Dow Jones down 4.6% - Worst fall since 2008

chucknorris

Graham_Devon wrote: »

After a recovery, the DOW is down a further 1,000 points, 4.13%.

Lots of people losing lots of money with this volatility.

Anyone daft enough to invest for the short term was always going to find a way to lose their money anyway Graham. In reality the markets haven't really fallen that much for anyone who has been in the market for some time, they will still be well in profit. Although the timing of this dip wasn't ideal for me (I was going to take a £100k out of stocks in a couple of months, at the start of the new tax year, when I wouldn't have to pay CGT). I've simply changed my plans slightly, and I'll leave it invested for now, and if prices are still down in April, I'll take advantage of the lower prices and top up my SIPP and ISA.

economic

chucknorris wrote: »

Anyone daft enough to invest for the short term was always going to find a way to lose their money anyway Graham. In reality the markets haven't really fallen that much for anyone who has been in the market for some time, they will still be well in profit. Although the timing of this dip wasn't ideal for me (I was going to take a £100k out of stocks in a couple of months, at the start of the new tax year, when I wouldn't have to pay CGT). I've simply changed my plans slightly, and I'll leave it invested for now, and if prices are still down in April, I'll take advantage of the lower prices and top up my SIPP and ISA.

Exactly. I just had a look and all my profits since october have gone. Hardly anything to cry about. I was thinking of buying in this dip, but then why didnt i back in october? I have built up more cash now though so i will put some in the market now.

thor

westernpromise wrote: »

And Cameron was absolutely right. Regulation that completely failed to prevent or forestall the crash was very clearly unnecessary regulation, since it did nothing useful. What was required was better regulation - which we had and which Labour dismantled.

Bur don't let your hatred of people you envy and who were exactly right about you and your utterly corrupt wrecker chums get in the way of defending these vermin.

You on crack?

Here are some titbits from the Tories in 2007:

The (Labour) government claims that this regulation is all necessary. They seem to believe that without it banks could steal our money.

We need to make it more difficult for ministers to regulate, and we need to give the critics of regulation more opportunity to make their case against specific new proposals.


We recommend deregulating venture capital fund raising, and investment for professional investors.


A Conservative government should relax banking regulation, allowing a new breed of venture/micro-credit institutions.

Competition is the customers main ally. It is competition which keeps the bank honest.


We see no need to continue to regulate the provision of mortgage finance, as it is the lending institutions rather than the client taking the risk.


Our aim is to liberate the economy from the burden of unnecessary regulations.


Before imposing traditional heavy regulation, government should always consider whether the ends could be achieved by less burdensome means, such as through competition, incentive schemes, or self-regulation.


The regulatory burden should be measured and reduced year on year.


Greater use should be made of codes of practice rather than direct regulation.


From its first days in office, a Conservative government should challenge the public and press assumptions that encourage excessive regulation, and explain the likely effects of and reasons for its regulatory reforms.




This is what Cameron and Redwood spewed a year before the crash(no doubt encouraged by backhanders from their pals in the banking industry).

There is no getting away from the crash being bad but blaming labour is trolling of the highest order and makes anything you say highly suspect. If the Tories had got their way the crash would have been much worse and you can't pretend otherwise no matter how much you have tried in the intervening years.

michaels

What seems odd is that the ftse seems to mirror the dow whilst it is open but then pretty much ignore what happens to the DOW after it closes for the day until the Dow closes and opens up or down a little depending on what the dow did post footsie close but nothing like as much.

westernpromise

thor wrote: »

You on crack?

Here are some titbits from the Tories in 2007:

The (Labour) government claims that this regulation is all necessary. They seem to believe that without it banks could steal our money.

We need to make it more difficult for ministers to regulate, and we need to give the critics of regulation more opportunity to make their case against specific new proposals.


We recommend deregulating venture capital fund raising, and investment for professional investors.


A Conservative government should relax banking regulation, allowing a new breed of venture/micro-credit institutions.

Competition is the customers main ally. It is competition which keeps the bank honest.


