Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

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

    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aceadria)
    There is no evidence to suggest that the economy will be worse off. Uncertainty remains one of the biggest issues a company faces. Although 'Brexit' creates uncertainty, the same is true of leaving Britain for another nation.

    Fact of the matter is that Britain has one of the best environments to do business in. Corporate tax remains low and companies have access to one of the best educated work forces in the world.
    ROFL. There is a recession/severe growth rate cut predicted for next year. Interest rate cut planned for August with more cheap money set to flow into the system. How exactly is there no evidence that the economy will be worse off?

    They are not going to set up in the UK as a first port of call if there isn't access to the single market. Banks will move jobs if there isn't passporting available.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TitanicTeutonicPhil)
    Oh, I don't know, maybe because 99% of all respected political and economic institutions, think tanks and experts said so?
    Those very organisations did not predict that the FTSE 100 will reach an 11-months high post-Brexit, nor did they predict that FTSE 250 will remain at the same level. What do you say to these figures?

    (Original post by TitanicTeutonicPhil)
    Yup, nationalists and racists find them important. Are you one?
    You know surely this isn't true, right? Whether you like to admit it or not, we all benefit from British democracy, it is the very reason we have the rights to elect our own government and remove them if we want to. Are you saying you don't find them important? As to immigration, it is a very valid issue that affects everyone for better or worse. Just because some people find uncontrolled immigration a negative impact on their lives, does not mean they are racists or nationalists.

    (Original post by TitanicTeutonicPhil)
    You know, everything has been said. I have written thousands of words on this topic in several forums and on social media. I know Britain will be worse off. And having experienced what monumental, ignorant idiots most Brexiteers are, I really won't have more than ridicule for them once they realise what huge mistake they made.
    To be honest what you just said is downright hateful and does not belong in a debating forum section. I'll reiterate my point that it's more showing of your character than the Brexiters you seem to despise.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CherishFreedom)
    Those very organisations did not predict that the FTSE 100 will reach an 11-months high post-Brexit, nor did they predict that FTSE 250 will remain at the same level. What do you say to these figures?
    .
    This may be in part due to the devaluation of sterling as many FTSE 100 companies trade in the dollar, therefore if sterling falls, profits increase. Also, the markets have realised we are at least 30 months off leaving the EU if the earliest we trigger Article 50 is next year and therefore is no immediate threat to the companies.

    However, I am not an economist so obviously this is only speculation
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AYellowBelly)
    This may be in part due to the devaluation of sterling as many FTSE 100 companies trade in the dollar, therefore if sterling falls, profits increase. Also, the markets have realised we are at least 30 months off leaving the EU if the earliest we trigger Article 50 is next year and therefore is no immediate threat to the companies.

    However, I am not an economist so obviously this is only speculation
    I agree that the currency plays a part in the index's rally. This actually shows a healthy realignment on FTSE 100 companies' share price. I must also note that most blue-chip companies' share prices are sensitive to long-term risks and opportunities. Whereas you would find AIM-listed companies or penny stocks to be most sensitive to short term changes. I would argue that the FTSE 100 and 250 markets had already taken into consideration the effects of Article 50 triggered within the next few years.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DorianGrayism)
    There is going to be a cut in interest rates to record lows and asset purchases by the BOE with a recession/severe growth rate cut predicted next year . How exactly is everything going up?

    FTSE 100 is mainly foreign based but it is denominated in pounds. That is why it is higher than FTSE 250 even though the former has performed worse over the past 15 years. If you actually look at companies most exposed to the UK market ( IE Virgin,Sport Direct) ,they are still significantly less post Brexit.
    As I said, even if we disregard the FTSE 100, the 250 index is actually at the same level as pre-Brexit. FTSE all shares is also at a higher level.

    The Bank of England voted overwhelmingly to keep its current interest rate in their last meeting. It is a general consensus (for both sides of the referendum) that there will be a short term period of uncertainty which may affect business confidence in the UK. We are currently observing that short term effect and it is nowhere near as bad as predicted. Both FTSE indexes had recovered, or actually gained since the referendum. As you should be aware, the IMF have just revised their prediction on the UK economy from predicting a recession to now a 1.3% GDP growth at worst. This raises the question of whether these institutions are actually producing accurate reports, or whether they had an agenda to push.


