Current market carnage - anyone selling or buying?

grey_gym_sock

Sapphire wrote: »

Just curious: what do all you investors in shares think the serious wars Middle East, which appear to be dragging in much of the world – Europe, the US, Russia, China, Africa and so on – with perhaps unpredictable results, will have on stock markets. Do you feel that it depends on how severely the countries that have been dragged in will be affected (in terms of invasions/repelling them, civil unrest, going to war and so on)? It might sound like a stupid question (and perhaps it is), but it would be good to know what people think about the effects on economies/stock markets.

wars taking place in a country's own territory tend to be very bad for its economy. it's harder to generalize about the effects of taking part in a war in another country. the countries where wars are likely to take place are not ones where most ppl would have much money invested. so i think the fundamental affects on investments are probably pretty marginal.

however, wars, or the possibility of them, can affect market sentiment. and in the short-term, that affects markets more than the fundamentals. so in the short-term, who knows ...

masonic

racing_blue wrote: »

I stop to watch some guys throwing dice.

Al has this complicated active rolling technique which involves adjusting for barometric pressure, wind speed, and friction co-efficient of the tabletop.

Bud just drops his dice on the floor.

While I am watching, Al throws a 6 and Bud scores a 3. How impressed should I be by Al's method?

Assuming it is your turn next, you might be a lttle annoyed with having to bend down and pick up the dice off the floor. If Al at least manages to keep them on the table, you might be a little impressed.

InvestInPoker

masonic wrote: »

Sure, my core holding has been...

Thanks,

I asked because I had difficulties picking an actively managed emerging markets fund that satisfied my criteria. Currently just using the Vanguard passive EM fund as I could not make my mind up but I like the look of the Fidelity Emerging Markets fund to move into. I also don't have a specific commodities allocation although of course some of my global passive funds will include these companies so was curious there.

InvestInPoker

racing_blue wrote: »

Al has this complicated active rolling technique which involves adjusting for barometric pressure, wind speed, and friction co-efficient of the tabletop.

Bud just drops his dice on the floor.

Bud's roll is void, even by lax family board game rules!

TheTracker

racing_blue wrote: »

I stop to watch some guys throwing dice.

Al has this complicated active rolling technique which involves adjusting for barometric pressure, wind speed, and friction co-efficient of the tabletop.

Bud just drops his dice on the floor.

While I am watching, Al throws a 6 and Bud scores a 3. How impressed should I be by Al's method?

Dice? I usually see Al playing craps.

Glen_Clark

Sapphire wrote: »

Just curious: what do all you investors in shares think the serious wars Middle East, which appear to be dragging in much of the world – Europe, the US, Russia, China, Africa and so on – with perhaps unpredictable results, will have on stock markets. Do you feel that it depends on how severely the countries that have been dragged in will be affected (in terms of invasions/repelling them, civil unrest, going to war and so on)? It might sound like a stupid question (and perhaps it is), but it would be good to know what people think about the effects on economies/stock markets.

Depends on the Country, or more specifically its Government. 'Neutral' Countries like Switzerland have done very well out of wars, selling to both sides. Wheras bad Governments like to get involved in wars because it unites the population against a foreign enemy, turning scrutiny away from them.
For example, Churchill and Thatcher needed an enemy - when there was no enemy to fight they were ousted. (We now know (from the TV programme 'Portillo's State Secrets') that when WW2 finished in 1945 Churchill wanted us to join Germany who we had spent the previous 6 years fighting, and fight Russia who we had spent the previous 6 years supporting - fortunately wiser heads prevailed.
Britain usually does badly out of wars because its politicians can't resist getting us involved (and making matters worse.)

gadgetmind

Glen_Clark wrote: »

For example, Churchill and Thatcher needed an enemy - when there was no enemy to fight they were ousted because they had little to offer.

Well, both did a cracking job during their tenure, and Churchill was PM again from 1951 to 1955.

Incidentally, even though the conservatives were unpopular in 1945, many of the population wanted him to stay on no matter what the outcome!

Malthusian

masonic wrote: »

Assuming it is your turn next, you might be a lttle annoyed with having to bend down and pick up the dice off the floor.

I automatically imagined Al and Bud to be crouched on the sidewalk, which in my mind is the traditional place for a game of dice. Craps is another thing entirely, of course.

Glen_Clark

gadgetmind wrote: »

many of the population wanted (Churchill) to stay on no matter what the outcome!

Thats just the Establishment press isn't it? - just like today they portray Jeremy Corbyn as a no-hoper, but he keeps winning elections. They did the same with Harold Wilson.

Glen_Clark

gadgetmind wrote: »

Churchill was PM again from 1951 to 1955.

He had got us another enemy by then.