FTSE taking a bashing today

Graham_Devon

leftieM wrote: »

I can't see why the FTSE is going low today. Who knows what sets the city boys and girls off on their sprees. Maybe it's because snow is predicted? Perhaps Warren Buffet sneezed?

HSBC. Which is pulling a lot of the other banks down with it.

Lloyds will plummet in the next couple of months I reckon. Around 50p now per share. I reckon 30p per share if not less in a couple of months.

JP45

It's not only the FTSE that's taking a bashing.

If you want to know why global stock markets are falling, there's a reasonable summary on the BBC's web site:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7918168.stm

Personally, I think there's a lot more bad news to come.

JonnyBravo

napoleon wrote: »

poor old rotten johnny, he likes to call people muppets but can't take it when he gets a bit back. :rotfl:

Absolutely I do. Especially when it is well deserved.
I reported ad44downey as he was doing the very thing he reported me for.
I'd not reported a post before but now I think it is an excellent response to an abusive poster who doesn't like it when it is dished out to them.
You are a similar style of poster and so deserve the same.

Have a nice day!

SGE1

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Whats my criteria? Erm, well were talking about the FTSE here?

So theres one piece of a whole set of criteria.

Maybe a new thread should be started? What pledges have actually been carried through? Rather than taking this one off on a tangent about superbrown?

I think the link between the level of the FTSE as an indication of how well off the population is is tenuous to say the least... life expectancy, GDP/head, purchasing power, these are all far better indicators of general "well-being".

chucky

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Never said it was their main pledge. Never said it was a pledge.

It's just a factual bit of information.

However one of their pledges was responsible growth. Which has failed as were worse off now than 12 years previously.

Can I get you an "I love Gordon" Avatar?

Graham_Devon wrote: »

It's now lower than when Labour took power in 1997. Good job lads!

it was obviously convenient to forget about these dates...

December 6, 1973 -5.5%
December 14, 1973 - 5.4%
October 20, 1987 -12.22%
October 19, 1987 -10.84%
October 26, 1987 -6.19%
October 22, 1987 -5.69%

and you guessed it the conservatives were in power then

as for me choosing between Conservative or labour - they're both as bad as each other

Wookster

I've been wandering when this would happen - the FTSE has been holding out remarkably well in the face of grim news from every possible angle. I reckon it has a LOT further to fall.

Graham_Devon wrote: »

HSBC. Which is pulling a lot of the other banks down with it.

Lloyds will plummet in the next couple of months I reckon. Around 50p now per share. I reckon 30p per share if not less in a couple of months.

I'm quite surprised that HSBC has taken such a pounding - given recent events and their exposure through their US acquisition they have done well despite the odds.

Still stunned about Lloyds - what was Crash thinking? Bolt a bad bank with a risk averse one and take down both rather than just have to deal with one. How dam stupid!

Graham_Devon

SGE1 wrote: »

I think the link between the level of the FTSE as an indication of how well off the population is is tenuous to say the least... life expectancy, GDP/head, purchasing power, these are all far better indicators of general "well-being".

I also never said the FTSE was a measure of how well off the population is.

I don't know how you read stuff and totally change it, though I do admire it.

Personally, for me, this black and white thing works, as I'm not reading something which has never been even stated. I stated "growth". I didnt state well being or an indication of how well off the population is.

I really don't want to be dragged into an argument, but I also don't like having my words changed dramatically.

So I'll leave it here and hopefully it can remain a thread about the FTSE

SGE1

Graham_Devon wrote: »

I also never said the FTSE was a measure of how well off the population is.

I don't know how you read stuff and totally change it, though I do admire it.

Personally, for me, this black and white thing works, as I'm not reading something which has never been even stated. I stated "growth". I didnt state well being or an indication of how well off the population is.

I really don't want to be dragged into an argument, but I also don't like having my words changed dramatically.

So I'll leave it here and hopefully it can remain a thread about the FTSE

Are you being serious? I asked you "what's your criteria for determining how well off we are and were", and you replied with the FTSE as an example criterion! There's nothing to misinterpret there...

[insert comment about FTSE]

Graham_Devon

SGE1 wrote: »

Are you being serious? I asked you "what's your criteria for determining how well off we are and were", and you replied with the FTSE as an example criterion! There's nothing to misinterpret there...

[insert comment about FTSE]

Yes, I'm being serious. You said "we are". Then you changed it to "as a population" later on.

How well "we are" in a business / economy sense can be measured by the FTSE.

Simples.

chucky

SGE1 wrote: »

Are you being serious? I asked you "what's your criteria for determining how well off we are and were", and you replied with the FTSE as an example criterion! There's nothing to misinterpret there...

[insert comment about FTSE]

SGE - don't bite... Keep it on the FTSE topic and ignore him

Look at his post count - it's pretty obvious how he works... Very, very sad.