Jump to content

ChrisRobUK

Community Member
  • Content Count

    19
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About ChrisRobUK

  • Rank
    Occasional Contributor
  1. Good morning, I have a question on a corporate action which I have received an email for - regarding a proposed takeover bid. The premium offered is a fairly small consideration, in the way of 0.1AUD a share in total value (it's a combination of a stock swap and cash). In the email I received from IG, I understand I can assent to this - however if I wanted to decline the offer, what would be the rest? Thanks
  2. Thanks TrendFollower. I agree that Vela, aside from refocusing investments in their portfolio, might be facing some cash flow challenges as indicated by their financials. I don't know how much equity they have left or opportunities to raise more. Their early blockchain focus was tragically mistimed and the collapse basically wiped out many similar small funds. I think with the shifts in automated and high frequency trading (currently ~85% of value weighted trade per day), most algorithms won't pick up on them until they disclose 2 or 3 consecutive quarters of gains. By which point they could well be done for. I still have a little ~£100 punt on them in case they survive and are able to turn multiples around on the portfolio, but what is really interesting to note on the Weshop divestment is that is was spurred on by Two Shields, and notably at a loss. (598p acquisition versus 550p disposal). I don't know what level of control Vela has over Two Shields, but it's not a promising signal to sell at an 8% loss after a year in a sector known for long-burns.
  3. Yes Pinochet and the Chicago boys. Chomsky is okay at best and inaccurate at worst.
  4. Agreed it's not the place for the debate, but you went there, so... It doesn't matter where the mean wage is - it will still reduce the ability of those who want social mobility to achieve it, will still result in the state accruing more resource and power to itself to only mis-allocate it elsewhere. But then again I don't expect anyone who buys into the left's thinking to have the capability of understanding it. As the misattributed quote noted about our cousins across the pond, "The American Republic will endure until politicians realize they can bribe the people with their own money." Your (and Labour's) definition of wealthy is intangible. Who is wealthy? Who qualifies as wealthy and at what scale? On a global scale you're in the wealthiest 0.5% of the population. In London a person on £50k is lower-middle-class. You also fail to realise that the increase in earnings year-on-year is under a Tory led coalition. Not labour. Interest rates are a function of supply and demand - of course pumping hundreds of billions into a system will oversupply and therefore reduce the cost of money (interest). Anyone with a rudimentary understanding of fiscal policy can explain that. The question really is; how did we get here? Could it be the GFC whose roots for the impact to Britain were laid under the new-labour of Blair et al? Yes. Further, an analysis of subsectors will highlight to you that it is tech who is responsible for the huge increase in market values. Most other sectors are ticking along without much fanfair. I'm glad you opened up the box of privitised healthcare - The Netherlands and Australia are two prime examples to be brought to your attention. They function fundamentally as private-run entities. Patients pay a nominal fee to use their services and are required to take out health care insurance to plug the gap. The government only pays for those who are unable to - resulting in a far lower gross and per capita cost. The net effect? Both those systems far outperform the NHS. Is it any wonder then that most employment offers in the UK provide for some form of private medical care instead as a perk? I know the Brits like to get all touchy-feely over the NHS and start clutching pearls, but I guarantee you right now that if you reduced their tax burden by the equivalent amount, privitised the entire thing, and required them to purchase health care insurance or gap cover insurance instead, then there would be a vast increase in the quality within a few years. The one area I do agree with you - no one seems to be able to change. Everyone is so stuck in their ways about their precious NHS they are functionally unable to think. The private sector is nevertheless more efficient that the public sector (in every capacity). I would also hazard to add that it is government regulation that is responsible for much of the drag on private sectors. How many D&I, health and safety, etc etc. staff do you need on your payroll to satisfy the looters in office? It's like rent controls. Every time on is instituted - rents go up. Who suffers? Renters. Who doesn't suffer? The moronic politicians. Most economists who espoused free-market economics were not rich themselves, excepting perhaps in intellect - something sorely lacking from the Keynesian set. A prime example is what happened in Chile when the free-market guys were allowed to take the reigns, a country who is now the wealthiest on the continent and has the highest living standards in all of Latin America. Right up until recent times when protests were sparked due to the increase in transportation costs - ironically one of the few state set measures, by a government panel of 'experts'. Not to mention looking at the stunning collapses where ever socialism has been faithfully implemented. The irony on your literary jibe evidently escapes you.
