Messages

1

General discussion / Re: European Leagues.

« on: March 17, 2023, 09:06:29 PM »

Napoli are second favourites after Man city
https://www.oddschecker.com/football/champions-league/winner

Napoli going well in fairness to them, runaway leaders in Italy and should be able to beat able to beat the two Milan sides however they'll like be underdogs in the final against any of Real Madrid,Chelsea,Manchester City and Bayern Munich.

Surely not against one goal a game Chelsea.

If Chelsea reach the final with that draw they'll be favourites to win it.

How can they get to the final with 2 goals ?

1-0, 0-0

1-0, 0-0

2

General discussion / Re: European Leagues.

« on: March 17, 2023, 11:25:52 AM »

Great draw. Napoli’s odds surely dropped massively now.

3

General discussion / Re: Cryptocurrency

« on: March 14, 2023, 06:59:22 AM »

They used long term instruments to fund (what became) short term liabilities

They didn’t hedge their interest rate risk

https://www.wsj.com/livecoverage/stock-market-news-today-03-13-2023/card/silicon-valley-bank-dropped-a-hedge-against-rising-rates-in-2022-6MiD9ZLVY9CF8zbIM7ze

“One point that surely didn’t help: The bank reported virtually no interest rate hedges on its massive bond portfolio at the end of 2022. It terminated or let expire rate hedges on more than $14 billion of securities throughout the year, the company said in its year-end financial report.

Interest rate hedges are often in the form of something called swaps, a financial instrument that effectively turns an investor's fixed-rate loans or bonds into floating rate by paying a third-party. These can be important for banks like SVB because so many of their investments are tied up in fixed-income bonds like mortgages or Treasurys. When rates go up, fixed-income bonds fall in value, as happened with SVB.

Previously, SVB had boasted about its hedging“

It’s mind boggling how negligent and irresponsible they were

Yea seems they were asleep at the wheel. No Chief Risk Officer since April 2022 and no explanation for why wouldn’t exactly fill you with confidence about their Risk Management practices…

4

General discussion / Re: Cryptocurrency

« on: March 13, 2023, 09:52:11 PM »

Nothing to do with Thiel and the Venture Capitalist crew?

How does what a "VC crew" did impact on the ability of a Bank to be able to honour their deposits when they are requested?

By telling everyone to withdraw their deposits and causing a run on the bank?

5

General discussion / Re: Cryptocurrency

« on: March 13, 2023, 09:17:04 PM »

The irony.
The current bout of finanical instability is caused purely by the Fed.

Print loads of dollars in QE from 2019-21, banks invested a lot of these funds in Treasuries etc. Indeed due to liquidity regulations they are mandated to hold a minimun percentage of HQLA (High Quality Liquid Assets) in order to reduce their riskiness.

But because of all the financial easing inflation started to run away, so then the Fed rapidly raised rates as well as remove approx $1tn from the system by way of QT.
Due to the rapid rise in interest rates the market value of the Treasuries fall.  The rising interest rates also cause businesses to struggle (this is one of the prescriptions for reducing inflation) which means there is less cash deposited at banks.  When account holders ask to withdraw their cash and the banks don't have sufficient cash on hand (due to fractional reserve banking) then they need to sell their assets to raise the cash.  But their assets are now worth less due to higher interest rates.  This means the banks lose money so then try to raise fresh equity, but this then spooks the market and a bank run starts.

Every single aspect of that is caused by the Fed / Central Bank actions, not crypto.  How did they not realise that increasing rates from 0% to 5% wouldn't result in these issues with huge chunks of banks' assets having to be marked to market?

Given the way the Fed has used this to close down Signature Bank (even though it supposedly wasn't in that much trouble) as it and Silvergate were the two most crypto friendly banks it is hard not to wonder if we are approaching the 3rd stage of the below Mahatma Gandi quote:

"First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win"

How does the Fed / Central Bank get the trains back on the track? The QE started in 2019 due to worsening conditions in the Repo market, the printing resulted in rising asset prices and really high inflation. They raise rates for 12 months and reduce their balance sheet for 7 or 8 months and we now end up in this crisis.  I'm sure they'll go back to easing again, indeed it could perhaps already be said that easy has started again yesterday with banks able to post their under water collateral with the Fed to borrow the full nominal value.  What happens when inflation goes crazy again?
I've said for a couple of years here that I don't know if Bitcoin is the answer, but the current system seems to be running on fumes and I'm happy to take a punt on Bitcoin given the evidence before me.

