|
Post by bracknellboy on Jul 30, 2019 9:28:38 GMT
I too have major investments in socks, but my wife is getting bored of hanging so many on the line especially these new-fangled ones, made of bamboo, that takes forever to dry. They’re weirdly slippery too, and lose their elasticity within minutes (until re-washed). A triumph of style over substance. Best left for the pandas. Pandas are notoriously fickle about their food - what on earth makes you think they would be in slightest bit interested in yoiur cast off socks, even after having been re-washed ?
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 30, 2019 9:40:17 GMT
I have played Eton games and they are a lot more fun than this situation. (especially "fives")
I think it is unfair to blame politicians for trying to carry out the demands of us, the voters. The voters got it wrong and are still splitting the parties. Sometimes it is better to recognise our own errors rather than point fingers at others.
My failings over the whole issue were not to spend more time trying to explain basic economic theory to my nearest and dearest. I also failed to join the conservative party to have a vote between the dull-competent and the startling-clown.
|
|
jo
Member of DD Central
Posts: 727
Likes: 492
|
Post by jo on Jul 30, 2019 11:09:35 GMT
I remember going home one night in 1985 when gbpusd was 1.09 (it had earlier been 1.05 and the yank traders were planning 'parity' parties). Fatcha pulled some swerve or other and the Sultan of Brunei bought an ass-ton of sterling. Anyhoo, within around a week it was 1.14. In a month it was 1.25, in a year it was 1.50 ish and six year later it hit 2.00. The thing I don't recall was a societal breakdown.
|
|
agent69
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,592
Likes: 4,182
|
Post by agent69 on Jul 30, 2019 11:09:48 GMT
I too have major investments in socks,
Socks? - ah yes I see what you mean (fat fingered typo on my part).
I do have quite a lot of socks, but hold them for purely practical reasons. Can't see them funding my retirement if I chose to sell.
|
|
bg
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,368
Likes: 1,929
|
Post by bg on Jul 30, 2019 14:09:11 GMT
Don'ts: Worry about what the governor of a central bank had for breakfast Worry about currency fluctuations
On subject of currency, as SteveT says, currency will go up down and sideways. If you're a long-term investor (as you should be) then currency should really be only viewed in terms of your personal context (e.g. your current or future liabilities in a given currency). But fretting over currency movements is pointless, especially if you don't even know how to properly evaluate them.
I wouldn't go as far as that. Currency can have a huge impact on your investment value. For example if you today put your SIPP into USD stocks with cable at 1.21, but a deal is then agreed with the EU (or there is no deal and things turn out great) and cable moves back to 1.60 (which is roughly where I think it should be long term) then you have lost 25% of your investment. That is a real loss. For me GBP is undervalued at current levels but could easily weaken further. All it means is I won't buy any foreign assets without an FX hedge until I see some sort of bounce back.
|
|
hazellend
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,361
Likes: 2,179
|
Sterling
Jul 30, 2019 14:53:39 GMT
via mobile
Post by hazellend on Jul 30, 2019 14:53:39 GMT
Don'ts: Worry about what the governor of a central bank had for breakfast Worry about currency fluctuations
On subject of currency, as SteveT says, currency will go up down and sideways. If you're a long-term investor (as you should be) then currency should really be only viewed in terms of your personal context (e.g. your current or future liabilities in a given currency). But fretting over currency movements is pointless, especially if you don't even know how to properly evaluate them.
I wouldn't go as far as that. Currency can have a huge impact on your investment value. For example if you today put your SIPP into USD stocks with cable at 1.21, but a deal is then agreed with the EU (or there is no deal and things turn out great) and cable moves back to 1.60 (which is roughly where I think it should be long term) then you have lost 25% of your investment. That is a real loss. For me GBP is undervalued at current levels but could easily weaken further. All it means is I won't buy any foreign assets without an FX hedge until I see some sort of bounce back. I also “feel” that the pound is undervalued but I ignore my feelings and intuition when investing. If only intelligence and rational thought gave you an edge, we would all be very rich. I definitely don’t want to hedge my foreign equities. I believe in efficient market so I take all the currency risk that goes along with international infesting. If using global government bonds as a ballast then they should be hedged.
|
|
IFISAcava
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,664
Likes: 2,988
|
Post by IFISAcava on Jul 30, 2019 15:16:30 GMT
I have played Eton games and they are a lot more fun than this situation. (especially "fives")
I think it is unfair to blame politicians for trying to carry out the demands of us, the voters. The voters got it wrong and are still splitting the parties. Sometimes it is better to recognise our own errors rather than point fingers at others.
My failings over the whole issue were not to spend more time trying to explain basic economic theory to my nearest and dearest. I also failed to join the conservative party to have a vote between the dull-competent and the startling-clown.
