity ratio.

robert88

Somehow the point of my original post has been cleverly hijacked by Steveo and made about Woodford when in fact it was about Brexit-leaning Hargreaves Lansdown.

Disregarding the cunning hair-splitting over Woodford's fund and attempts to make me look foolish, the fact remains that Hargreaves Lansdown continued to recommend Woodford when they clearly knew it was in trouble and had withdrawn their own investment.

That seems to sum up the upper echelons of the Brexiteers quite neatly.

rjsterry

Robert88 wrote:

Somehow the point of my original post has been cleverly hijacked by Steveo and made about Woodford when in fact it was about Brexit-leaning Hargreaves Lansdown.

Disregarding the cunning hair-splitting over Woodford's fund and attempts to make me look foolish, the fact remains that Hargreaves Lansdown continued to recommend Woodford when they clearly knew it was in trouble and had withdrawn their own investment.

That seems to sum up the upper echelons of the Brexiteers quite neatly.

It wasn't Stevo. Someone else has already pointed out that you seem to be confusing Peter Hargreaves with Hargreaves Lansdown. The latter specifically states on its website that it does not take a view on whether Brexit is good bad or indifferent. It has also been pointed out that inclusion on their Wealth 50 list does not constitute a recommendation. From their site: "Important information - The Wealth 50 isn't personal advice. You can always ask us for advice if you're not sure if an investment's right for you. The value of investments can fall as well as rise so you could get back less than you invest."

Stop digging.

orraloon

I have various investments via the HL platform. Absolutely agree the firm and the founder are very different entities. I use their info such as the Wealth 50 or 150 as was until recently as a source, amongst many others, but all decisions on my money are mine and only mine.

verylonglegs

orraloon wrote:

I have various investments via the HL platform. Absolutely agree the firm and the founder are very different entities. I use their info such as the Wealth 50 or 150 as was until recently as a source, amongst many others, but all decisions on my money are mine and only mine.

Being a customer of HL I was spammed relentlessly by their own marketing emails promoting Woodfords new funds prior to launch. Their arse licking of him was embarrassing. I steered clear as I just didn't fancy it and had other things to do with my cash at the time, I couldn't claim any particular insight of my own, but I did out of curiousity check what his funds were investing in a few months after they were up and running and felt I wasn't missing out, had the whiff of a real gamble. I seem to remember that HL were promoting Anthony Bolton's new China fund heavily a few years previously in a similar way which again didn't amount to a great deal of success.

rick_chasey

Up untill 2017 Woodford was the best U.K. equities PM *by miles*.

Anyways. Since the little one won’t sleep, someone dug this beauty out of the telegraph’s vault.



If any of you actually pay for the Telegraph, have a word with yourself.

#premium

FocusZing

Rick Chasey wrote:

Up untill 2017 Woodford was the best U.K. equities PM *by miles*.

Anyways. Since the little one won’t sleep, someone dug this beauty out of the telegraph’s vault.



If any of you actually pay for the Telegraph, have a word with yourself.

#premium

Always highly symbolic of our sense of nation, the English Channel today represents an ever-widening political chasm. On the one hand, Theresa May has pledged to honour the outcome of last year’s referendum and restore Britain’s role as an independent nation-state.

But in Paris on May 7, President Emmanuel Macron celebrated his election victory to the sound of the EU anthem, instead of the Marseillaise, and has subsequently advocated deeper EU integration.

What lies at the heart of these radically opposed visions? Answering this is paramount as clouds grow darker over the Brexit negotiations and political storms gather.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/0 ... istory-do/

For context.

robert88

Economic earthquake' could trigger run on investment funds, Bank warns

I see that Lindsell Train are managing expectations over fund performance now.

Re HL I use their site for basic research but it has never revealed any hot prospects. It's one for the sheep IMO.

coopster_the_1st

Not allowing Brexit on 29/3 lands the Remain establishment with Boris Johnson as PM.

Not allowing Brexit on 31/10 will quite possibly land them with Nigel Farage as PM.

Actions have consequences.

surrey_commuter

Coopster the 1st wrote:

Not allowing Brexit on 29/3 lands the Remain establishment with Boris Johnson as PM.

Not allowing Brexit on 31/10 will quite possibly land them with Nigel Farage as PM.

Actions have consequences.

fair play not trusting Boris

who would be your preferred candidate?

Can Farage be PM without sitting in Commons or Lords?

rolf_f

Coopster the 1st wrote:

Not allowing Brexit on 29/3 lands the Remain establishment with Boris Johnson as PM.

Not allowing Brexit on 31/10 will quite possibly land them with Nigel Farage as PM.

Actions have consequences.

The only Brexits that can happen on 31/10 are a no deal Brexit or TMs deal Brexit and neither of those seem very likely to happen as things stand now.

Actions do have consequences. Tell that to the Cameron dunce in the corner.

tailwindhome

Rolf F wrote:

Coopster the 1st wrote:

Not allowing Brexit on 29/3 lands the Remain establishment with Boris Johnson as PM.

Not allowing Brexit on 31/10 will quite possibly land them with Nigel Farage as PM.

Actions have consequences.

The only Brexits that can happen on 31/10 are a no deal Brexit or TMs deal Brexit and neither of those seem very likely to happen as things stand now.

Actions do have consequences. Tell that to the Cameron dunce in the corner.

TMs brexit with the GB elements of the backstop removed.

tailwindhome

tailwindhome

Coopster the 1st wrote:

Not allowing Brexit on 29/3 lands the Remain establishment with Boris Johnson as PM.

Not allowing Brexit on 31/10 will quite possibly land them with Nigel Farage as PM.

Actions have consequences.

The UK won't be leaving the EU on 31/10

rolf_f

TailWindHome wrote:

Shameful. But no surprise. How do we end up putting people in charge of the country who regard it as so inconsequential?