I've not been able to find very much information about wealth distribution (as opposed to income distribution) on the internet. Wealth is much more unevenly distributed than income, but I don't know if it's become more or less evenly distributed over the past decade.
The problem is that measuring wealth is really, really hard.
Take the Sunday Times Rich List. Robert Maxwell was pretty near the top of the list. But it actually turned out that he had rather less than nothing. Quite a lot of people who appear very rich are hugely leveraged to small changes in asset prices: if you own £1.1billion in property, but owe the bank £1bn, then you're worth £100m. Until property prices fall 10%, and then you're worth nothing.
Lots of people's wealth is ephemeral for a different reason. If you own 10% of an internet startup valued at $500m, then you're very rich. Except that you aren't actually allowed to sell any of the shares, and the terms at which you took money from venture capitalists are such that they get first money out. If you sell the business for $400m, you might actually end up with nothing.
More or less (Radio 4) did a piece on measuring wealth a year or so ago. They claimed that the "poorest" person in the world was a frenchman who had built up huge debts illegally (either on the stockmarket or on property, i forget the exact details) and a judge had decided he is financially liable for his debts. The point was was this is a man with a life style that is far removed from what we think of when we hear of the "world's poorest person"
Sort of on topic, for some reason David Davis is shorter for "next Prime Minister" than for "next leader of the Conservative party" on Betfair. I can't figure that out at all.
Does there have to be a leader of the Conservative Party in the same way that there has to be a PM?
Theoretically I can see how someone could be a Conservative, next Prime Minister and not next leader of the Conservative party. But in the real world, it's rather more likely that someone could be a Conservative, next leader of the Conservative party and not next Prime Minister. That happens if Jeremy Corbyn is next Prime Minister.
I agree, but I just wondered what would happen if May said "right, f*** you, I'm off right now." Could another Tory take over while the leadership contest is organised? Or would it have to be someone who wasn't going to be in the contest? Or would Jezza have to become PM in such a scenario?
No, Jezza wouldn't become PM; it'd be a Tory. Whether it was a candidate in the subsequent contest, or a neutral to hold the ring while the others fought it out, or whether there was no election at all and a consensus candidate emerged would all depend on decisions at the time.
I very much doubt that May would walk away in that manner but there is always the risk (as with any leader) of health issues intervening, which would produce the same imperative to appoint someone with little or no warning.
Maggie stayed in No. 10 until Major won the leadership vote.
Today, I've been learning about catastrophe bonds.
Does anybody on here know if there's a way for a retail investor to short them? Like an inverse ETF or something?
I'm new to investing.
If you are new to investing you should stay away from inverse catastrophe bonds.
Invest in something more straight forward and spread your risk until you have been through two crashes. The way to make money investing is to avoid losses.
I never invest in something that I don't understand. What are catastrophe Bonds? Why would either backing or shorting them be a sensible use of money?
Catastrophe bonds are one way of securitising an insurance company's exposure to losses resulting from Natural Catastrophes.
The bonds are sold to asset owners and heavily promoted as being 'uncorrelated to stock markets' which investment consultants think is a good thing.
Going back to Pong's question, I doubt you could short the bonds - nowhere near enough liquidity.
On a related note, they are much like the MBS securitisations in that you need to look at the underlying properties you are exposed to via the bond before you can make an informed investment decision on any particular cat bond.
So a CB is an insurance secondary market, where the investor is at risk if the particular catastrophe occurs?
Ends: "If it was not introduced next year and a driver was killed when the halo could have saved him, how would they feel then?
The risk might be small, but are aesthetics and the perceived appeal of something really more important than a driver's life?"
Leaving aside he used the indicative and not the subjunctive, an F1 fan might reply that if an F1 driver wants to be 100% safe he has no business driving at 200mph.
I'm a lot more neutral on the halo than most, but it's clear the fans and teams generally dislike it. It's also dubious that this is forced through on safety grounds in F1, but F2 (I think GP2 got renamed) drivers can do without.
Today, I've been learning about catastrophe bonds.
Does anybody on here know if there's a way for a retail investor to short them? Like an inverse ETF or something?
I'm new to investing.
If you are new to investing you should stay away from inverse catastrophe bonds.
Invest in something more straight forward and spread your risk until you have been through two crashes. The way to make money investing is to avoid losses.
I never invest in something that I don't understand. What are catastrophe Bonds? Why would either backing or shorting them be a sensible use of money?
Catastrophe bonds are one way of securitising an insurance company's exposure to losses resulting from Natural Catastrophes.
The bonds are sold to asset owners and heavily promoted as being 'uncorrelated to stock markets' which investment consultants think is a good thing.
Going back to Pong's question, I doubt you could short the bonds - nowhere near enough liquidity.
On a related note, they are much like the MBS securitisations in that you need to look at the underlying properties you are exposed to via the bond before you can make an informed investment decision on any particular cat bond.
So a CB is an insurance secondary market, where the investor is at risk if the particular catastrophe occurs?
Doesn't sound very appealing to me.
Shorting them is very appealing given the weight of capital pushing down the odds on the other side of the bet. What I'm trying to do is basically the same as buying the underlying retail insurance for a risk that i'm not directly exposed to.
