Bad morning in the markets

moanymoany

Watching Bloomberg - all markets are falling - all the news has been bad - all the pundits have said it is getting worse quickly. No-one can see green shoots it's all desert.


On the bright side - Paul Temple is on the radio at 9am followed by Body on the Beach, Shifting the Leaves, Sherlock Holmes and the last part of the Sword of Honour.

Takes me through to noon, fully entertained.

Realy

moanymoany wrote: »

Watching Bloomberg - all markets are falling - all the news has been bad - all the pundits have said it is getting worse quickly. No-one can see green shoots it's all desert.

todays dips are to do with the guaranteeing of deposits.

Treadmill

An announcement that all bank deposits are guaranteed will send FTSE soaring before lunch.

moanymoany

Realy wrote: »

todays dips are to do with the guaranteeing of deposits.

Most pundits are saying it's because the banks and financial systems are up the proverbial without a paddle - each new action by governments is followed by a small rally - followed by a greater fall and that cycle well established before the guarantees started.

Not one on Bloomberg has mentioned the guarantees - though they have mentioned all the other reasons we all know and love so well.

The guarantees are in response to fears that people will take their cash out of banks and cause even more problems. There has been a steady shift of money and it had to be stopped. The guarantees are the only way to do this. Saw recent queues, on TV, outside NR as people tried to put their money in - because it is guaranteed 100%.

Banks having and being able to hang on to their deposits can only help to give some confidence - as just said on Bloomberg - cash is king at the moment.

9am - Paul Temple is about to start. Bye!

Realy

moanymoany wrote: »

Most pundits are saying it's because the banks and financial systems are up the proverbial without a paddle - each new action by governments is followed by a small rally - followed by a greater fall and that cycle well established before the guarantees started.

Not one on Bloomberg has mentioned the guarantees - though they have mentioned all the other reasons we all know and love so well.

The guarantees are in response to fears that people will take their cash out of banks and cause even more problems. There has been a steady shift of money and it had to be stopped. The guarantees are the only way to do this. Saw recent queues, on TV, outside NR as people tried to put their money in - because it is guaranteed 100%.

Banks having and being able to hang on to their deposits can only help to give some confidence - as just said on Bloomberg - cash is king at the moment.

9am - Paul Temple is about to start. Bye!

Also everyone in the UK will be paying for it.
Guaranteeing deposits = Nationalising banks.
Do you think they will just pay out the deposits out, no they will go the whole hog and rescue the banks if they fail.

napoleon

Doom, Doom, we're ALL doomed

Treadmill

napoleon wrote: »

Doom, Doom, we're ALL doomed

thats the market sentiment summed up nicely

purch

Guaranteeing deposits = Nationalising banks

What ??

Guaranteeing Deposits might just save the Banks, and then won't cost the Government, and therefore the Tax Payers a single penny.

Waiting till after the Banks are failing and then trying to save them will cost the Government, and therefore the Tax Payers many pennies.

mr_magoo_5

It’s down to sentiment because central banks are now being seen as the main provider of liquidity within the markets.
The savings have gone (on paper), that’s why governments are having to guarantee them.
How come you ask?
Because the big boys, without regulation, have used derivatives, shadow banking, structured investment vehicles, credit default swaps, to loot the system.
They are very complex and we were never intended to understand them.
The mother of all robberies

"There are two ways to enslave a nation. One is by the sword. The other is through debt".

John Adams. 1826

Realy

purch wrote: »

What ??

Guaranteeing Deposits might just save the Banks, and won't therefore cost the Government, and therefore the Tax Payers a single penny.

Do, you think when they guarantee deposits 100% they will not just nationalise any failling bank? Any banks debts are likley to be less than its deposits.
So OK nationalise it the deposits are 100% safe.
I dont argue liquid funds will keep banks going but if it hits the fan with 100% guaranteeing it is the only thing I can see happening.

tr3mor

Realy wrote: »

Any banks debts are likley to be less than its deposits.

Are you mad? Isn't this the crux of the problem?