  5. Looking forward to another Holodomor and eating our pets then? The issue with the BS peddled from our anti-semitic nationalistic social-democratic workers' party (hmmm, rings a bell, where have I seen that before) is that aside from the vitriol and hate they spew; nothing they promise is "free". There is no such thing as a free lunch. Someone is paying. Oh wait - we all are. I recommend Thomas Sowell's Economic Facts and Fallacies as an example of the drag on society imposed by high taxation and high state spending (i.e. crappy Keynesian economics). The state is, has, and always will be in inefficient allocator of resources. Want an example? South Africa is a primary example. Hundreds of billions piled into state owned entities including the post-office, energy supplier, airline, railways, etc. The result? One of the most inefficient and poorly run, highly corrupt countries in the world. By comparison, looking at the impact of privitising water in the UK, over £300bn has been re-invested into the infrastructure delivering one of the highest quality water supplies in the EU: https://www.iwapublishing.com/news/impact-privatisation-sustainability-water-resources Ofwat also indicates that since privitisation, the number of customers at risk of low water pressure has fallen by 99%. That's 99%!!!!! More reading for you from the people who are better informed than you: https://www.water.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/Water-UK-Frontier-Productivity.pdf https://www.water.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/191028_Nationalisation_Savings_NERA.pdf BT's average installation time is 15 days, down from the 6 month average wait time when state owned. By comparison - how well exactly did BL work out for the motor industry? Oh yes. Destroyed it. No one buys a second-rate half-built troglodyte mobile (wonder they were built at all with everyone on strike) when international competition provides better alternative. Result: British car industry - dead. The simple fact of the matter is that there is not one example of nationalisation working out well for a population in any country in history. It benefits the few in power and the full impact takes ~7 years to make its way through the economy. Regarding tax cuts; JFK's tax cuts doubled US nominal tax receipts in 9 years ($93bn to $187bn) simply by reducing tax. Not surprising as the research indicates the Laffer curve peaks at 33.1% (so your 40% and 45% brackets are already a drain, before factoring in VAT and other taxes). Think about the amount lost by the moronic narrative peddled of "hUrR duRr riCh ToiRiEs hAtE uS" and the useless class division it causes - none of which is based on fact. Nor are the classes fixed - a study of US multi-millionaires found that of those families who were rich at the beginning of the 20th century, only 4% were still wealthy at the start of the 21st century. So in 100 years, 96% of American multi-millionaires were no longer so. A whole new breed of wealthy had risen up. Wealth is transient, it is created and destroyed, it is not fixed. It's also surprising, as people will indicate they're struggling to save or pay their way or earn more money to afford a better life - yet it's made impossible by high taxes. Savings can only come from net income. So hiking taxes makes those who save poorer. Ironically it serves to entrench classism as those who are already rich not only have capital mobility, but no longer have to worry about price competition from someone earning enough to compete for scare resources with them any more. Conversely privitisation has lead to higher living standards, lower poverty rates, and a wealthier population - not only in the UK but in every other state in the world it has been tried. Anyway, /rant over/.
  6. Agreed - and despite my interest in blockchain technology, this is exactly why I won't be trading cryptos (not withstanding any criticisms of access/booking/platforms), but in my opinion with this sort of volatility unless one has a robust tested and systemised approach to trading, then it's pure speculative luck. I don't personally like that.