    Also I don't quite understand why you feel that a cut in interest rate is necessarily a bad thing. When a market is overheating it is natural to prevent over borrowing by raising the rates. Where there is uncertainty in the market it is equally natural for the BoE to reduce the rate. If they get the balance right, it can restore the balance of consumer confidence vs. cost of borrowing. Other potential beneficial effects include cheaper mortgages and cheaper borrowing for businesses.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TitanicTeutonicPhil)
    Great, then those super educated people (of whom a laughably low percentage has a Masters degree) can do trade with themselves in that great business climate!
    You seem to have missed the point of the comment.

    (Original post by TitanicTeutonicPhil)
    When will you realise that the world is interconnected? The financial industry is rougly a quarter of Britain's economy. It will tank. Boom. Many other industries are connected to it. The nation of shopkeepers will become just that again.
    Other than presumptions, what evidence do you have to suggest that this is 100% the outcome of 'Brexit'?
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DorianGrayism)
    ROFL. There is a recession/severe growth rate cut predicted for next year. Interest rate cut planned for August with more cheap money set to flow into the system. How exactly is there no evidence that the economy will be worse off?
    Short-term and long-term consequences are two very different things. Few people deny that in the short-term there will be a reduction in growth, but this is not necessarily the case in the next decade. Moreover, cheap money entering an economy is not necessarily a bad thing, both on a micro and macro scale.

    (Original post by DorianGrayism)
    They are not going to set up in the UK as a first port of call if there isn't access to the single market. Banks will move jobs if there isn't passporting available.
    Wrong. Firstly, you cannot put the financial services industry into the same category. Secondly, 'passporting' does not require membership of the EEA; Swiss insurers are a good example of this.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CherishFreedom)
    As I said, even if we disregard the FTSE 100, the 250 index is actually at the same level as pre-Brexit.
    Look at the companies in the FTSE 250 that are most exposed to the UK market and they are still down on their current share price by 15%.

    No one cares about company shares that make 90% of their earning abroad that are benefiting from a cheap pound. That makes little difference to the UK economy.


    (Original post by CherishFreedom)
    The Bank of England voted overwhelmingly to keep its current interest rate in their last meeting. It is a general consensus (for both sides of the referendum) that there will be a short term period of uncertainty which may affect business confidence in the UK. We are currently observing that short term effect and it is nowhere near as bad as predicted. Both FTSE indexes had recovered, or actually gained since the referendum. As you should be aware, the IMF have just revised their prediction on the UK economy from predicting a recession to now a 1.3% at worst. This raises the question of whether these institutions are actually producing accurate reports, or whether they had an agenda to push.
    And? The BOE have said in the minutes of their last meeting that there will be a cut in interest rate or at least serious consideration of it. . I don't even understand what your point is.

    The IMF prediction was a "worst case scenario" prediction amongst other scenarios. Their original prediction was 2% without Brexit. That has been cut by half.

    In any case, that is a significant cut.

    The actual question is why you are trying to misconstrue the reports that are put out by these institutions.




    (Original post by CherishFreedom)
    Also I don't quite understand why you feel that a cut in interest rate is necessarily a bad thing. When a market is overheating it is naturally to prevent over borrowing by raising the rates. Where there is uncertainty in the market it is equally natural for the BoE to reduce the rate. If they get the balance right, it can restore the balance of consumer confidence vs. cost of borrowing. Other potential beneficial effects include cheaper mortgages and cheaper borrowing for businesses.
    No. I didn't say cutting interest rates was the wrong thing to do.

    You just wrote that "you seem so certain that the economy is going to go south post-Brexit".

    My point was that the BOE do, and that is why they are going to cut interest rates next month.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aceadria)
    Short-term and long-term consequences are two very different things. Few people deny that in the short-term there will be a reduction in growth, but this is not necessarily the case in the next decade. Moreover, cheap money entering an economy is not necessarily a bad thing, both on a micro and macro scale..
    Yeh, well that is the Brexit con trick.It is basically impossible to prove if we would worse off in 10-15 years outside the EU.