Which, I accept, is an odd thing to do - but if the odds are good enough...
Today, I've been learning about catastrophe bonds.
Does anybody on here know if there's a way for a retail investor to short them? Like an inverse ETF or something?
I'm new to investing.
If you are new to investing you should stay away from inverse catastrophe bonds.
Invest in something more straight forward and spread your risk until you have been through two crashes. The way to make money investing is to avoid losses.
I never invest in something that I don't understand. What are catastrophe Bonds? Why would either backing or shorting them be a sensible use of money?
Catastrophe bonds are one way of securitising an insurance company's exposure to losses resulting from Natural Catastrophes.
The bonds are sold to asset owners and heavily promoted as being 'uncorrelated to stock markets' which investment consultants think is a good thing.
Going back to Pong's question, I doubt you could short the bonds - nowhere near enough liquidity.
On a related note, they are much like the MBS securitisations in that you need to look at the underlying properties you are exposed to via the bond before you can make an informed investment decision on any particular cat bond.
So a CB is an insurance secondary market, where the investor is at risk if the particular catastrophe occurs?
Doesn't sound very appealing to me.
Shorting them is very appealing given the weight of capital pushing down the odds on the other side of the bet. What I'm trying to do is basically the same as buying the underlying retail insurance for a risk that i'm not directly exposed to.
Which, I accept, is an odd thing to do - but if the odds are good enough...
It has a distinguished history - people at Lloyd's used to take out "tonner" policies which insured against global loss of shipping for the whole year exceeding n x 100,000 tons - also known as PPI (policy is proof of interest) policies - purely as a bet. Against Lloyd's rules and legally unenforceable but not afaik actually criminal.
Today, I've been learning about catastrophe bonds.
Does anybody on here know if there's a way for a retail investor to short them? Like an inverse ETF or something?
I'm new to investing.
If you are new to investing you should stay away from inverse catastrophe bonds.
Invest in something more straight forward and spread your risk until you have been through two crashes. The way to make money investing is to avoid losses.
I never invest in something that I don't understand. What are catastrophe Bonds? Why would either backing or shorting them be a sensible use of money?
Catastrophe bonds are one way of securitising an insurance company's exposure to losses resulting from Natural Catastrophes.
The bonds are sold to asset owners and heavily promoted as being 'uncorrelated to stock markets' which investment consultants think is a good thing.
Going back to Pong's question, I doubt you could short the bonds - nowhere near enough liquidity.
On a related note, they are much like the MBS securitisations in that you need to look at the underlying properties you are exposed to via the bond before you can make an informed investment decision on any particular cat bond.
So a CB is an insurance secondary market, where the investor is at risk if the particular catastrophe occurs?
Doesn't sound very appealing to me.
I wouldn't describe it as an insurance secondary market because the catastrophe bond does not contain a homogeneous slice of the underlying insurance risk. The following is a gross simplification and figures are pulled out of thin air for illustration only, but...
Stuartrc Insurance Corp has written USD 1 billion of property insurance in florida and wants to protect itself from extreme wind events.
So I structure a Cat bond that will indemnify me from any losses above USD 750,000,000 incurred as a result of a single named windstorm.
USD 250,000,000 of bonds are issued and Stuartrc Insurance Corp pays a coupon of 1%.
If my losses from a single named windstorm do not exceed USD 750,000,000 then the bond is not drawn down and the investors get their coupon. If my losses exceed USD 750,000,000 for the named event the the bond is drawn down until exhausted.
So when buying a Cat bond your variables are not just the the likely hood of an event but also the underwriting skill of the insurance company and where the bond sits in the liability structure.
Buying a single cat bond is much like buying a single equity - foolish for diversification reasons alone. Can a well run Cat bond fund provide good place to allocate part of your investments - yes.
Today, I've been learning about catastrophe bonds.
Does anybody on here know if there's a way for a retail investor to short them? Like an inverse ETF or something?
I'm new to investing.
If you are new to investing you should stay away from inverse catastrophe bonds.
Invest in something more straight forward and spread your risk until you have been through two crashes. The way to make money investing is to avoid losses.
I never invest in something that I don't understand. What are catastrophe Bonds? Why would either backing or shorting them be a sensible use of money?
Catastrophe bonds are one way of securitising an insurance company's exposure to losses resulting from Natural Catastrophes.
The bonds are sold to asset owners and heavily promoted as being 'uncorrelated to stock markets' which investment consultants think is a good thing.
Going back to Pong's question, I doubt you could short the bonds - nowhere near enough liquidity.
On a related note, they are much like the MBS securitisations in that you need to look at the underlying properties you are exposed to via the bond before you can make an informed investment decision on any particular cat bond.
So a CB is an insurance secondary market, where the investor is at risk if the particular catastrophe occurs?
Doesn't sound very appealing to me.
Shorting them is very appealing given the weight of capital pushing down the odds on the other side of the bet. What I'm trying to do is basically the same as buying the underlying retail insurance for a risk that i'm not directly exposed to.
Which, I accept, is an odd thing to do - but if the odds are good enough...
