The FTSE

Ok thanks for the context. I thought I'd clarified the bit about not taking too much risk that you replied to.
Absolutely but your post was in reply to mine about EFTs not providing diversification and thus being considered 5 on a scale of 1-5 where 1 is defensive and 5 is aggressive/specialist.

If I randomly put a client into an equity ETF only portfolio and didn’t have chapter and verse on their capacity and appetite for risk, other assets held and previous investment experience, I’d lose my license or would have. No one thinks they’re taking on too much risk when the line goes up.
 
Last edited:
just saw this thread - the likes of which I don't recall having seen on BM before (but I've not been that active in recent years) and I'm curious, because I don't follow the FTSE anymore as I'm normally based overseas, but was at a member firm in Manchester during the '87 Crash (so I have some form) where do people in this thread think the FTSE is going to be around the end of the 3QTR 2021?
 
I thought I'd have a peek to see what all the fuss was about and saw some interesting commentary about it.

You might get a laugh out of it...




these two have absolutely no idea what they're talking about, and are hopelessly wrong on the assumptions they're making and the conclusions they're drawing, not to mention a total lack of understanding of what's actually been going on here and the market mechanisms involved - which are what's most important and central to this whole issue.
 
these two have absolutely no idea what they're talking about, and are hopelessly wrong on the assumptions they're making and the conclusions they're drawing, not to mention a total lack of understanding of what's actually been going on here and the market mechanisms involved - which are what's most important and central to this whole issue.

Okay, so let me ask you; do you think these billionaire hedge fund companies should be bailed out if they go under?
 
Okay, so let me ask you; do you think these billionaire hedge fund companies should be bailed out if they go under?
By whom? If another hedge fund wants to lend them some cash or buy them out, fair enough. Public money from Govt? Fuck no.

I’ve not watched the video as I’ve yet to see anyone in the main stream media that understands what’s actually happening/happened and it annoys me.
 
By whom? If another hedge fund wants to lend them some cash or buy them out, fair enough. Public money from Govt? Fuck no.

I’ve not watched the video as I’ve yet to see anyone in the main stream media that understands what’s actually happening/happened and it annoys me.

Biden's gov is already 'keeping an eye on things'. Many politicians have big ties to Wall St, so they have a vested interest in what's happening as they are, in turn, funded by a fair few of them.

Public money was used before in 2008, so what's the difference with this bubble where big companies may actually tumble from their own immoral actions turned back on them?
 
Biden's gov is already 'keeping an eye on things'. Many politicians have big ties to Wall St, so they have a vested interest in what's happening as they are, in turn, funded by a fair few of them.

Public money was used before in 2008, so what's the difference with this bubble where big companies may actually tumble from their own immoral actions turned back on them?
Public money was used in the US, to shore up retail banking so that people’s life savings weren’t wiped out by their bank going broke. No public money was used to bail out investment houses (see Lehman Brothers etc).

In the US, U.K. and Europe, the rules were changed to separate the retail banking and investment banking arms of banks so that a future 2008 would mean that investment banks could go to the wall and it wouldn’t affect people with savings accounts which was a good and much needed change.

Melvin Capital et al are not retail banks. If it goes into bankruptcy then only people with money held by Melvin Capital lose out (they would generally be high net worth, experienced investors anyway as you don’t put your retirement funds into a hedge fund if you’re risk averse).

What I can see the US Govt and SEC doing in the non too distant is putting a limit on the percentage of float that can be shorted. GME being shorted to 140% of available stock was absolutely fucking moronic and they’re paying the price. They won’t get a cent of tax dollars.

FWIW, there isn’t a ‘bubble’ here so to speak. It’s a Short Squeeze on those that shorted one stock and it is, as yet, no where near as big as the one on VW in the 2000’s that cost some hedge funds billions. Again, none were bailed out.
 
Public money was used in the US, to shore up retail banking so that people’s life savings weren’t wiped out by their bank going broke. No public money was used to bail out investment houses (see Lehman Brothers etc).

In the US, U.K. and Europe, the rules were changed to separate the retail banking and investment banking arms of banks so that a future 2008 would mean that investment banks could go to the wall and it wouldn’t affect people with savings accounts which was a good and much needed change.

Melvin Capital et al are not retail banks. If it goes into bankruptcy then only people with money held by Melvin Capital lose out (they would generally be high net worth, experienced investors anyway as you don’t put your retirement funds into a hedge fund if you’re risk averse).

What I can see the US Govt and SEC doing in the non too distant is putting a limit on the percentage of float that can be shorted. GME being shorted to 140% of available stock was absolutely fucking moronic and they’re paying the price. They won’t get a cent of tax dollars.

FWIW, there isn’t a ‘bubble’ here so to speak. It’s a Short Squeeze on those that shorted one stock and it is, as yet, no where near as big as the one on VW in the 2000’s that cost some hedge funds billions. Again, none were bailed out.

Fair enough and thanks for finer details of info. I can still see hedge fund companies trying to ask for help, so let's see what Biden does about it.

To the layman's eye, a change of rules for limitation means a restriction of the US coveted 'free market economy/ capitalism', which means massive law suits await.

An investor is an investor, private or public, so changes leave Wall St open to all kinds of problems.
 
To the layman's eye, a change of rules for limitation means a restriction of the US coveted 'free market economy/ capitalism', which means massive law suits await.
No, it’s basically like saying you can’t mortgage your house for more than it’s worth. It’s just a regulation that can be put in and there are thousands of them in financial services.

As I say, I promise Melvin Capital will not receive a penny from the public purse.
 

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.