    (Original post by Aceadria)
    Wrong. Firstly, you cannot put the financial services industry into the same category. Secondly, 'passporting' does not require membership of the EEA; Swiss insurers are a good example of this.
    The Financial services industry are already moving jobs abroad. So, let's not pretend that we are in the same position as before.

    And like I said before, no access to the single market without free movement. That includes the Swiss. Do their banks have passporting? No. So let'snot pretend that they are a "good" example.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DorianGrayism)
    Look at the companies in the FTSE 250 that are most exposed to the UK market and they are still down on their current share price by 15%.

    No one cares about company shares that make 90% of their earning abroad that are benefiting from a cheap pound. That makes little difference to the UK economy.
    I'll give you the most inclusive example, the FTSE All-Shares index. It is currently at a 11-months high. FTSE AIM All-Share index is also higher than pre-referendum levels. These two indices both covers UK-based businesses with no international commercial interest.

    (Original post by DorianGrayism)
    And? The BOE have said in the minutes of their last meeting that there will be a cut in interest rate or at least serious consideration of it. . I don't even understand what your point is.

    The IMF prediction was a "worst case scenario" prediction amongst other scenarios. Their original prediction was 2% without Brexit. That has been cut by half.

    In any case, that is a significant cut.

    The actual question is why you are trying to misconstrue the reports that are put out by these institutions.
    One can question why they would want to throw around a worst-case scenario and a least-adverse scenario just before the referendum, and after just 1 month since the referendum, they can now somehow deduct a definite projection of UK's GDP growth. We have yet not triggered article 50, nor started any informal trade talks with other countries, and the EU's head of governments had not met since the referendum. Other than the pound sterling's performance, and the performance of the FTSE 100/250/AS, what figures give credibility to their latest analysis?

    Also don't forget, the IMF advice the UK to join the Eurozone, and look how well it turned out.

    (Original post by DorianGrayism)
    No. I didn't say cutting interest rates was the wrong thing to do.

    You just wrote that "you seem so certain that the economy is going to go south post-Brexit".

    My point was that the BOE do, and that is why they are going to cut interest rates next month.
    Firstly, I reiterate the fact that interest rate has not been changed yet. The BoE voted 8-1 against it just a few days ago. Also even if they cut it, rates cut in this instance is a precautionary, not a reactionary measure. It is natural for the bank to prepare for the risks caused by market uncertainty, however this does not mean the market had actually been damaged, and indeed there is no statistic to suggest this so far.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CherishFreedom)
    I'll give you the most inclusive example, the FTSE All-Shares index. It is currently at a 11-months high. FTSE AIM All-Share index is also higher than pre-referendum levels. These two indices both covers UK-based businesses with no international commercial interest.

    You have given me the all shares index. How is this any different to showing me the FTSE 250 and ignoring the fact that UK companies most exposed to the UK market are doing the worst ( IE Home builders, Virgin, and etC) ?


    (Original post by CherishFreedom)
    One can question why they would want to throw around a worst-case scenario and a least-adverse scenario just before the referendum, and after just 1 month since the referendum, they can now somehow deduct a definite projection of UK's GDP growth. We have yet not triggered article 50, nor started any informal trade talks with other countries, and the EU's head of governments had not met since the referendum. Other than the pound sterling's performance, and the performance of the FTSE 100/250/AS, what figures give credibility to their latest analysis?.
    That is their job. That is what they are paid to do. I don't know what you are expecting from them. HSBC made similar scenarios prior to Brexit with a 15-20% devaluation in sterling and they were correct. No one is crying about that?

    Why would I believe your analysis over their analysis or HSBC ( who were right)?

    (Original post by CherishFreedom)
    Firstly, I reiterate the fact that interest rate has not been changed yet. The BoE voted 8-1 against it just a few days ago. Also even if they cut it, rates cut in this instance is a precautionary, not a reactionary measure. It is natural for the bank to prepare for the risks caused by market uncertainty, however this does not mean the market had actually been damaged, and indeed there is no statistic to suggest this so far.
    I know what you reiterated.