While this is not investment advice, buying out the money puts on Berkshire Hathaway gives you exactly the exposure you desire. (With some other small outs as well.)
Theresa will announce her resignation in Spring/Summer 2019.
They'll be a Con leadership election during Summer 2019 with the new leader and Prime Minister announced shortly afterwards.
The "transitional deal" that is currently the talk of the town adds a couple of extra dynamics (if it happens)
1. A time limited transitional deal (two years) almost guarantees a Leaver will take over from Theresa May, Reason being, rather than Brexit being finalized it will still be a "live" issue in 2019.
I think Con WILL wear a transitional deal as long as there is an "end date" and they will want to make sure there's no more back-sliding at the end of the time period... So this pretty much guarantee's a Leaver will become leader in 2019 to ensure Brexit is complete in 2021.
2. It pretty much rules out a general election until Spring 2021 at the earliest. Con will not dare go to the country without having ended free movement. So 2021 or 2022 for the next general election... Until then they'll keep the show on the road one way or another,
Today, I've been learning about catastrophe bonds.
Does anybody on here know if there's a way for a retail investor to short them? Like an inverse ETF or something?
I'm new to investing.
If you are new to investing you should stay away from inverse catastrophe bonds.
Invest in something more straight forward and spread your risk until you have been through two crashes. The way to make money investing is to avoid losses.
From what I can tell, the logic behind buying CAT bonds is the opposite to that. Large amounts of capital prepared to absorb losses - for the promise of short term yield - disregarding reversion to the mean. And over the last few years, the yields appear to have been beaten down too low.
I want to pay the people picking up pennies and bet on the steamroller - if the odds are wrong enough.
If that's possible. I don't think it is though. At least not via my isa.
Oh well.
How is the Indian investing going ?
Personally I am waiting for an offer to come in on pretty much all my worldly equity...
"Philip Hammond, the Chancellor, has offered private reassurances to one of Wall Street's most powerful investment banks that he is pushing for a lengthy transition deal to help the City prepare for Brex"
I've not been able to find very much information about wealth distribution (as opposed to income distribution) on the internet. Wealth is much more unevenly distributed than income, but I don't know if it's become more or less evenly distributed over the past decade.
The problem is that measuring wealth is really, really hard.
Take the Sunday Times Rich List. Robert Maxwell was pretty near the top of the list. But it actually turned out that he had rather less than nothing. Quite a lot of people who appear very rich are hugely leveraged to small changes in asset prices: if you own £1.1billion in property, but owe the bank £1bn, then you're worth £100m. Until property prices fall 10%, and then you're worth nothing.
Lots of people's wealth is ephemeral for a different reason. If you own 10% of an internet startup valued at $500m, then you're very rich. Except that you aren't actually allowed to sell any of the shares, and the terms at which you took money from venture capitalists are such that they get first money out. If you sell the business for $400m, you might actually end up with nothing.
More or less (Radio 4) did a piece on measuring wealth a year or so ago. They claimed that the "poorest" person in the world was a frenchman who had built up huge debts illegally (either on the stockmarket or on property, i forget the exact details) and a judge had decided he is financially liable for his debts. The point was was this is a man with a life style that is far removed from what we think of when we hear of the "world's poorest person"
Ivanka Trump tells the story of the Donald pointing to a homeless guy outside the Trump building and saying he's a billion dollars richer than me.
Today, I've been learning about catastrophe bonds.
Does anybody on here know if there's a way for a retail investor to short them? Like an inverse ETF or something?
I'm new to investing.
If you are new to investing you should stay away from inverse catastrophe bonds.
Invest in something more straight forward and spread your risk until you have been through two crashes. The way to make money investing is to avoid losses.
From what I can tell, the logic behind buying CAT bonds is the opposite to that. Large amounts of capital prepared to absorb losses - for the promise of short term yield - disregarding reversion to the mean. And over the last few years, the yields appear to have been beaten down too low.
I want to pay the people picking up pennies and bet on the steamroller - if the odds are wrong enough.
If that's possible. I don't think it is though. At least not via my isa.
Oh well.
How is the Indian investing going ?
Personally I am waiting for an offer to come in on pretty much all my worldly equity...
It went up about 20% in ~5 months, but I sold up and transferred the cash into my befair account for GE night.
Frustratingly, I ballsed up the exit poll, only betting a small % of my pot when NOM hit 2/1 between 10-12pm. Shoulda plonked it all on for a 200% return.
the trouble is, politicalbetting.com is so keen to pass comment on the prevailing political environment that it is failing to grasp exactly how much it has become just another left-leaning talking shop. It needs counterpoint. How about hiring a centre-right commentator? It needs one.
Today, I've been learning about catastrophe bonds.
Does anybody on here know if there's a way for a retail investor to short them? Like an inverse ETF or something?
I'm new to investing.
If you are new to investing you should stay away from inverse catastrophe bonds.
Invest in something more straight forward and spread your risk until you have been through two crashes. The way to make money investing is to avoid losses.