We only had a referendum because idiot politicians tried to game the electoral system (Tories afraid of UKIP) and then unexpectedly won a majority so had to go through with it then arrogantly ran a campaign they assumed they would win. And put an internal concern of the Tory party, which was barely in the top 10 of the electorate's concerns, into an oversimplified and undefined binary question rather than rely on the centuries of representative parliamentary democracy that has served us well. And so divided the country for decades to come, and in the meantime landed us with a clown as PM. So yes, I do blame politicians rather than the electorate, who were asked a stupid question and gave a stupid answer.
|
|
bg
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,368
Likes: 1,929
|
Post by bg on Jul 30, 2019 16:53:12 GMT
For example if you today put your SIPP into USD stocks with cable at 1.21, but a deal is then agreed with the EU (or there is no deal and things turn out great) and cable moves back to 1.60 (which is roughly where I think it should be long term) then you have lost 25% of your investment. That is a real loss.
I'm afraid I see that argument largely as a theoretical one.
If you're running a USD biased portfolio then maybe it might affect you to some degree. But if you're more balanced it won't do so to quite such an extent. Yes its theoretical but its also just reality. If you buy a foreign asset (stock, house, commodity etc) and the GBP suddenly rallies 25% against the currency you bought in, that's a real loss. Yes if you bought a US company who has large exports to the UK there will be some insulation as the share price rallies but buying the likes of Microsoft, Facebook, Apple, Bank of America etc then its going to be a near 25% hit. A loss is a loss. If in your example you bought at $16 when cable was 1.21 then your returns would be 860%. If you bought when cable was 1.60 your return would be 1,138%. Which ever way you slice it, its a big difference and yes I would give a damn.
|
|
|
Post by samford71 on Jul 30, 2019 17:27:10 GMT
I would recommend measuring your wealth in more than one currency. I measure it in GBP (since this is where I currently live and where most of future liabilities are), AUD since this is where I might live (given where my partner is from) and USD (since this is still the global reserve currency).
Looking in GBP alone is going to create an illusion of wealth. GBP is at a 35 year low against a basket of other currencies. Looking at that number in USD is currently a better metric and more realistic.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 30, 2019 17:57:07 GMT
I have played Eton games and they are a lot more fun than this situation. (especially "fives")
I think it is unfair to blame politicians for trying to carry out the demands of us, the voters. The voters got it wrong and are still splitting the parties. Sometimes it is better to recognise our own errors rather than point fingers at others.
My failings over the whole issue were not to spend more time trying to explain basic economic theory to my nearest and dearest. I also failed to join the conservative party to have a vote between the dull-competent and the startling-clown.
We only had a referendum because idiot politicians tried to game the electoral system (Tories afraid of UKIP) and then unexpectedly won a majority so had to go through with it then arrogantly ran a campaign they assumed they would win. And put an internal concern of the Tory party, which was barely in the top 10 of the electorate's concerns, into an oversimplified and undefined binary question rather than rely on the centuries of representative parliamentary democracy that has served us well. And so divided the country for decades to come, and in the meantime landed us with a clown as PM. So yes, I do blame politicians rather than the electorate, who were asked a stupid question and gave a stupid answer. Much as I don't like it I have to admit that the voters behind UKIP and the Conservative party wanted this stupid thing. I blame the voters, and the politicians who pandered to them but mainly the voters. Blaming "others" is always easy. Blaming ourselves is difficult.
|
|
IFISAcava
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,664
Likes: 2,988
|
Sterling
Jul 30, 2019 19:40:32 GMT
via mobile
dan1 likes this
Post by IFISAcava on Jul 30, 2019 19:40:32 GMT
We only had a referendum because idiot politicians tried to game the electoral system (Tories afraid of UKIP) and then unexpectedly won a majority so had to go through with it then arrogantly ran a campaign they assumed they would win. And put an internal concern of the Tory party, which was barely in the top 10 of the electorate's concerns, into an oversimplified and undefined binary question rather than rely on the centuries of representative parliamentary democracy that has served us well. And so divided the country for decades to come, and in the meantime landed us with a clown as PM. So yes, I do blame politicians rather than the electorate, who were asked a stupid question and gave a stupid answer. Much as I don't like it I have to admit that the voters behind UKIP and the Conservative party wanted this stupid thing. I blame the voters, and the politicians who pandered to them but mainly the voters. Blaming "others" is always easy. Blaming ourselves is difficult. Except voters weren't agitating for this referendum - a small minority felt strongly (and voted UKIP), but the majority of the electorate put the NHS, education, crime, the economy, unemployment, etc etc ahead of the EU as their primary concerns. Pandering to the electorate would have given us (for example) a referendum on hypothecated taxes for the NHS. The EU referendum was pandering to Eurosceptic Tory MPs and playing electoral arithmetic games.
