How much have you lost from your investments since the financial crisis began?

sillysausage237

dunstonh wrote: »

Why are you unhappy about that? Thats less than the FTSE has dropped by so you should be pleased with that. (assuming that you are talking about stocks and shares risk level and not a portfolio that contains lower risk investments as well to bring a lower risk level).

Well, I don't think anyone is going to be happy about their investments going down, however, I also realise that they will (hopefully) go up at some point. Its just very scary times that seem unprecedented in the financial world. I have a portfolio with a combination of stocks, funds, bonds etc and they are all down, although some are down by around 25% whilst others are down by about 2%, so it averages out at 10%

Geoffo_M

FungusFighter wrote: »

Cranston? Are you there Cranston? You just modified your post so you must have read my question - thought it would be an easy one for a chap/gal like you :beer: being a banker and trader.:A It's dinner time and I have to go in a minute, any thoughts?

Why are always knocking Cranston - he makes good sense to me. Appears as if you are envious of his knowledge, but this constant mocking just makes you seem very young. Are you?

FungusFighter

Geoffo_M wrote: »

Why are always knocking Cranston - he makes good sense to me. Appears as if you are envious of his knowledge, but this constant mocking just makes you seem very young. Are you?

Knocking? Moi? No, I'm a big fan :j

Just hoped for some insights from a great mind but it seems he's cleared off.

Oh well, perhaps another day

Cranston_2

FungusFighter wrote: »

But isn't the whole point that they KNEW sub-prime was a ticking bomb but there is so much more Alt-A and it was regarded as safer when we all know now it's made up of liar-loans that are defaulting in ever-increasing numbers QED new tsunami on the horizon :eek:

Sorry trouble with the little C's (kids)

In short, the US banks were forced by law to make sub-prime loans (thank u Bill Clinton).

The banks guessed some would turn bad but they had no idea how bad things would turn out. Business and economics are a soft science and not a hard science. Soft science is all about opinions. No one knows the future for sure. we can guess but that's it. Everything looks easy with hindsight.

Not all AltAs are liar loans

Anyway, as I said before if the new RTC takes off they might just buy ALL the worlds toxic debt. The next tsunami might just be bank shares going up in value.

FungusFighter

Cranston wrote: »

Sorry trouble with the little C's (kids)

In short, the US banks were forced by law to make sub-prime loans (thank u Bill Clinton).

The banks guessed some would turn bad but they had no idea how bad things would turn out. Business and economics are a soft science and not a hard science. Soft science is all about opinions. No one knows the future for sure. we can guess but that's it. Everything looks easy with hindsight.

Not all AltAs are liar loans

Anyway, as I said before if the new RTC takes off they might just buy ALL the worlds toxic debt. The next tsunami might just be bank shares going up in value.

So that's half an hour's worth. Hmmmmm....

Give me 5 minutes:T

FungusFighter

HBOS has £6.6bn of "Alt-A" securities, a US mortgage bond that the market fears could be more toxic than sub-prime debt.

These securities, known more fully as Alternative-A, represent debt secured on mortgages that are said to be as good as prime, even if they did not pass all the tests to be classed as top grade. They sit between prime and sub-prime, but default experience is showing they are almost sub.
The existence of the debt is said to be one of the reasons why investors had become so spooked about HBOS's financial health over recent weeks. HBOS holds only £90m of sub-prime debt, but the £6.6bn of Alt-A dwarfs even the bank's £2bn portfolio of prime US mortgage-backed securities. It has marked down the value of the bonds by 20 per cent, but rivals such as Royal Bank of Scotland have written down their Alt-A holdings to half their face value.
Lehman Brothers admitted that it had cut the value of its Alt-As by 71 per cent – a deeper writedown than it made on its sub-prime securities. The cut left Lehman less exposed to Alt-As than HBOS.
The securities are known as "liar loans" in America because borrowers give no proof of income. Many applicants exaggerated their earnings to obtain larger loans to buy bigger homes, but were unable to pay the interest – especially when the low initial "teaser" rates charged in the initial years jumped later to market levels.
Default rates have quadrupled in the past year and are five times greater than the arrears on prime loans. Although sub-prime defaults are worse, there are twice as many Alt-A loans outstanding, making them potentially more dangerous. :eek:

Cranston_2

FungusFighter wrote: »

Give me 5 minutes:T

Sorry I don't understand your question.

Cranston_2

FungusFighter wrote: »

HBOS has £6.6bn of "Alt-A" securities, a US mortgage bond that the market fears could be more toxic than sub-prime debt.

If the new RTC buys them from HBOS at a good price so what?

Your comments do not seem to included the change of fundamentals that a new RTC represents.

FungusFighter

My point is that I cut and pasted the above from the IOS.

Anyone can be an expert on here, the internet is a wonderful thing, but it does not stand up to scrutiny, does it?

The whole point of a live forum is discussion is it not? When someone has to go away for half an hour each time they are asked a simple question that someone of their claimed background and profession should be able to answer in their sleep, one has to ask oneself if that person is who they claim to be and when they spout the sort of crap that our mate Cranston does, utter inanities and economics for idiots, pretends to be a woman to wriggle out of it, gets caught and then tries throroughly ineptly to wriggle some more, I'm afraid I am inclined to lose faith somewhat (for those not up to speed, have a look at Cranston's back catalogue).

Cranston, or should I say Pickles110564, you are hereby outed as a docker and a fraud and I claim my £50 (in-joke, don't worry!)

:T :T :T :T :T :T :T :T :T :T :T :T :T :T :T :T :T :T :T :T

LongTermLurker

FF, it was clear from a while ago that you were either weird or wanted to s**g Cranston - now it's blatantly clear! Having denied above that you were knocking him/her, it's you that's clearly insincere.

Maybe Cranston doesn't spend all his/her time poring through past threads replying to his/her admirers/stalkers? Maybe that's why you didn't get your answer in 2 seconds flat?

Suggest you register a new account so you can come back anonymously without being treated as a plank.

(oops - 1/2 hour's delay - maybe I'm Cranston, after all )