From what I can tell, the logic behind buying CAT bonds is the opposite to that. Large amounts of capital prepared to absorb losses - for the promise of short term yield - disregarding reversion to the mean. And over the last few years, the yields appear to have been beaten down too low.
I want to pay the people picking up pennies and bet on the steamroller - if the odds are wrong enough.
If that's possible. I don't think it is though. At least not via my isa.
Oh well.
How is the Indian investing going ?
Personally I am waiting for an offer to come in on pretty much all my worldly equity...
It went up about 20% in ~5 months, but I sold up and transferred the cash into my befair account for GE night.
Frustratingly, I ballsed up the exit poll, only betting a small % of my pot when NOM hit 2/1 between 10-12pm. Shoulda plonked it all on for a 200% return.
grr
GE 2017 is the election that most of us PBers will want to forget I suspect. I got on NOM at 9/1 in a small way when I started to get a feeling all was not well after the Dementia Tax fiasco. I also started to hear anecdotes of people voting Labour because "it wont matter and we need to stop a Tory landslide".
It was a bit of hedge and saved me from a total wipe out on just about everything except a couple of LibDem seats.
the trouble is, politicalbetting.com is so keen to pass comment on the prevailing political environment that it is failing to grasp exactly how much it has become just another left-leaning talking shop. It needs counterpoint. How about hiring a centre-right commentator? It needs one.
the trouble is, politicalbetting.com is so keen to pass comment on the prevailing political environment that it is failing to grasp exactly how much it has become just another left-leaning talking shop. It needs counterpoint. How about hiring a centre-right commentator? It needs one.
Hmm PB. Com is a fair bit to the right of most of the net...
I've not been able to find very much information about wealth distribution (as opposed to income distribution) on the internet. Wealth is much more unevenly distributed than income, but I don't know if it's become more or less evenly distributed over the past decade.
The problem is that measuring wealth is really, really hard.
Take the Sunday Times Rich List. Robert Maxwell was pretty near the top of the list. But it actually turned out that he had rather less than nothing. Quite a lot of people who appear very rich are hugely leveraged to small changes in asset prices: if you own £1.1billion in property, but owe the bank £1bn, then you're worth £100m. Until property prices fall 10%, and then you're worth nothing.
Lots of people's wealth is ephemeral for a different reason. If you own 10% of an internet startup valued at $500m, then you're very rich. Except that you aren't actually allowed to sell any of the shares, and the terms at which you took money from venture capitalists are such that they get first money out. If you sell the business for $400m, you might actually end up with nothing.
One of my dad's business acquaintances and friends took financial risks my dad wouldn't. He ended up owing NatWest a fair few million for a failed business park development. I asked him why he was so jovial, and he replied: "If you owe the bank a pound, you worry. If you owe them a million, they worry."
the trouble is, politicalbetting.com is so keen to pass comment on the prevailing political environment that it is failing to grasp exactly how much it has become just another left-leaning talking shop. It needs counterpoint. How about hiring a centre-right commentator? It needs one.
Hmm PB. Com is a fair bit to the right of most of the net...
Today, I've been learning about catastrophe bonds.
Does anybody on here know if there's a way for a retail investor to short them? Like an inverse ETF or something?
I'm new to investing.
If you are new to investing you should stay away from inverse catastrophe bonds.
Invest in something more straight forward and spread your risk until you have been through two crashes. The way to make money investing is to avoid losses.
From what I can tell, the logic behind buying CAT bonds is the opposite to that. Large amounts of capital prepared to absorb losses - for the promise of short term yield - disregarding reversion to the mean. And over the last few years, the yields appear to have been beaten down too low.
I want to pay the people picking up pennies and bet on the steamroller - if the odds are wrong enough.
If that's possible. I don't think it is though. At least not via my isa.
Oh well.
How is the Indian investing going ?
Personally I am waiting for an offer to come in on pretty much all my worldly equity...
It went up about 20% in ~5 months, but I sold up and transferred the cash into my befair account for GE night.
Frustratingly, I ballsed up the exit poll, only betting a small % of my pot when NOM hit 2/1 between 10-12pm. Shoulda plonked it all on for a 200% return.
grr
GE 2017 is the election that most of us PBers will want to forget I suspect. I got on NOM at 9/1 in a small way when I started to get a feeling all was not well after the Dementia Tax fiasco. I also started to hear anecdotes of people voting Labour because "it wont matter and we need to stop a Tory landslide".
It was a bit of hedge and saved me from a total wipe out on just about everything except a couple of LibDem seats.
Bleak night.
Did anyone here make a decent profit? I know @MikeSmithson did well with a sell of Tory seats on the spreads at c.390. I ended the night £700 down, saved from a four figure loss by @GeoffM's Scottish Tory seats tip. The problem for me was that the exit poll was almost identical to 2015 and I stayed on the majority rather than hedging. By the time NOM looked on I was out of cash to cover the losses.
Mr. Sandpit, I was marginally green. I got my Conservative seat bets (350-399) utterly wrong and lost some English seats. Luckily I'd also bet against the Lib Dems and on the Scottish Conservatives, so I finished ahead, but I kicked myself for not hedging Con 350-399 which had a lay value of 1.7 on the evening, a few hours before the exit poll.
