Brexiteers: even in victory they can't get the figures straight

I really haven't got time if you want to keep on lying.

AIM businesses have significant exposure outside of the UK

FTSE 100 Businesses have significant exposure outside of the UK

FTSE 250 Businesses have significant exposure outside of the UK

The worst performing businesses are those that have the most exposure to the UK markets. IE Banks, Construction,

Those are simply facts. If you can't accept simple facts, then I can't really help you.

http://uk.businessinsider.com/goldman-sachs-brexits-impact-on-uk-companies-2016-3

1. Travis Perkins - Down 400 points
2. Bovis Homes - Down 200 points
3. Persimmon- Down 400 points
etc etc etc.

I mean, the fact you continue to argue this basic point either shows that you are a liar or you don't know what you are talking about.

As I have stated, the index you should look at is the AIM-All-Shares.

Persimmon and Travis Perkins are both constituents of FTSE 100. Bovis is part of FTSE 250. You can't just pick and choose from these indices just because it supports your argument. These two indices have both at least exceeded its pre-referendum values.

Some industries of course have greater exposure to the UK markets, but why are you so fixated on looking at domestically trading companies when internationally trading companies had more than compensated for the fall in those you have mentioned?

When the overall stock market is above its pre-referendum level, you simply choose to pick those that has fallen, when the overall majority made gains since. It really tries deflects from the fact that the market is valued higher than before.

Try reading what you write when you make things up.

" Also I must point out that GDP growth is proportional to the performance of stocks, especially domestic stocks"

GDP GROWTH is not proportional to the performance of stocks if the stock makes most of it money from abroad. FML.

Anyway, like with any sensible investment tool. It is not a hard and fast rule that you stick to all the time. You use it depending on the situation. Considering this is not a normal market situation,I don't know why anyone would think it is appropriate to use it at this time.

You can deduct the growth/increase in value of the stock market and compare that to the predicted growth of GDP produced by the reports. It really is the same relationship when you have a time frame to observe the change in value. In this scenario, the comparison is between the increase in stock value vs the growth of GDP, the time frame in which you reference this on is the period since June 24.

The BoE meets every month to decide its interest rate. Changing interest rate is to prevent under-activity or overheating in the market. It does not mean there is an underlying problem, but merely a mechanism to prevent certain risks to materialise.

As I said previously, there are markers you can use to assess the UK's economy, you should definitely refer to them.

I didn't pick any of them.

Goldman Sacs picked those stocks in March because they have the greatest exposure to the UK Economy.

and guess what....They were completely correct. Those companies with the greatest exposure to the UK market have had 15-20% off their market cap wiped off.

Those companies that make most of their money outside of the UK have increased in value due to the weakness of the pound.

Yes, so what you are saying is simply that some businesses have more exposure to the UK economy. What's new here?

Do international companies based in the UK not pay taxes here? Do they not employ people here?

No. That isn't what I am saying.

I am saying those companies with greatest exposure to the UK economy are doing the worst in the markets.

Therefore, the state of the UK economy is not represented by just blindly looking at the FTSE or making up metrics like GDP growth to stock performance and telling everyone how wonderful things are.

One moment you are talking about GDP Growth to Stock performance which is your own made up metric.

The next you are talking about how Warren Buffet uses Market Cap/GDP ratios to look at bubbles over years which is completely inappropriate in a sudden shock like Brexit.

Now, you are going on about the BOE again.

The UK's economy is largely influenced by international businesses based in the UK. They also pay tax and employ people here. Your case indicates that UK-based international businesses outperforms domestic businesses, to the point that this causes an overall increase in market cap

I am talking about GDP growth vs stock market growth, which can be derived from GDP vs stock market cap, as long as there is an element of time. Given that the time is applied to both parameters, the relationship calculated is identical.

The Buffett model is a respected model that helps investors to assess overvaluation and undervaluation in a market. The stock market had been readjusting itself since a sudden drop after the referendum, it is now at a level above its pre-referendum level. The stock market value had actually went up, despite the negative change in GDP forecast, this is inconsistent with the model. This also adds to the fact that no real economic indicator currently suggest that the UK economy is worsening. This is why I am saying that the report is not at all credible.

No, it is more than that. The weak pound improves their earning since most of their earnings are in dollars.

Furthermore, a weak pound makes their stocks easier to buy for foreign buyers.

It has nothing to do with them "outperforming" domestic business. They are less exposed to the UK economy and are benefiting from a weak pound. Again, something that was predicted in the days after brexit.

Whereas companies that are exposed to the UK market and do most of their earnings in pounds......are doing poorly.

So international businesses are outperforming domestic businesses because they are benefiting from a weaker pound. Domestic businesses are affected by more expensive import costs. I have mentioned both of these points previously. So what's new here?.

Where did I mention import costs? I didn't because it is irrelevant.

Banks don't have huge "import costs" to contend with.

It isn't my issue that you can't accept the fact that UK based stocks are doing terribly because of their greater exposure to the UK economy. It is as simple as that.

So international businesses are outperforming domestic businesses because they are benefiting from a weaker pound. Domestic businesses are affected by more expensive import costs. I have mentioned both of these points previously.p.

And no, you didn't mention that International business benefits from a weaker pound. So no need to lie about that as well.

You also ignoring that UK-based international stocks are outperforming domestic stocks. They are part of the UK's economy, employ people and pay tax just like any other businesses whether domestic or not.

Let's assume they pay tax. It makes no difference to the argument.

It still doesn't change the fact that their profits are relatively safe in a downturn in the UK economy. Therefore, it makes little difference to an investor unless the UK plans to change it's regulatory structure.

That is not the same for a UK bank or construction company that has significant exposure to the UK economy. That is why their share price is significantly lower.

And I am saying Buffet doesn't talk about GDP growth in his model. He talks about GDP.

You can waffle as much as you like around the subject because you were caught in a lie but it isn't going to help.

Lol. Why is anyone going to believe your made up metric about GDP growth over the IMF? You obviously have no background in economics.

So what is worth ignoring about international businesses gaining? Given that their performance will have a direct effect on the UK economy, just like domestic businesses.

We can go back to Market Cap vs GDP if you so wish. The increase in stock value represents an increase in market cap. This relationship should naturally correspond to an increase in GDP. In theory, a 10% increase in stock market value should correlate to a 10% increase in GDP if you follow the ratio.