    Like I wrote before, if you read the minutes of the previous meeting then you would realise that they are giving serious consideration to it. Only one member so far has come out against it.

    Like your average Brexiters, you are just trying to play a game. Telling everyone that getting cheap money into the economy is good and then at the same time telling everyone that it is fine because the BOE haven't cut rates yet.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DorianGrayism)
    You have given me the all shares index. How is this any different to showing me the FTSE 250 and ignoring the fact that UK companies most exposed to the UK market are doing the worst ( IE Home builders, Virgin, and etC) ?
    The FTSE All-Shares represent at least 98% of UK companies' capital. This is the most inclusive index that best reflect the overall shapes of UK companies. It comprises of around 1000 listed companies. The AIM-All-Shares comprises of medium sized businesses and 'penny stocks', most of them do not have any international operation. It is the best performing index out of the 3 I have mentioned.

    (Original post by DorianGrayism)
    That is their job. That is what they are paid to do. I don't know what you are expecting from them. HSBC made similar scenarios prior to Brexit with a 15-20% devaluation in sterling and they were correct. No one is crying about that?

    Why would I believe your analysis over their analysis or HSBC ( who were right)?
    This is a job which they are not doing very well. They are supposed to make credible predictions which actually reflect the future of the world's economies, the least we can ask for them is to be reasonably accurate. Despite no real data to back up their assumptions, they have now ditched their models and came up with a 'revised' figure. They also seem to fail to predict that UK shares would end up above pre-referendum levels, and advised the UK to join the Eurozone.


    (Original post by DorianGrayism)
    I know what you reiterated.

    Like I wrote before, if you read the minutes of the previous meeting then you would realise that they are giving serious consideration to it. Only one member so far has come out against it.

    Like your average Brexiters, you are just trying to play a game. Telling everyone that getting cheap money into the economy is good and then at the same time telling everyone that it is fine because the BOE haven't cut rates yet.
    I have read the minutes and and yet they still voted 8-1 against changing the rates. I have also said that a rate cut is not necessarily a bad thing. There is no real data to show that the economy requires a change in interest rate right now, and the committee members voted accordingly.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CherishFreedom)
    The FTSE All-Shares represent at least 98% of UK companies' capital. This is the most inclusive index that best reflect the overall shapes of UK companies. It comprises of around 1000 listed companies. The AIM-All-Shares comprises of medium sized businesses and 'penny stocks', most of them do not have any international operation. It is the best performing index out of the 3 I have mentioned.
    hahahaha.

    So it doesn't.

    That is the great con trick. Talk about the FTSE 100/ 250 which contains companies that have virtually no exposure to the UK market.

    If you were honest, then you would talk about Goldman Sac's predictions for the 5 worst affected sectors and 10 worst affected companies in March 2016. All of them are down in shares still.



    (Original post by CherishFreedom)

    This is a job which they are not doing very well. They are supposed to make credible predictions which actually reflect the future of the world's economies, the least we can ask for them is to be reasonably accurate. Despite no real data to back up their assumptions, they have now ditched their models and came up with a 'revised' figure. They also seem to fail to predict that UK shares would end up above pre-referendum levels, and advised the UK to join the Eurozone.
    They didn't predict anything about UK shares going anywhere. If you are going to make something up then make sure it is correct.

    Why am I going to listen to Brexiters who didn't predict a 15-20% decrease in the pound ? HSBC did. I think they are doing their job well enough,


    (Original post by CherishFreedom)

    I have read the minutes and and yet they still voted 8-1 against changing the rates. I have also said that a rate cut is not necessarily a bad thing. There is no real data to show that the economy requires a change in interest rate right now, and the committee members voted accordingly.
    and you are ignoring that they said they will seriously consider changing rates in August.

    I know. You are hedging both sides. If a rate cut happens then you can tell everyone it is wonderful to pump cheap money into the economy. if it doesn't then you can tell everyone how wonderful the UK economy is.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DorianGrayism)
    hahahaha.

    So it doesn't.

    That is the great con trick. Talk about the FTSE 100/ 250 which contains companies that have virtually no exposure to the UK market.