Did anyone here make a decent profit? I know @MikeSmithson did well with a sell of Tory seats on the spreads at c.390. I ended the night £700 down, saved from a four figure loss by @GeoffM's Scottish Tory seats tip. The problem for me was that the exit poll was almost identical to 2015 and I stayed on the majority rather than hedging. By the time NOM looked on I was out of cash to cover the losses.
2-3k I think. Brown trousers time at around 10 pm mind - but turned out fine. When the exit poll came out was desperate to find WHERE those Tory losses were. Fortunately not in Scotland or the SouthWest, which I'd tilted blue (London & Wales Red - My largest single seat bet was North Cornwall Tory £500 @ 1-3) & a modest night for the yellows overall meant it was good. A shedload of Tory losers in the Midlands and the North, which I got completely wrong (Though my stakes were well restricted by Paddy...). Except Mansfield. That won me a cake
Did anyone here make a decent profit? I know @MikeSmithson did well with a sell of Tory seats on the spreads at c.390. I ended the night £700 down, saved from a four figure loss by @GeoffM's Scottish Tory seats tip. The problem for me was that the exit poll was almost identical to 2015 and I stayed on the majority rather than hedging. By the time NOM looked on I was out of cash to cover the losses.
2-3k I think. Brown trousers time at around 10 pm mind.
Did you make many bets after the exit poll? And what did that represent as a % of your overall stake?
Personally I am waiting for an offer to come in on pretty much all my worldly equity...
It went up about 20% in ~5 months, but I sold up and transferred the cash into my befair account for GE night.
Frustratingly, I ballsed up the exit poll, only betting a small % of my pot when NOM hit 2/1 between 10-12pm. Shoulda plonked it all on for a 200% return.
grr
GE 2017 is the election that most of us PBers will want to forget I suspect. I got on NOM at 9/1 in a small way when I started to get a feeling all was not well after the Dementia Tax fiasco. I also started to hear anecdotes of people voting Labour because "it wont matter and we need to stop a Tory landslide".
It was a bit of hedge and saved me from a total wipe out on just about everything except a couple of LibDem seats.
Bleak night.
Did anyone here make a decent profit? I know @MikeSmithson did well with a sell of Tory seats on the spreads at c.390. I ended the night £700 down, saved from a four figure loss by @GeoffM's Scottish Tory seats tip. The problem for me was that the exit poll was almost identical to 2015 and I stayed on the majority rather than hedging. By the time NOM looked on I was out of cash to cover the losses.
Based on Survation and Yougov, I backed Con and Lab minority governments and some of the Labour seats, and made a couple of thousand. There was some academic research posted here in (iirc) election week suggesting that pollsters should not discount respondents as non-voters because the people who did not vote didn't talk to pollsters either. That led to the two best pollsters for Labour. The bit I got wrong was the Conservative revival in Scotland.
Did anyone here make a decent profit? I know @MikeSmithson did well with a sell of Tory seats on the spreads at c.390. I ended the night £700 down, saved from a four figure loss by @GeoffM's Scottish Tory seats tip. The problem for me was that the exit poll was almost identical to 2015 and I stayed on the majority rather than hedging. By the time NOM looked on I was out of cash to cover the losses.
2-3k I think. Brown trousers time at around 10 pm mind.
Did you make many bets after the exit poll? And what did that represent as a % of your overall stake?
I hit cashout on Tory most seats when the exit poll came out as I was expecting Tory ~ 350, and wasn't sure how close alot of the apparent Lab gains were (And more importantly how many v close seats there might be...). Managed to make ~ £450 on the night betting to the Size of Tory Maj market (Where Lab Maj wasn't an option)
the trouble is, politicalbetting.com is so keen to pass comment on the prevailing political environment that it is failing to grasp exactly how much it has become just another left-leaning talking shop. It needs counterpoint. How about hiring a centre-right commentator? It needs one.
Hmm PB. Com is a fair bit to the right of most of the net...
Ends: "If it was not introduced next year and a driver was killed when the halo could have saved him, how would they feel then?
The risk might be small, but are aesthetics and the perceived appeal of something really more important than a driver's life?"
Leaving aside he used the indicative and not the subjunctive, an F1 fan might reply that if an F1 driver wants to be 100% safe he has no business driving at 200mph.
I'm a lot more neutral on the halo than most, but it's clear the fans and teams generally dislike it. It's also dubious that this is forced through on safety grounds in F1, but F2 (I think GP2 got renamed) drivers can do without.
It's not a question of 'how they might feel', Mr.D.
Having conducted tests and concluded that the halo is usable, F1 would be liable if they didn't fit it to being sued by a driver's family should, for example, he be killed by a tyre which came loose and hit his head. If the drivers really don't want it, it's up to them to insist on signing a waiver to say they'll race without it and absolving the promoters of liability. Though even then the legal position might be murky (and likely it would be up to F1's insurers).
The thing with how fast PB moves is that this was reported downthread only a few hours ago and it already feels like ancient news.
Funny thing is I did a quick search before posting -- must have misspelled his name. Ah well, worse things happen at sea.