|
|
|
Post by dan1 on Jul 30, 2019 20:34:36 GMT
Much as I don't like it I have to admit that the voters behind UKIP and the Conservative party wanted this stupid thing. I blame the voters, and the politicians who pandered to them but mainly the voters. Blaming "others" is always easy. Blaming ourselves is difficult. Except voters weren't agitating for this referendum - a small minority felt strongly (and voted UKIP), but the majority of the electorate put the NHS, education, crime, the economy, unemployment, etc etc ahead of the EU as their primary concerns. Pandering to the electorate would have given us (for example) a referendum on hypothecated taxes for the NHS. The EU referendum was pandering to Eurosceptic Tory MPs and playing electoral arithmetic games. ... or more worryingly a referendum on the death penalty, which is supported by the majority of the electorate (if opinion polls are to be believed), and previously the Home Secretary, Priti Patel, although I'm too fearful to look up her current views.
|
|
bg
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,368
Likes: 1,929
|
Post by bg on Jul 30, 2019 21:51:38 GMT
A loss is a loss. If in your example you bought at $16 when cable was 1.21 then your returns would be 860%. If you bought when cable was 1.60 your return would be 1,138%. Which ever way you slice it, its a big difference and yes I would give a damn.
Well, its only a loss if you actually realise it. If its still a paper loss, it could still turn around. Especially with a good long-term investment which you might hold until you die.
Also, I would say worrying about the difference between 860% and 1138% return is being greedy. You can't have it all all of the time. And making 860% return on a reasonably "safe" investment is not to be sniffed at.
I come from a trading background, I deal in mark to market terms. A loss is a loss. Let's say your investment is £100k in a pension. The 860% return would give you a pot that buys an annuity of roughly £30k a year. The 1,138% return gives you an income of around £40k. Is wanting the £40k being greedy? Anyone who buys anything would like to pay 25% less. If you don't invest 'smart' you will end up with poor returns.
|
|
hazellend
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,361
Likes: 2,179
|
Post by hazellend on Jul 30, 2019 22:06:57 GMT
Well, its only a loss if you actually realise it. If its still a paper loss, it could still turn around. Especially with a good long-term investment which you might hold until you die.
Also, I would say worrying about the difference between 860% and 1138% return is being greedy. You can't have it all all of the time. And making 860% return on a reasonably "safe" investment is not to be sniffed a
I come from a trading background, I deal in mark to market terms. A loss is a loss. Let's say your investment is £100k in a pension. The 860% return would give you a pot that buys an annuity of roughly £30k a year. The 1,138% return gives you an income of around £40k. Is wanting the £40k being greedy? Anyone who buys anything would like to pay 25% less. If you don't invest 'smart' you will end up with poor returns. No offence, but it is well known now that the vast majority (? 95%) of traders underpeform. Trying to invest smart is a mistake. Keeping costs low is key. Most alternate strategies like hedging usually increase costs which can be significant over the long term. For example, If I switched from my one all world ETF holding to active management, my costs would increase by about 10k per year every year. I'll just stick with the vanguard all world unhedged ETF for the next 20 years. My costs from trading and holding will be minimal, and I am confident I will outperform most traders over the long term. If the all world goes down 50%, sure it is a loss, but I will still be buying through any downturn.
One assumption I make, is that the market will go up a lot over the long term > 20 years, but there is no guarantee.
is
|
|
bg
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,368
Likes: 1,929
|
Post by bg on Jul 31, 2019 6:06:01 GMT
I come from a trading background, I deal in mark to market terms. A loss is a loss. Let's say your investment is £100k in a pension. The 860% return would give you a pot that buys an annuity of roughly £30k a year. The 1,138% return gives you an income of around £40k. Is wanting the £40k being greedy? Anyone who buys anything would like to pay 25% less. If you don't invest 'smart' you will end up with poor returns. No offence, but it is well known now that the vast majority (? 95%) of traders underpeform. Trying to invest smart is a mistake. Keeping costs low is key. Most alternate strategies like hedging usually increase costs which can be significant over the long term. For example, If I switched from my one all world ETF holding to active management, my costs would increase by about 10k per year every year. I'll just stick with the vanguard all world unhedged ETF for the next 20 years. My costs from trading and holding will be minimal, and I am confident I will outperform most traders over the long term. If the all world goes down 50%, sure it is a loss, but I will still be buying through any downturn.
One assumption I make, is that the market will go up a lot over the long term > 20 years, but there is no guarantee.No offence taken but the whole world can't be passive. If people want to buy an ETF, a trust, Microsoft, a commodity or an interest rate, someone has to make a market in them. These markets are made by traders. You can't lump everything into some huge passive catch all structure that everyone is long of, at some point in the equation there are people making decisions. I've tried to invest smart and so far I have beaten my index (global large caps) by around 30%. Of course I may have just been lucky but if it's a mistake I'll take it.
|
|