    If you were honest, then you would talk about Goldman Sac's predictions for the 5 worst affected sectors and 10 worst affected companies in March 2016. All of them are down in shares still.
    How does the AIM-All-Shares not covers the UK-only businesses you've mentioned?

    (Original post by DorianGrayism)
    They didn't predict anything about UK shares going anywhere. If you are going to make something up then make sure it is correct.

    Why am I going to listen to Brexiters who didn't predict a 15-20% decrease in the pound ? HSBC did. I think they are doing their job well enough,
    So why didn't they predict the performance of UK's companies? This is the most important thing that indicates the performance of a country's economy. Also I must point out that GDP growth is proportional to the performance of stocks, especially domestic stocks. Those reports you mentioned predicted a slash in growth rates, but somehow the stocks are well above their pre-referendum levels.

    (Original post by DorianGrayism)
    and you are ignoring that they said they will seriously consider changing rates in August.

    I know. You are hedging both sides. If a rate cut happens then you can tell everyone it is wonderful to pump cheap money into the economy. if it doesn't then you can tell everyone how wonderful the UK economy is.
    Given that there is uncertainty, as I have said, I would not be surprised that they may lower the rate. Uncertainty does not mean that the economy is performing badly. What I am telling you are the facts, they voted 8-1 against it. A rate cut or increase are both not necessarily a bad thing, a readjustment of rate to prevent the market from under-activity and overheating is exactly what it is.

    If you have data to show that the UK economy is performing badly then I would be more than happy to read them. Keep banging on about interest rate changes means nothing because interest rate change itself is neutral and is just a normal mechanism of economic house-keeping.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CherishFreedom)
    How does the AIM-All-Shares not covers the UK-only businesses you've mentioned? .
    Because .....like with the FTSE...... there are also many companies that have non UK exposure which mitigates the effects of a UK slowdown.

    Even ignoring that issue, the AIM is relatively unimportant.

    Like I said, if you look at companies based on their exposure to the UK market, IE Construction, banks and etc then their shares are significantly down.

    (Original post by CherishFreedom)
    So why didn't they predict the performance of UK's companies? This is the most important thing that indicates the performance of a country's economy. Also I must point out that GDP growth is proportional to the performance of stocks, especially domestic stocks. Those reports you mentioned predicted a slash in growth rates, but somehow the stocks are well above their pre-referendum levels.
    No, GDP isn't proportional to any stock that is listed. You are just making that up to suit your claims.

    You don't want to accept the fact that stocks exposed to the UK economy are doing worse than other stocks.

    (Original post by CherishFreedom)
    Given that there is uncertainty, as I have said, I would not be surprised that they may lower the rate. Uncertainty does not mean that the economy is performing badly. What I am telling you are the facts, they voted 8-1 against it. A rate cut or increase are both not necessarily a bad thing, a readjustment of rate to prevent the market from under-activity and overheating is exactly what it is.

    If you have data to show that the UK economy is performing badly then I would be more than happy to read them. Keep banging on about interest rate changes means nothing because interest rate change itself is neutral and is just a normal mechanism of economic house-keeping.
    So, like I said before, if they don't cut the rate, it is good news. If they cut the rate is good news. It is a propaganda piece either way for Brexiters
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DorianGrayism)
    Because .....like with the FTSE...... there are also many companies that have non UK exposure which mitigates the effects of a UK slowdown.

    Even ignoring that issue, the AIM is relatively unimportant.

    Like I said, if you look at companies based on their exposure to the UK market, IE Construction, banks and etc then their shares are significantly down.
    As I said, AIM listed companies are mostly companies trading only in the domestic (UK) market. Therefore the AIM-All-Shares index measures domestically exposed businesses very well. Also given that the FTSE-All-Shares represent more than 98% of UK companies' capital, it actually serves as a good measure of UK stock market performance. The index also includes mostly businesses that trade domestically. Even if domestic businesses are performing as bad as you claim, the indices suggest that the UK's businesses with international exposure is outperforming the former, and causing an overall rise in market capitalisation. Maybe UK businesses are not as inward-focused than you think?

