according to Robert Peston, this guy may not be a trader afterall…
Again, the use of the indebted PPR owner being free of their debt burden comes to mind. I can see no use in repossessing someone’s house and them continuing to be liable for any residual burden.
Equally, there is probably not much point, from a general societal point of view, in repossessing a PPR where the occupier is not in a position to get suitable housing off their own back (i.e. their circumstances mean that they cannot afford different housing).
Against that you have to balance whether the PPR they are in is appropriate to their circumstances - are they living in a huge pile or is it a ‘normal’ house for the number of occupants. If the house is significantly more than they would be subsidised for under rent allowance, then you have to wonder if there is a point to them staying.
This is complicated by the fact that not all the banks are publicly owned - a BoI repossession, for example, places a much greater burden on the state than, say, an INBS or AIB repossession - given that BoI is only 15% owned by the state and the other two are nationalised (of effectively so anyway).
As we (the state) are going to be paying for the costs of repossession, it is not just an economic argument, but one of what is most useful to us.
I refer pinsters to my Rodney comment above. The guy is a gambler who has put it all on crash.
hats off to him getting onto BBC news though!
Those (and those involved in) buying houses in a rising market more or less had an expectation of profit (or increased net worth). But *that profit was enabled purely through the higher prices later generations of homeowners would be expected to pay in the future.
That’s where those profits and increased net worth came from during the boom. But what is happening now is that those expectations and profits are unravelling.
In my view there is a marked difference between the relative gains of not being exploited, and the relative gains of deciding to exploit (or suppressing the thought of it).
Trader Or Prankster? We Called Alessio Rastani And Asked
Goldman is run for the benefit of its management and employees, not its shareholders.
Are we still discussing this stuff in this manner. I feel like nothings been learned. Philosophy…isnt that science in the same way economics was…
Its all basically socialise debt privatise gain at the end of the day.
I like the analogy of if we were to privatise the fire service, and when someone calls in the middle of the night, the fire man says well make me an offer and lets see if its better than the fella down the road whos offered x amount and his house is on fire too.
Sure Goldman Sachs rule the world …
cos Goldman Saachs are allowed to rule the world .
And theres a little bit of GS in the actions of most people, the worst part is its knowingly. And you add them all together you get the GS of the world. The sum being greater than its parts applies as much to ‘good’ as well as ‘evil’.
Meanwhile some old wan from Laois ends up in the joy for 12 days cos she wont let the ESB chop down her Chestnut trees she cared for all her life, and in the same week the ESB are sponsoring ‘Positive Age Action’ …
As the judge said… This is a Court of Law son, not a court of Justice.
Still it raised an interesting debate, I was only thinking recently the pin needs a thread where this is debated in an overall sense and not appicable to a single event driving the thread.
Back to my cup of tea and watching the beans grow thru the window. f*k GS.
Trader Or Prankster? We Called Alessio Rastani And Asked
Same guy here:
Rastani may not be on the list… but I bet Kweku Adoboli (UBS Rogue Trader) is on the ‘approved’ list…as were the rest of the people in The City who got us in the merde.
I love it he’s a rogue trader,like something from Shaun the Sheep, a rogue sheep. Course if he made UBS 2 billion selling dodgy sfps to unsuspecting pension funds he would have been a star performer.
all this sematics, syntax, grammatical sophistry , really your either part of the problem or part of the solution no matter how many ways you try to spin it.
has anything actually improved since the shit hit the fan. I dont see any real change, if by some miracle things conspired that would allow the world to get into the same mess, if you ask me the same people,parties,instituions,ignorance,mediaa bias, etc are all still setup to ensure we would go down the same destructive road again.
I dont understand all the fuss here.
What did he say, as a trader, that no one already thought about traders?
wow that was a pretty jaw dropping interview. not going to do trader’s reps at dinner parties any favours!
It does raise the issue of incentive structures. I remember reading about a property developer who had a portfolio of $270 million in california, luckily he went to college with Paulson and ended up buying like $1 billion worth of CDSs on mortgage backed securities. He talks of how he felt guilty because he actually went to bed at night hoping for a house price collapse. I don’t agree with short selling restrictions for other reasons but i’m not sure how comfortable about having people out there actively hoping governments make a mess of this and we end up in a depression.
The odd thing is that he was on at least twice. The interview I saw with him was the previous evening in studio on BBC News 24 with a different presenter. He more or less said the same thing, but it wasn’t picked up until they got him back for the main news the following day.
Calling him the Guy Goma of the Debt Crisis - remember the guy who accidentally ended up on the BBC
The face he pulls at the start is hilarious, he goes through about 5 emotions in 2 seconds
Obviously they don’t…
Not a good day all round for Alessio and his rep?
Awww my face it hurts… I watched that and then read the wiki… I had a solid giggle fit for about a minute or two… WHEW!!!
Seriously I could hardly breath. I’m all wheezie-puff now.
An interview with a Muslim cleric supporting terrorism would cause the same amount of fuss. [mod edit: we don’t need no stinkin’ personal opinions]