Becoming more bearish

BananaRepublic

MaxiRobriguez said:

HHarry said:

Brexit is baffling for anyone who believes in democracy. Perhaps the lesson is that questions whose analysis requires a certain amount of technical knowledge should not be put to a popular vote: we do after all have a system of representative democracy. Politicians are paid (handsomely) to put in the time required to get to grips with such issues: ordinary people with full-time jobs and family commitments are not in a position to do this.

  They may be paid handsomely, but they don’t seem to be able to get to grips with the issues.
  With the same set of data each party can come up with a different solution, which unsurprisingly will probably reflect the underlying policies of that party.

That isn't a problem though. We vote for our representatives, and whichever local representative gains the most votes in their constituency goes to WM to vote based on their views. Views will differ but the majority view in WM will be able to pass votes.

That's how our democracy has worked for the entire time everyone on this forum has been alive. 

Brexit was put to the electorate to settle an internal problem in the Tory party. Cameron thought he'd win the referendum easily and it would quell the dissenting eurosceptic voices within his own party and allow him to lead with impunity for longer. That Cameron misjudged the mood of the electorate and left WM with a house of commons broadly in favour of EU integration, was his fault. The 80 seat majority election in 2019 was sort of inevitable when those MPs were not able to come to an agreement on how we were to proceed, and when the Lib Dems decided to fight Labour in every marginal seat. 

What we now have is a Government composed solely of people put in place to do one thing, which has already been achieved. Now they get three and a half years at least, without any real opposition, to do whatever they like. That isn't good for UK democracy. 

That's how our democracy has worked for the entire time everyone on this forum has been alive. 
You forget that earlier referendum on EU membership. You also forget that the EU holds referendums in member countries, and ignores the result when they don’t like the answer given. So much for democracy in the EU. 

The problem with your view is that we vote for an MP based on an ‘on balance’ view of a party. We might dislike some policies but overall prefer them to the alternatives. Brexit is a once in a generation event, and parliament’s view was not representative of the people’s. That of course is why so many Labour seats fell to Boris. 

As for the view expressed by many that the people are not fit to make such a decision, the anti Brexit side of parliament, the majority, made predictions about the dire outcome if we voted for Brexit, and stated that the deal Boris wanted was unobtainable. In the event the predictions were proved to be false and Boris got the unobtainable deal. That is proof, if proof is needed, that MP’s do not have more insight than the people, and in truth they voted against Brexit based on personal preferences, and a mix of good and bad information. The reality is that no-one knows what the effect of Brexit will be on Britain in ten years time. Assuming Labour don’t take us back in. 

As for the claims that pro Brexit people lied, we can see that both sides lied. Politicians of all colours lying? Now there’s a front page story. 

I don’t criticise people for voting remain, most did so for honourable reasons, but to haughtily stand on a pedestal as some have and say that the people were not fit to decide is outrageous. 

As to your final point, you are quite right, we are stuck with a parliament voted in for one purpose. However, we would not have got here had the previous lot honoured the wishes of the people expressed in the referendum. 

Thrugelmir

itwasntme001 said:

Alexland said:

MichelleN said:

Regarding the RL fund, I don’t think the OCF really puts investors off, in my opinion it is a really good fund that only invests in well established companies and its results over 1, 3, 5 and 10 years are better than CTY or MUT.

Yes that's because according to Morningstar X-Ray it's 38% weighted to growth, which over the past decade was the right place to be (until we saw the recent style rotation for however long that lasts), compared to MUT at 25% and CTY at 8%. The below images (from the Investment Trust Handbook 2021) of the relative performance of value versus growth might help explain. You can see why boards ran out of patience and started to pull the plug on value managers like Mark Barnett for accelerating poor performance during 2019.

For all we know we could be in a new paradigm where automation and AI is the new norm and that can continue to be good for growth stocks at the expense of value.

Why wouldn't investors not buy companies that are fundamentally cheap in relation to their long term earnings potential?  Tech ultimately becomes cheaper and better as competition in the market place increases.  

itwasntme001

Thrugelmir said:

itwasntme001 said:

Alexland said:

MichelleN said:

Regarding the RL fund, I don’t think the OCF really puts investors off, in my opinion it is a really good fund that only invests in well established companies and its results over 1, 3, 5 and 10 years are better than CTY or MUT.