Nothing to do with Thiel and the Venture Capitalist crew?

6

General discussion / Re: Landlordism 2.0

« on: March 11, 2023, 05:43:12 PM »

So do you think there should be any actions available for landlords in cases where tenants don’t pay rent? Or just tough sh!t and they should absorb the cost?

Yes there should.

What would it look like? It has to be enough of a deterrent to prevent widespread abuse of the rental system by tenants.

No idea, I don't set policy or have any plans to do so. Just absolutely zero sympathy for someone who buys a second property without affordability to repay the mortgage, then complains when it doesn't go according to plan!

The rent is the affordability. Handy enough to get tenants, if you’ve some bum refusing to pay rent out to f**k

Ok

7

General discussion / Re: Who’s Been Cancelled??

« on: March 11, 2023, 02:29:41 PM »

Virtually no football coverage now across all platforms today now. What a c**k up by the BBC.

Man United fans wishing it happened last weekend 

And Liverpool fans glad it happened today!

8

General discussion / Re: Landlordism 2.0

« on: March 11, 2023, 02:28:47 PM »

So do you think there should be any actions available for landlords in cases where tenants don’t pay rent? Or just tough sh!t and they should absorb the cost?

Yes there should.

What would it look like? It has to be enough of a deterrent to prevent widespread abuse of the rental system by tenants.

No idea, I don't set policy or have any plans to do so. Just absolutely zero sympathy for someone who buys a second property without affordability to repay the mortgage, then complains when it doesn't go according to plan!

9

General discussion / Re: Landlordism 2.0

« on: March 11, 2023, 02:24:22 PM »

Having no tenants is not a problem. You sell the place tomorrow.

You agreed it's idiotic to advocate for renting a property without collecting rent but it seems to be your fall back position every time. Please clarify, where tenants are in situ what's an acceptable loss over the course of a year on rent collection? 75%, 50%? If expected rent is 0% you're contradicting yourself.

Property and shares are not comparable. Property is bricks and mortar, lower yield, lower risk but less liquid. Higher maintenance, slower to dispose of and when you do it's all or nothing. You can't partially sell a house. Shares are higher yield, zero maintenance, can be immediately liquidised either partially or fully but are higher risk and can literally disappear into thin air in a moment.

  something tells me you have a bit of a prejudice against landlords.

Think you're picking me up wrong. I'm not at all saying anyone should rent a property and not collect rent - I'm saying in the event that no rental income is there (whatever the reason - vacant property, non payment etc), the landlord should be able to afford their mortgage repayments. Very different things.

It's the principle of there being a risk of losing money in shares & property I was hinting at - not the actual investment vehicle itself. On that though, how can you "sell the place tomorrow" and also say property is "slower to dispose"?

No prejudice against landlords at all - just no sympathy!

10

General discussion / Re: Landlordism 2.0

« on: March 11, 2023, 01:34:13 PM »

So do you think there should be any actions available for landlords in cases where tenants don’t pay rent? Or just tough sh!t and they should absorb the cost?

Yes there should.

No one mentioned no risk and no landlord expects no risk. Perfectly acceptable business practice to borrow money on the strength of ROI for partial repayment. You could say the same thing about not taking on a mortgage if you can't repay if you lose your job. But that makes no practical sense. If you were so inherently wealthy not to require a job, or not to need rent, there'd be no need for the mortgage in the first place.

It's about controllable risk and stress test. Whereas before landlords accepted the risk and could afford to carry the can from loss of a couple of months rent or repair job after bad tenants, now there is no control whatsoever and they could be left for an indeterminate length of time (years if you listen to some hardliners) with no rent or recourse. And once the buffer money runs out i.e stress test, their family home could them come under risk. That's the unacceptable risk, a risk they didn't agree to when taking the mortgage, that has landlords wanting out. 

Hence why I made the point they should be able to afford repayments without the need for rental income. That is the risk from investing in a rental property - there may be no rental income. Regarding repossession of the family home, surely repossession of the rental property would be the first port of call? Has there been many incidences of "the small guy" having their family home repossessed for not paying rental property liabilities?