Oh please don't misunderstand me. That was a compliment to the PB Rapid Reaction Squad and nothing more!
As for spelling his name:
I see a little silhouetto of a man Scaramucci, Scaramucci, will you do the fandango? Thunderbolts and lightning - very very frightening me Galileo, galileo Galileo, galileo Galileo figaro - magnifico
Totally off topic but I bet someone on here knows the answer.
Can an employer withhold your P45 when you leave? I know someone who's left a company having taken a fair chunk of their annual leave in the early part of their leave year and then left. The company says she owes them £350 to cover the excess leave she took proportional to the amount of the leave year she worked.
Did anyone here make a decent profit? I know @MikeSmithson did well with a sell of Tory seats on the spreads at c.390. I ended the night £700 down, saved from a four figure loss by @GeoffM's Scottish Tory seats tip. The problem for me was that the exit poll was almost identical to 2015 and I stayed on the majority rather than hedging. By the time NOM looked on I was out of cash to cover the losses.
On the election campaign/result itself, I cleared a decent profit.
I made a big loss laying the election itself for which my campaign trading/on the night profit didn't quite cover, so overall I was down a bit.
Confidence in my politicalbetting radar took a big hit when that non-#10 branded podium appeared, seemingly out of nowhere. I ended up being too risk averse during the campaign and on the night.
My betting edge relies on politicians being rational actors.
Here are my UK resolved exchange markets for 2017, seeing as my 6:30 viewing is a no show...
Politics / 2017 - UK General Election : Prime Minister After Election 24.64 Politics / 2017 - UK General Election : Labour Vote Percentage 0.48 Politics / 2017 - UK General Election : Lib Dems Vote Percentage 3.8 Politics / 2017 - UK General Election : Conservative Vote Percentage 0 Politics / 2017 - UK General Election : UKIP To Win A Seat? -9.45 Politics / 2017 - UK General Election : Lib Dems U/O 18.5 Seats 75.55 <- Amazing mispricings by the bookies here all the way through Politics / 2017 - UK General Election : Total Seats - Lib Dems 10.83 Politics / 2017 - UK General Election : Size Of Conservative Majority 523.92 <- On the night traded Politics / 2017 - UK General Election : Overall Majority 31.49 Politics / 2017 - UK General Election : Total Seats - Conservative 2.69 Politics / 2017 - UK General Election : Total Seats - Labour -5 Politics / 2017 - UK General Election : Most Seats -61.93 <- 10 PM panic Politics / 2017 - UK General Election : Conservative U/O 337.5 Seats 2.16 Politics / 2017 - UK General Election : Conservative U/O 370.5 Seats 25.79 Politics / 2017 - UK General Election : Labour U/O 218.5 Seats -27 <- Thought this was free money lol Politics / 2017 - UK General Election : Year Of Next UK General Election -387.97 <- Was topping this one up as Mrs May got the lectern out, redded out from ~ -400 or so. Politics / UK - Party Leaders : Corbyn To Go Before Next General Election? -67.69 <- Mistraded
Totally off topic but I bet someone on here knows the answer.
Can an employer withhold your P45 when you leave? I know someone who's left a company having taken a fair chunk of their annual leave in the early part of their leave year and then left. The company says she owes them £350 to cover the excess leave she took proportional to the amount of the leave year she worked.
Can they do that?
From HMRC P45
You get a P45 from your employer when you stop working for them. It's a record of your pay and the tax that's been deducted from it so far in the tax year. It shows: your tax code and PAYE (Pay As You Earn) reference number your National Insurance number your leaving date your earnings in the tax year how much tax was deducted from your earnings A P45 has four parts - Part 1, Part 1A, Part 2 and Part 3. Your employer sends Part 1 to us and gives you the other three. When you start a new job, or claim Jobseeker's Allowance, you give Part 2 and Part 3 to your new employer or to the Jobcentre. You keep the remaining one - Part 1A - for your own records. Your employer should automatically give you a P45 when you stop working for them. If not, ask for it - you're entitled to it by law.
You can fill out a P46 in the event of them (as with tlg86' friend) playing silly arses. The employer will also need to produce the P60 at the end of the year.
Totally off topic but I bet someone on here knows the answer.
Can an employer withhold your P45 when you leave? I know someone who's left a company having taken a fair chunk of their annual leave in the early part of their leave year and then left. The company says she owes them £350 to cover the excess leave she took proportional to the amount of the leave year she worked.
Can they do that?
From HMRC P45
You get a P45 from your employer when you stop working for them. It's a record of your pay and the tax that's been deducted from it so far in the tax year. It shows: your tax code and PAYE (Pay As You Earn) reference number your National Insurance number your leaving date your earnings in the tax year how much tax was deducted from your earnings A P45 has four parts - Part 1, Part 1A, Part 2 and Part 3. Your employer sends Part 1 to us and gives you the other three. When you start a new job, or claim Jobseeker's Allowance, you give Part 2 and Part 3 to your new employer or to the Jobcentre. You keep the remaining one - Part 1A - for your own records. Your employer should automatically give you a P45 when you stop working for them. If not, ask for it - you're entitled to it by law.
