So its back to the gym for Brian/Brian

ISEQ finished at 3750 today after a progress like a dromedary's hump. Buffet is fooling few - he has bought a chunk of a company selling on "over a barrel" terms and is pulling off a bit of spin to lift the market - must have something he wants to sell.

cactus flower wrote:

ISEQ finished at 3750 today after a progress like a dromedary's hump. Buffet is fooling few - he has bought a chunk of a company selling on "over a barrel" terms and is pulling off a bit of spin to lift the market - must have something he wants to sell.

Exactly. Why else make a show of it?

This sums up the ISEQ

From a post on the Proprty Pin it seems that shorters could gang up on a smalll market like Ireland and purposely short it. They refer to an article in the Sindo from November 2007 and all of them generally agree that shorting the ISEQ shouldn't of course threaten the international stock market ... should it? http://www.thepropertypin.com/viewtopic.php?f=19&t=4959

Where's the ISEq this morning by the way? Computer glitch or something?

Found it- . It was out at the north wall trying to get on a ferry the bould thing

floatingingalway wrote:

Found it- . It was out at the north wall trying to get on a ferry the bould thing

It'll be out on the North Wall doing other things soon. Down .5%, 20 points already. Could this slipping out of the radar be the sign today that the ISEQ will go belly-up? Toxic Thursday it could turn out to be.

Auditor #9 wrote:

floatingingalway wrote:

Found it- . It was out at the north wall trying to get on a ferry the bould thing

It'll be out on the North Wall doing other things soon. Down .5%, 20 points already. Could this slipping out of the radar be the sign today that the ISEQ will go belly-up? Toxic Thursday it could turn out to be.

I still like that word - Tergiversation. Has a ring to it don't you think?

floatingingalway wrote:

Auditor #9 wrote:

floatingingalway wrote:

Found it- . It was out at the north wall trying to get on a ferry the bould thing

It'll be out on the North Wall doing other things soon. Down .5%, 20 points already. Could this slipping out of the radar be the sign today that the ISEQ will go belly-up? Toxic Thursday it could turn out to be.

I still like that word - Tergiversation. Has a ring to it don't you think?

"To repeatedly change one's mind or opinion towards a cause or subject". A bit of a taboo in our culture to do this isn't it? You have to choose your lot or angle then stiffen your upper lip forever after.

Are punters tergiversating about where the iseq is going? Looks like it's going in one direction ...

The punters may not be but there's a fair amount of it going on among our media and politicians. No wonder the public get so confused, the poor lambs.

floatingingalway wrote:

The punters may not be but there's a fair amount of it going on among our media and politicians. No wonder the public get so confused, the poor lambs.

When are we getting the "State of the Nation" address? I'm going to ring the Dail now and ask.

cactus flower wrote:

floatingingalway wrote:

The punters may not be but there's a fair amount of it going on among our media and politicians. No wonder the public get so confused, the poor lambs.

When are we getting the "State of the Nation" address? I'm going to ring the Dail now and ask.

Nice one

cactus flower wrote:

floatingingalway wrote:

The punters may not be but there's a fair amount of it going on among our media and politicians. No wonder the public get so confused, the poor lambs.

When are we getting the "State of the Nation" address? I'm going to ring the Dail now and ask.

We're not getting one!!! This is confirmed both by the Taoiseach's Press Office and by Con Houlihan here
- http://www.independent.ie/opinion/analysis/cowen-must-roll-up-his-sleeves-to-save-economy-1466329.html

Con seems to have a deep insight into the workings of Brian's mind.

cactus flower wrote:

cactus flower wrote:

floatingingalway wrote:

The punters may not be but there's a fair amount of it going on among our media and politicians. No wonder the public get so confused, the poor lambs.

When are we getting the "State of the Nation" address? I'm going to ring the Dail now and ask.

We're not getting one!!! This is confirmed both by the Taoiseach's Press Office and by Con Houlihan here
- http://www.independent.ie/opinion/analysis/cowen-must-roll-up-his-sleeves-to-save-economy-1466329.html

Con seems to have a deep insight into the workings of Brian's mind.

Did you use the expression "the cut of" in the other hiberno-english thread cactus? That expression is a species of "the state of" or "the condition of" but with a negative overtone The Cut of the Nation Address - sounds different though and I wonder how far honesty would go if someone came out with it. Panic? A rush on the credit unions?

In the Irish Times today, front page, there is this headline

Seven hedge funds bet millions on Irish banks falling

- nearly three hundred million euros of hedge funds are still aimed at a fall in irish banks share price. Despite the ban on short selling, the article says, existing positions still apply and may be adjusted down or closed. 300 million is still only less than half a year's profit for BOI during the good times and less than that for AIB but someone somewhere feels they'll still lose even more.

Quote :

By maintaining their positions, the hedge funds are betting that Irish bank stocks, already at record lows, are set to fall further. As it is not clear when the initial share trades took place, brokers said the actual monetary value of the bets is unclear.

However, using yesterday's closing prices, the seven funds hold positions worth €279 million in the four quoted Irish banks.

Five US and two London-based funds have disclosed their short positions.

Irish Times

Now they drag in Hedge funds and still going on about shorts. You cannot make short selling work unless someone wants to sell at a lower price. By borrowing and selling at slightly less you can flood the market and cause an apparent trend down in the hope that this unnerves some but if the basics are sound you may as well take money out into the back garden and burn it like that fellow in Cork.