Yes that's because according to Morningstar X-Ray it's 38% weighted to growth, which over the past decade was the right place to be (until we saw the recent style rotation for however long that lasts), compared to MUT at 25% and CTY at 8%. The below images (from the Investment Trust Handbook 2021) of the relative performance of value versus growth might help explain. You can see why boards ran out of patience and started to pull the plug on value managers like Mark Barnett for accelerating poor performance during 2019.

For all we know we could be in a new paradigm where automation and AI is the new norm and that can continue to be good for growth stocks at the expense of value.

Why wouldn't investors not buy companies that are fundamentally cheap in relation to their long term earnings potential?  Tech ultimately becomes cheaper and better as competition in the market place increases.  

When did I say they shouldn't?

Thrugelmir

itwasntme001 said:

Thrugelmir said:

itwasntme001 said:

Alexland said:

MichelleN said:

Regarding the RL fund, I don’t think the OCF really puts investors off, in my opinion it is a really good fund that only invests in well established companies and its results over 1, 3, 5 and 10 years are better than CTY or MUT.

Yes that's because according to Morningstar X-Ray it's 38% weighted to growth, which over the past decade was the right place to be (until we saw the recent style rotation for however long that lasts), compared to MUT at 25% and CTY at 8%. The below images (from the Investment Trust Handbook 2021) of the relative performance of value versus growth might help explain. You can see why boards ran out of patience and started to pull the plug on value managers like Mark Barnett for accelerating poor performance during 2019.

For all we know we could be in a new paradigm where automation and AI is the new norm and that can continue to be good for growth stocks at the expense of value.

Why wouldn't investors not buy companies that are fundamentally cheap in relation to their long term earnings potential?  Tech ultimately becomes cheaper and better as competition in the market place increases.  

When did I say they shouldn't?

You appeared to suggest that growth stocks were in some way unique. In the past there were railways, canals, telephone , computer companies etc that filled the same criteria. Ultimately they became just another stock. 

[Deleted User]

New rules mean goods shipped to EU countries are now liable for VAT when they enter the single market. Tax experts VAT IT estimate the levies could add £34bn ($47m) to the cost of UK trade with the EU.

itwasntme001

Thrugelmir said:

itwasntme001 said:

Thrugelmir said:

itwasntme001 said:

Alexland said:

MichelleN said:

Regarding the RL fund, I don’t think the OCF really puts investors off, in my opinion it is a really good fund that only invests in well established companies and its results over 1, 3, 5 and 10 years are better than CTY or MUT.

Yes that's because according to Morningstar X-Ray it's 38% weighted to growth, which over the past decade was the right place to be (until we saw the recent style rotation for however long that lasts), compared to MUT at 25% and CTY at 8%. The below images (from the Investment Trust Handbook 2021) of the relative performance of value versus growth might help explain. You can see why boards ran out of patience and started to pull the plug on value managers like Mark Barnett for accelerating poor performance during 2019.

For all we know we could be in a new paradigm where automation and AI is the new norm and that can continue to be good for growth stocks at the expense of value.

Why wouldn't investors not buy companies that are fundamentally cheap in relation to their long term earnings potential?  Tech ultimately becomes cheaper and better as competition in the market place increases.  

When did I say they shouldn't?

You appeared to suggest that growth stocks were in some way unique. In the past there were railways, canals, telephone , computer companies etc that filled the same criteria. Ultimately they became just another stock. 

Never said unique.  All I said was that you shouldn't assume mean reversion between growth and value based on a sample size of 2.  If you are buying individual companies, of course all that should matter is buying companies that are fundamentally cheap.  Growth style stocks can still fall under this category.  It is after-all all a subjective opinion on how cheap a stock is isn't it?

BananaRepublic

ZingPowZing said:

New rules mean goods shipped to EU countries are now liable for VAT when they enter the single market. Tax experts VAT IT estimate the levies could add £34bn ($47m) to the cost of UK trade with the EU.

You do realise we and other EU members paid VAT before Brexit don’t you? 

[Deleted User]

BananaRepublic said:

ZingPowZing said:

New rules mean goods shipped to EU countries are now liable for VAT when they enter the single market. Tax experts VAT IT estimate the levies could add £34bn ($47m) to the cost of UK trade with the EU.

You do realise we and other EU members paid VAT before Brexit don’t you? 

Yes 
But
While VAT can often be reclaimed after the fact, businesses must pay it up front which hugely increases operating costs in many cases.