  7. Thanks, I do check them out when I get into the office in the mornings. Very helpful in my opinion - importantly though, not to hold exposed positions while you sleep (unless you're already so deep in the money it would be inconsequential)
  8. I think I can echo this - got cleaned out of my profit overnight. Expensive lesson learned.
  9. Last night's action has me questioning the trend. Went from highs of 7507~7509 down to 7475. I suspect, as others, that this is going to be a news-day rally (or fail).
  10. Bit of a long post, so, apologies. The tl;dr version is that they were more positively correlated preivously than they are now. Plus a little conjecture on today's unusual movements. Method: Firstly I downloaded daily close data for BTC for the last few years and ETH since 2015. Got the dates and prices aligned and ran some simple stats on them, as well as graphed on two-axis to represent side by side movements. Firstly the stats and graphs since 2015. Correlation over the life of ETH to BTC is actually quite high (.90962) and we can see the differences in the volatility. However it includes a lot of pre-bubble data. So I've re-run the same simple stats over data since 28th July 2017. As you can see, they are still highly correlated, however this only picks up daily close and not OHLC. Interestingly, there are some convergence/divergence points as time carries on, which we'll get to in a moment. The stats for the late July onwards data reflect a lower correlation (0.815) as well as increased BTC volatility and decreased ETH volatility. And lastly, I took the price change for each day's move, based them as a % movement and graphed them as well as the same stats run. This highlighted a decreased correlation and even some inverse situations, but not conclusive enough to base a trading strategy off of or support evidence that someone has hedged one against the other. Nevertheless interesting to see the low correlation in daily % moves. And the stats for the % price moves: I welcome all thoughts over this.
  11. Very good question. I would think it's possible (although unsubstantiated) that some of the funds have hedges with negative correlation between BTC and the other two in order to limit potential losses. They may have structured collars to generate more stable returns given the volatility. However you have a good point regarding the fact that the top 4 carriers with over 30% of the volume in the last 24 hours are USD, KRW and JPY. Any chance of some professional money managers entering into the market with heavy funding? Regarding your last point on the flow back to the others - that would be the proof, and something to watch out for. If the movements are inversely correlated then we know other players in the market are marking the two against one another. If uncorrelated, then just a dud theory.
  12. Something interesting I'm noticing on the charting (I'll get some hard numbers behind it in due course), is the inverse correlation between Bitcoin, and Ether/Bitcoin Cash. Bitcoin's low on the 12th was marked by spikes in ETH & BTC-C, and today's stratospheric rise of Bitcoin is being marked by strong downward price movement on the other two.
  13. It's up a fair bit again today. Crossed over $14.6k How are you holding up there buddy? This one is tough to call - I think everyone is sensible in saying it's a bubble and will pop, but of course with the inevitable "when?" remaining unanswered. If anything is going to tunr the tide of bitcoin's logarithmic boom it's going to be herd mentality once it starts to turn. My thinking is that without a significant enough event; that turn is unlikely and we'll only be seeing extreme volatility, (12th November it was below $5.8k), and thus far even the split of bitcoin cash wasn't enough to crash it. I wonder how many millionaires and busts this has created.
  14. Sorry I realised I never answered your actual query on the impact. If they lose two of the three agencies they are dropped from the government bond index, meaning pension funds and similar prudentially based investment fund managers need to dispose of their investment. This will lead to an outflow and Rand weakness (I've seen Biznews quote anything from $7bn to $14bn. Needless to say, in the region of R100bn leaving the country within a month would be detrimental to the Rand). Plus there's the carry trade and those borrowing USD/EUR/GBP to invest in Rand for yield optimisation; they may be hedged, or also sibject to mandate restrictions - again I think Rand weakness to follow would make sense. Lastly, the increased credit spreads and interest rate effect would increase the cost of borrowing and capital costs. However SA is still in stagflation territory so real GDP growth is an issue; especially in an environment tipped for increased taxation. These are all my thoughts and by no means advice, just worth considering the second order effects of the downgrade itself. I think it could still go either way. Anyone else's thoughts?
×
×