You can fill out a P46 in the event of them (as with tlg86' friend) playing silly arses.
Good spot, thanks. I reckon if the company are that bothered about the money they can go after her in the courts. I think she will pay up but she wants to make sure the P45 has the correct information on it.
Totally off topic but I bet someone on here knows the answer.
Can an employer withhold your P45 when you leave? I know someone who's left a company having taken a fair chunk of their annual leave in the early part of their leave year and then left. The company says she owes them £350 to cover the excess leave she took proportional to the amount of the leave year she worked.
Can they do that?
From HMRC P45
You get a P45 from your employer when you stop working for them. It's a record of your pay and the tax that's been deducted from it so far in the tax year. It shows: your tax code and PAYE (Pay As You Earn) reference number your National Insurance number your leaving date your earnings in the tax year how much tax was deducted from your earnings A P45 has four parts - Part 1, Part 1A, Part 2 and Part 3. Your employer sends Part 1 to us and gives you the other three. When you start a new job, or claim Jobseeker's Allowance, you give Part 2 and Part 3 to your new employer or to the Jobcentre. You keep the remaining one - Part 1A - for your own records. Your employer should automatically give you a P45 when you stop working for them. If not, ask for it - you're entitled to it by law.
You can fill out a P46 in the event of them (as with tlg86' friend) playing silly arses.
Good spot, thanks. I reckon if the company are that bothered about the money they can go after her in the courts. I think she will pay up but she wants to make sure the P45 has the correct information on it.
Sorry, I've edited the end of my original post with a little extra info after your reply. Hope it helps. All the best to your friend and I hope it ends well.
Here are my UK resolved exchange markets for 2017, seeing as my 6:30 viewing is a no show...
Politics / 2017 - UK General Election : Prime Minister After Election 24.64 Politics / 2017 - UK General Election : Labour Vote Percentage 0.48 Politics / 2017 - UK General Election : Lib Dems Vote Percentage 3.8 Politics / 2017 - UK General Election : Conservative Vote Percentage 0 Politics / 2017 - UK General Election : UKIP To Win A Seat? -9.45 Politics / 2017 - UK General Election : Lib Dems U/O 18.5 Seats 75.55 <- Amazing mispricings by the bookies here all the way through Politics / 2017 - UK General Election : Total Seats - Lib Dems 10.83 Politics / 2017 - UK General Election : Size Of Conservative Majority 523.92 <- On the night traded Politics / 2017 - UK General Election : Overall Majority 31.49 Politics / 2017 - UK General Election : Total Seats - Conservative 2.69 Politics / 2017 - UK General Election : Total Seats - Labour -5 Politics / 2017 - UK General Election : Most Seats -61.93 <- 10 PM panic Politics / 2017 - UK General Election : Conservative U/O 337.5 Seats 2.16 Politics / 2017 - UK General Election : Conservative U/O 370.5 Seats 25.79 Politics / 2017 - UK General Election : Labour U/O 218.5 Seats -27 <- Thought this was free money lol Politics / 2017 - UK General Election : Year Of Next UK General Election -387.97 <- Was topping this one up as Mrs May got the lectern out, redded out from ~ -400 or so. Politics / UK - Party Leaders : Corbyn To Go Before Next General Election? -67.69 <- Mistraded</p>
Today, I've been learning about catastrophe bonds.
Does anybody on here know if there's a way for a retail investor to short them? Like an inverse ETF or something?
I'm new to investing.
If you are new to investing you should stay away from inverse catastrophe bonds.
Invest in something more straight forward and spread your risk until you have been through two crashes. The way to make money investing is to avoid losses.
From what I can tell, the logic behind buying CAT bonds is the opposite to that. Large amounts of capital prepared to absorb losses - for the promise of short term yield - disregarding reversion to the mean. And over the last few years, the yields appear to have been beaten down too low.
I want to pay the people picking up pennies and bet on the steamroller - if the odds are wrong enough.
If that's possible. I don't think it is though. At least not via my isa.
Oh well.
How is the Indian investing going ?
Personally I am waiting for an offer to come in on pretty much all my worldly equity...
It went up about 20% in ~5 months, but I sold up and transferred the cash into my befair account for GE night.
Frustratingly, I ballsed up the exit poll, only betting a small % of my pot when NOM hit 2/1 between 10-12pm. Shoulda plonked it all on for a 200% return.
grr
GE 2017 is the election that most of us PBers will want to forget I suspect. I got on NOM at 9/1 in a small way when I started to get a feeling all was not well after the Dementia Tax fiasco. I also started to hear anecdotes of people voting Labour because "it wont matter and we need to stop a Tory landslide".
It was a bit of hedge and saved me from a total wipe out on just about everything except a couple of LibDem seats.
Bleak night.
Did anyone here make a decent profit? I know @MikeSmithson did well with a sell of Tory seats on the spreads at c.390. I ended the night £700 down, saved from a four figure loss by @GeoffM's Scottish Tory seats tip. The problem for me was that the exit poll was almost identical to 2015 and I stayed on the majority rather than hedging. By the time NOM looked on I was out of cash to cover the losses.