    (Original post by DorianGrayism)
    No, GDP isn't proportional to any stock that is listed. You are just making that up to suit your claims.

    You don't want to accept the fact that stocks exposed to the UK economy are doing worse than other stocks.
    Please see 'Stock Market Capitalization To GDP Ratio'. There is a direct relationship between stock market value and GDP. The ratio is used to assess whether a market is overvalued or undervalued. The GDP prediction by the IMF suggest that the UK stock market is grossly overvalued, which is massively against the movement predicted by Buffett's model. In this scenario, the IMF is predicting a drop in GDP while UK stocks are rising to new highs.

    (Original post by DorianGrayism)
    So, like I said before, if they don't cut the rate, it is good news. If they cut the rate is good news. It is a propaganda piece either way for Brexiters
    I actually said that rate changes is neutral, it exists to balance market dynamics. You cannot deduct whether a change in rate is good news or bad news because it has always existed to counter the effects of both ends of the market cycle. It is part of the market's normal functioning.

    Figures you can use to assess a country's economy are statistics like stock market indices, official GDP data, UK employment figures etc. I urge you to use those figures to support your argument.
    • Section Leader
    • Clearing and Applications Advisor
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Section Leader
    Clearing and Applications Advisor
    (Original post by CherishFreedom)
    As I said, AIM listed companies are mostly companies trading only in the domestic (UK) market. Therefore the AIM-All-Shares index measures domestically exposed businesses very well.
    AIM-listed Top 5 by market cap

    ASOS - £3.7 bn - 60% sales outside UK
    New Europe Property - £2.7 bn - 100% of property outside UK (mostly Romania)
    GW Pharma - £1.8 bn - global pharma (mainly USA)
    Abcam - £ 1.5 bn - global pharma (less than 20% UK)
    Hutchison China Meditech - £1.1 bn (mostly China)

    AIM is a way for companies to get public listings. As you can see the major players on AIM are not UK focused at all...

    Total AIM Market cap is approx £70bn. Over 1,000 companies listed, but the Top 5 alone make up 15% of total market cap, and it's almost all driven by non-UK interests.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jneill)
    AIM-listed Top 5 by market cap

    ASOS - £3.7 bn - 60% sales outside UK
    New Europe Property - £2.7 bn - 100% of property outside UK (mostly Romania)
    GW Pharma - £1.8 bn - global pharma (mainly USA)
    Abcam - £ 1.5 bn - global pharma (less than 20% UK)
    Hutchison China Meditech - £1.1 bn (mostly China)

    AIM is a way for companies to get public listings. As you can see the major players on AIM are not UK focused at all...

    Total AIM Market cap is approx £70bn. Over 1,000 companies listed, but the Top 5 alone make up 15% of total market cap, and it's almost all driven by non-UK interests.
    You are picking out the top 5 by market capitalisation which to hard to achieve such a big cap with only domestic activity.

    The AIM comprises mostly of medium sized businesses, and will include most of the domestic companies he was referring to.

    This is why I was suggesting that the UK possibly as a whole, has a much more outward-focused trading activity than he expected.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CherishFreedom)
    As I said, AIM listed companies are mostly companies trading only in the domestic (UK) market. Therefore the AIM-All-Shares index measures domestically exposed businesses very well. Also given that the FTSE-All-Shares represent more than 98% of UK companies' capital, it actually serves as a good measure of UK stock market performance. The index also includes mostly businesses that trade domestically. Even if domestic businesses are performing as bad as you claim, the indices suggest that the UK's businesses with international exposure is outperforming the former, and causing an overall rise in market capitalisation. Maybe UK businesses are not as inward-focused than you think?
    .
    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/goldma...mpanies-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.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CherishFreedom)

    Please see 'Stock Market Capitalization To GDP Ratio'. There is a direct relationship between stock market value and GDP. The ratio is used to assess whether a market is overvalued or undervalued. The GDP prediction by the IMF suggest that the UK stock market is grossly overvalued, which is massively against the movement predicted by Buffett's model. In this scenario, the IMF is predicting a drop in GDP while UK stocks are rising to new highs.

    .
    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.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Would you like to hibernate through the winter months?
    Useful resources

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.