It really is simple the problem is confidence. Yes some have taken a loss but we are all guessing as to how bad the hits have been and like all such things the more you decide to prevaricate and conceal the more the rest of us assume.

If some are insolvent then intervention coupled with receivership is the way to go.

Surely shorters can only short so much before they short themselves out of a market. If the fundamentals are sound like you say ... really naive question here but after the company's has its IPO then the share dealing doesn't affect the bank directly does it - only through confidence and the threat of a bank run? The wheeling and dealing of shorting and longing is between fellas betting on flies up a wall after that - and has some positive effect on liquidity overall.

The stock market is a zero state game. For every gain there is a loss. If there is no one there to sell to you at a lower price you are dammed.

The share price does not affect the running of any business unless loans or other transactions are secured against those assets. In that case the business may not be able to raise the necessary funds to operate and could become insolvent. The added complication with Banks is depositors and potential runs.

I do think the receivership route is the best course for failing institutions. That is where to intervene. Many a company in receivership continues to function before being sold off. Let the share and bond holders take a hit, they were happy to take a profit. That is the modus operandi in a capitalist system.

For what it's worth the Church of England is going to ban short selling with monies from his various investment funds. Their investments total £3.6 billion annually.

BBC News

Is this where youngdan is getting the 1000?

geckko wrote:

Hit the back button if you are of a nervous disposition.

Let's look what the ISEQ General Price Index looks like in real terms (deflated by CPI) over the last 70 odd years. Looks like around 2000 is a fair historical benchmark, maybe 1000 if it undershoots. Only another 75% drop to go.



here is the log form, for the more pedantic among you:

http://www.thepropertypin.com/viewtopic.php?f=19&t=13785

Auditor #9 wrote:

I had the image today when it was announced of a quintet of drunken squatters in a squat saying to each other "we're all broke what tf are we going to do" but they manage to get a loan from the Credit Union and phew! they are sorted for a while. But unless there is a fundamental change they are going down into a black slippery hole.

The above didn't happen to me btw. And our banks will be up tomorrow before they eventually nosedive big style around Christmas.

That tale about sums much of it up. On Banks, why would a Bank call in unsecured loans from businesses who are basically sound?

Squire wrote:

Auditor #9 wrote:

I had the image today when it was announced of a quintet of drunken squatters in a squat saying to each other "we're all broke what tf are we going to do" but they manage to get a loan from the Credit Union and phew! they are sorted for a while. But unless there is a fundamental change they are going down into a black slippery hole.

The above didn't happen to me btw. And our banks will be up tomorrow before they eventually nosedive big style around Christmas.

That tale about sums much of it up. On Banks, why would a Bank call in unsecured loans from businesses who are basically sound?

Ah my post reappeared. Is that a rhetorical question about the banks calling in loans? They shouldn't if they're sound themselves

Squire wrote:

Auditor #9 wrote:

I had the image today when it was announced of a quintet of drunken squatters in a squat saying to each other "we're all broke what tf are we going to do" but they manage to get a loan from the Credit Union and phew! they are sorted for a while. But unless there is a fundamental change they are going down into a black slippery hole.

The above didn't happen to me btw. And our banks will be up tomorrow before they eventually nosedive big style around Christmas.

That tale about sums much of it up. On Banks, why would a Bank call in unsecured loans from businesses who are basically sound?

Because they're broke? because of the amount it is costing them to borrow ? Overleveraged and want to knock it down? Bloodyminded, like in the 1980s ?

The banks consistently make bad decisions. Commercial banks are badly managed and only function in a herd mentality whereby they turn the taps of money on or turn them off. A successful bank will be prudent in good and bad times and will give a loan facility to a business with a sound business plan regardless of the prevailing mood.

Sadly very few banks have that level of proper management.

I could name you high profile casualties who went under owing to the banks not forwarding money when there was little to no risk of the businesses going under. I of course will not name them.

johnfás wrote:

The banks consistently make bad decisions. Commercial banks are badly managed and only function in a herd mentality whereby they turn the taps of money on or turn them off. A successful bank will be prudent in good and bad times and will give a loan facility to a business with a sound business plan regardless of the prevailing mood.

Sadly very few banks have that level of proper management.

I could name you high profile casualties who went under owing to the banks not forwarding money when there was little to no risk of the businesses going under. I of course will not name them.

The Revenue are even worse. I think they cut notches for every firm they put under.

cactus flower wrote:

Squire wrote:

Auditor #9 wrote:

I had the image today when it was announced of a quintet of drunken squatters in a squat saying to each other "we're all broke what tf are we going to do" but they manage to get a loan from the Credit Union and phew! they are sorted for a while. But unless there is a fundamental change they are going down into a black slippery hole.

The above didn't happen to me btw. And our banks will be up tomorrow before they eventually nosedive big style around Christmas.

That tale about sums much of it up. On Banks, why would a Bank call in unsecured loans from businesses who are basically sound?

Because they're broke? because of the amount it is costing them to borrow ? Overleveraged and want to knock it down? Bloodyminded, like in the 1980s ?

Interesting that you and Audi should suggest possible financial difficulty. The same conclusion that I came to.