I wouldn't advise someone who couldn't afford to lose money in shares to invest in shares because they expect prices increase and they may potentially make some return on their investment. You can expect a return on a highly valuable asset all you want, doesn't mean it is going to materialise and become risk free. Don't see how the principal of investing in a rental property is any different.

As I originally stated, if they can't afford to service the mortgage on the rental without tenants, shouldn't have taken on the mortgage in the first place. I have no sympathies at all for people in this instance. They took a gamble to make more money, it hasn't paid off. That's life.

This hardliner BS when it comes to landlords of f**k em, tough shit, scabby c***ts is nonsense and needs to stop.

something tells me you have a vested interest in this subject!

11

General discussion / Re: Landlordism 2.0

« on: March 10, 2023, 06:12:50 PM »

Expecting it to carry no risk is.

The risk is this instance is a landlord cannot get tenants to pay their rental mortgage. Tough shit, that’s the risk they took when agreeing a buy to let mortgage.

Again, if you can’t afford a rental property without income from tenants you shouldn’t have taken it on.

I find it hard to believe theres any landlord that cant find a tenant. Are you trying to say if the tenants dont bother paying rent then it’s just tough shit for the land lord?

No, I'm saying if you can't afford your rental mortgage without income from tenants, then you shouldn't have one in the first instance. Tough shit.

12

General discussion / Re: Landlordism 2.0

« on: March 10, 2023, 05:50:38 PM »

And the notion of having tenants and not collecting rent. That's just a ridiculous scenario to be advocating.

Never suggested that at all. Don't know where you got that idiotic idea from.

Glad you clarified you think it's idiotic to be paying a mortgage on a rental property and not collecting rent.

Of course it's idiotic, equally as idiotic as taking on a mortgage without the ability to repay it independently of rental income. Basic affordability rules.

People borrow all the time on good faith. Business people borrow on the strength of their company and projected revenues. If it goes tits up there's no alternative affordability rules. People with jobs borrow on the strength of their future earning potential. If they lose job or get sick and can't pay the mortgage there's no alternative affordability rules. The house goes.
 Renting property is no different. People borrow to get into the game or expand their business. Expecting a return on a highly valuable asset like a house is hardly idiotic.

Expecting it to carry no risk is.

The risk is this instance is a landlord cannot get tenants to pay their rental mortgage. Tough shit, that’s the risk they took when agreeing a buy to let mortgage.

Again, if you can’t afford a rental property without income from tenants you shouldn’t have taken it on.

13

General discussion / Re: Landlordism 2.0

« on: March 10, 2023, 04:53:39 PM »

And the notion of having tenants and not collecting rent. That's just a ridiculous scenario to be advocating.

Never suggested that at all. Don't know where you got that idiotic idea from.

Glad you clarified you think it's idiotic to be paying a mortgage on a rental property and not collecting rent.

Of course it's idiotic, equally as idiotic as taking on a mortgage without the ability to repay it independently of rental income. Basic affordability rules.

14

General discussion / Re: Landlordism 2.0

« on: March 10, 2023, 04:36:05 PM »

And the notion of having tenants and not collecting rent. That's just a ridiculous scenario to be advocating.

Never suggested that at all. Don't know where you got that idiotic idea from.

15

General discussion / Re: Landlordism 2.0

« on: March 10, 2023, 04:18:42 PM »

https://www.irishtimes.com/culture/tv-radio/2023/03/10/im-breaking-morning-irelands-emotional-interview-gets-to-the-heart-of-housing-crisis/

Marian Finnegan of Sherry FitzGerald estate agents says there’s no evidence of landlords leaving the market because of the eviction ban; rather, small owners have been selling up for a decade due to burdensome taxes and regulations. Moreover, she suggests that the Government squandered the opportunity presented by the moratorium to halt the “exodus” of such landlords: “Literally nothing was done until the last minute of the last month.”

It's a complex issue but the eviction ban is a huge deal. It's potentially catastrophic to a small landlord say with 2 mortgages (one family home , one rental) who needs the rent to service them. Cannot blame them if they sell up first chance they get for some control and peace of mind. Temporary landlords too would be crazy to enter the rental market. Say you moved abroad for a year or two for work. Renting out your house now a huge risk and could leave you homeless when you come home.

If they can't afford to service the mortgage on the rental without tenants, shouldn't have taken on the mortgage in the first place.