No Deal Brexit and Savings

Chadsman

Why did NF concede defeat shortly after the polls closed on the evening on the referendum? Hedge fund managers conducted private polls indicating leave would win. Is it credible he had no idea what those polls said?
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/jun/26/nigel-farage-remain-won-brexit-bloomberg

Chadsman

He twice told the world on election night that Leave had likely lost, when he had information suggesting his side had actually won. He also has changed his story about who told him what regarding that very valuable piece of information.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2018-06-25/brexit-big-short-how-pollsters-helped-hedge-funds-beat-the-crash

aj23_2

GustyGardenGalaxy wrote: »

Anticipating the worst case scenario of a No Deal Brexit, would it be a good idea to move any savings out of the UK, maybe even invest in Gold ? I ask this in the event that, for example, we end up in a Greece style situation.

We are not going to end up in a Greece Style situation. Lol.

AnotherJoe

Glen_Clark wrote: »

Brexit affects savings and investments and its inseparable from politics.
£billionaire 'newspaper' owners etc domiciled in Her Majesty's Tax Havens have a lot to lose from an EU wide tax treaty, so stand to gain from Brexit.
This is an assessment of the cost to the rest of us
(It should have been on the side of the Brexit bus instead of their ridiculous claim of £350 million a week for the NHS.)

But the market has already factored their estimated cost of Brexit into the Sterling Exchange Rate. So I can't see much you can do about it now unless you know better than the market.
Just diversify, and hope for the best

I can imagine a similar argument in 1939. "Look at all the jobs we'll lose if we dont take Herr Hitlers offer "


Not to mention, the people making these forecasts have no more clue than you or i what will happen. Look at all the guff issued by Carney as to what will happen the day after merely if the vote is no, and none of it happened.


BTW I voted remain but that doesn't mean i am blind to the rubbish spouted by remainers who wish to frame this purely as a financial argument and nothing else. That is their sole argument. Nothing about ability to manage who comes into this country. Nothing about making our own laws, or repealing them or getting rid of an unpopular government or even representatives (in this case the government being Strasbourg.)

So, since your entire argument seems to be about money, who knows maybe we'd be better off as the 51st state of the US? If the financial analysis said so, would you argue we should do that instead?

eskbanker

Only 46 posts in seems a bit early to be invoking Godwin's Law....

Voyager2002

AnotherJoe wrote: »

I can imagine a similar argument in 1939. "Look at all the jobs we'll lose if we dont take Herr Hitlers offer "


Not to mention, the people making these forecasts have no more clue than you or i what will happen. Look at all the guff issued by Carney as to what will happen the day after merely if the vote is no, and none of it happened.


BTW I voted remain but that doesn't mean i am blind to the rubbish spouted by remainers who wish to frame this purely as a financial argument and nothing else. That is their sole argument. Nothing about ability to manage who comes into this country. Nothing about making our own laws, or repealing them or getting rid of an unpopular government or even representatives (in this case the government being Strasbourg.)

So, since your entire argument seems to be about money, who knows maybe we'd be better off as the 51st state of the US? If the financial analysis said so, would you argue we should do that instead?

This forum is about money, so it is natural that the discussion emphasises the financial issues at stake.

The document you quoted is an official civil service memo, providing the most accurate, neutral, idea of what to expect and hence how to make contingency plans. If you think you know any better, then why are you not advising the government?

And yes: there are bigger issues at stake than money. Things like preventing war in Europe; things like maintaining a central system of governance so that never again can a European country fall into the hands of a maniac like Thatcher. Things like creating a global counter-weight to the USA.

EachPenny

masonic wrote: »

Clearly you don't understand what you are doing, or the risks involved in doing it.

There are two major currencies that will be impacted by Brexit. You would be shifting from one into the other. The sensible choice, if you want to currency speculate, is to move into USD, which will not be impacted. But it's anyone's guess whether the pound and/or euro will strengthen or weaken from where they are now. Perceived risks today are already priced into the currency market, so it will only be a change in perception that would move markets.

Taking a gamble on currencies is more risky than investing.

The poster's investment advice is better viewed in the context of this, from a post they made last month:-

mustiuc wrote: »

<snip> Our attitude at risk is fine, I personally lost a lot of money in my life, I used to be a gambler (casinos/bets) and is not the end of the earth losing some money. I am truly honest with you saying I am quite different and don't care about paying more on day to day expenses, increased bills, etc. I don't argue with people if they charge me a bit more than before, if you understand what I mean. I don't make a fuss and live with it. I don't go to the news complaining the chips or wings are 50pence more expensive than before and I can't afford them. <snip>

Their attitude towards the effect of inflation also seems to have done a 180 since then.

Malthusian

Voyager2002 wrote: »

The document you quoted is an official civil service memo, providing the most accurate, neutral, idea of what to expect and hence how to make contingency plans.

:rotfl:

Britain Stronger in Europe was less pro-EU than the Civil Service is. They had to pay danger money to find any civil servants willing to work in Dexit at all.

To a civil servant, the EU was basically Paradise. No accountability, no meaningful democratic oversight, no need to worry about where the money came from. To imagine how the Civil Service felt when Britain voted for Brexit, imagine if you were a senior church official whose congregation had just voted to convert to worshipping Satan.

For info, "neutral" does not mean "agrees with me".

Zero_Gravitas

Reed_Richards wrote: »

Ultimately if Brexit is a success then the value of the pound will rise as Britain's economy prospers or if Brexit is a failure then the value of the pound will fall as the economy sinks. You might believe that a no-deal Brexit is more likely to damage the economy but, deal or no-deal, if you support Brexit you should be keeping your savings in the UK and if you don't you should consider moving them elsewhere.

Is that why Jacob Rees-Mogg’s investment company is setting up new funds in Eire?..:)

EachPenny

Voyager2002 wrote: »

And yes: there are bigger issues at stake than money. Things like preventing war in Europe; things like maintaining a central system of governance so that never again can a European country fall into the hands of a maniac like Thatcher. Things like creating a global counter-weight to the USA.

Umm, this Single Market thingy that the EU are so keen on protecting and maintaining the integrity of? I'm trying to remember the name of the politician often credited with being a driving force behind its establishment.

I wouldn't think the EU would allow a 'maniac' to influence the direction of economic policy, would they?