We see no need to continue to regulate the provision of mortgage finance, as it is the lending institutions rather than the client taking the risk.


Our aim is to liberate the economy from the burden of unnecessary regulations.


Before imposing traditional heavy regulation, government should always consider whether the ends could be achieved by less burdensome means, such as through competition, incentive schemes, or self-regulation.


The regulatory burden should be measured and reduced year on year.


Greater use should be made of codes of practice rather than direct regulation.


From its first days in office, a Conservative government should challenge the public and press assumptions that encourage excessive regulation, and explain the likely effects of and reasons for its regulatory reforms.




This is what Cameron and Redwood spewed a year before the crash(no doubt encouraged by backhanders from their pals in the banking industry).

There is no getting away from the crash being bad but blaming labour is trolling of the highest order and makes anything you say highly suspect. If the Tories had got their way the crash would have been much worse and you can't pretend otherwise no matter how much you have tried in the intervening years.

You've just repeated the exact same guff.

How many near-collapses of the financial system were there under the Tories? How many under Labour? That's what good Labour's crappy regulation did. FSA = Labour's creation. Labour had its little council box-tickers out checking that each house had its rubbish in the right bin and not noticing that the actual house was on fire.

Thrugelmir

thor wrote: »

This is what Cameron and Redwood spewed a year before the crash(no doubt encouraged by backhanders from their pals in the banking industry).

Brown's mates at RBS, HBOS, Northern Rock were the vistors to number 11 in the years leading up to the GFC. For a man who preached prudence. Now keeps a low profile for very obvious reasons.

thor

westernpromise wrote: »

You've just repeated the exact same guff.

How many near-collapses of the financial system were there under the Tories? How many under Labour? That's what good Labour's crappy regulation did. FSA = Labour's creation. Labour had its little council box-tickers out checking that each house had its rubbish in the right bin and not noticing that the actual house was on fire.

Are you dense or just incredibly biased? Your boy Redwood wanted even less regulation because he said the bankers could be trusted.

thor

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Brown's mates at RBS, HBOS, Northern Rock were the vistors to number 11 in the years leading up to the GFC. For a man who preached prudence. Now keeps a low profile for very obvious reasons.

and Didn't I say that Brown has to carry the blame for not putting in the required regulations? You also have to acknowledge that the tories were more banker friendly when they trotted out their proposals to regulate even less because they claimed the bankers could be trusted. If the CONservatives were in power the GFC(which began under George W Bush's watch in the states remember) would have been WORSE.

Thrugelmir

thor wrote: »

Are you dense or just incredibly biased? Your boy Redwood wanted even less regulation because he said the bankers could be trusted.

Remember this quote.

I want us to do even more to encourage the risk takers -
Gordon Brown Mansion House speech to the City of London, 17 June 2004

:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

dunstonh

How many near-collapses of the financial system were there under the Tories? How many under Labour? That's what good Labour's crappy regulation did. FSA = Labour's creation. Labour had its little council box-tickers out checking that each house had its rubbish in the right bin and not noticing that the actual house was on fire.

Your description of the FSA is spot on. However, the politics side is perhaps a little unfair. It is probable that the Conservatives wouldnt have spent as much in the early 2000s as Labour did. John Major for all his faults, did leave the economy in a very good state and Labour benefitted from that for a decade plus borrowed on top at a level higher than you would expect a Conservative Govt to do (for the things they borrowed it for). Labour significantly grew the public sector. Something that will cost us for generations (that is generally regarded as Gordon Browns doing rather than Tony Blair). So, entering the financial crisis, you can blame Labour for not building reserves in the good years and creating a heavier financial cost for future generations. Alistair Darling didnt do a bad job when the S hit the fan. However, in terms of financial regulation, both parties would likely have followed similar paths. Just as they are likely to do so again in a future generation when younger MPs without experience replace those that remember what happens when you deregulate.

The FSA was an expert at micromanagement of the insignificant whilst ignoring the major issues. The FCA has improved significantly. Just wish the EU directives were less damaging and more focused.