I had £500 on NOM at 9/1 - another £750 on constituency markets lost £500 - my wife banned me from the SPIN markets !
Totally off topic but I bet someone on here knows the answer.
Can an employer withhold your P45 when you leave? I know someone who's left a company having taken a fair chunk of their annual leave in the early part of their leave year and then left. The company says she owes them £350 to cover the excess leave she took proportional to the amount of the leave year she worked.
Can they do that?
From HMRC P45
You get a P45 from your employer when you stop working for them. It's a record of your pay and the tax that's been deducted from it so far in the tax year. It shows: your tax code and PAYE (Pay As You Earn) reference number your National Insurance number your leaving date your earnings in the tax year how much tax was deducted from your earnings A P45 has four parts - Part 1, Part 1A, Part 2 and Part 3. Your employer sends Part 1 to us and gives you the other three. When you start a new job, or claim Jobseeker's Allowance, you give Part 2 and Part 3 to your new employer or to the Jobcentre. You keep the remaining one - Part 1A - for your own records. Your employer should automatically give you a P45 when you stop working for them. If not, ask for it - you're entitled to it by law.
You can fill out a P46 in the event of them (as with tlg86' friend) playing silly arses.
Good spot, thanks. I reckon if the company are that bothered about the money they can go after her in the courts. I think she will pay up but she wants to make sure the P45 has the correct information on it.
Sorry, I've edited the end of my original post with a little extra info after your reply. Hope it helps. All the best to your friend and I hope it ends well.
I'm sure it will be fine, it just astounds me that a company thinks it can get away with such behaviour. I think the problem is she handed in her resignation before the June pay shutdown in May so they could only deduct pay from her July pay. Still, a little bit of communication before she left wouldn't have gone amiss.
I'm getting extremely emotional just listening to Hans Zimmer's soundtrack for Dunkirk, which I've just bought. There is an awful lot of Sir Edward Elgar in there.
Listen to "Home", and just experience how beautifully he weaves in Nimrod in there.
Totally off topic but I bet someone on here knows the answer.
Can an employer withhold your P45 when you leave? I know someone who's left a company having taken a fair chunk of their annual leave in the early part of their leave year and then left.
get a P45 from your employer when you stop working for them. It's a record of your pay and the tax that's been deducted from it so far in the tax year. It shows: your tax code and PAYE (Pay As You Earn) reference number your National Insurance number your leaving date your earnings in the tax year how much tax was deducted from your earnings A P45 has four parts - Part 1, Part 1A, Part 2 and Part 3. Your employer sends Part 1 to us and gives you the other three. When you start a new job, or claim Jobseeker's Allowance, you give Part 2 and Part 3 to your new employer or to the Jobcentre. You keep the remaining one - Part 1A - for your own records. Your employer should automatically give you a P45 when you stop working for them. If not, ask for it - you're entitled to it by law.
You can fill out a P46 in the event of them (as with tlg86' friend) playing silly arses.
Good spot, thanks. I reckon if the company are that bothered about the money they can go after her in the courts. I think she will pay up but she wants to make sure the P45 has the correct information on it.
Sorry, I've edited the end of my original post with a little extra info after your reply. Hope it helps. All the best to your friend and I hope it ends well.
I'm sure it will be fine, it just astounds me that a company thinks it can get away with such behaviour. I think the problem is she handed in her resignation before the June pay shutdown in May so they could only deduct pay from her July pay. Still, a little bit of communication before she left wouldn't have gone amiss.
What they should have done is identified the issue when she handed in her notice and, in discussion with her, dealt with it by adjusting her notice period (last day worked) so that this balanced with her pro-Rafa holiday entitlement. Pro-rating the holiday entitlement for a part year worked is reasonable, as holiday is granted in proportion to period worked. However seeking to recover cash for excess holiday granted will be more challenging for the company, unless her employment contract (or published company HR policies) expressly allow them to do so, and I would be surprised, unless there is such a contractual provision, if they bother. And even then.
A more practical issue is whether she left the company on good terms and, if so, whether she might need a reference from them in the future. If so, there is an argument for paying to maintain the goodwill.
I'm getting extremely emotional just listening to Hans Zimmer's soundtrack for Dunkirk, which I've just bought. There is an awful lot of Sir Edward Listen to "Home", and just experience how beautifully he weaves in Nimrod in there.
Tear down my cheek.
nimrod always brings a slight watering of the eyes as do some other british classis
Did anyone here make a decent profit? I know @MikeSmithson did well with a sell of Tory seats on the spreads at c.390. I ended the night £700 down, saved from a four figure loss by @GeoffM's Scottish Tory seats tip. The problem for me was that the exit poll was almost identical to 2015 and I stayed on the majority rather than hedging. By the time NOM looked on I was out of cash to cover the losses.
2-3k I think. Brown trousers time at around 10 pm mind - but turned out fine. When the exit poll came out was desperate to find WHERE those Tory losses were. Fortunately not in Scotland or the SouthWest, which I'd tilted blue (London & Wales Red - My largest single seat bet was North Cornwall Tory £500 @ 1-3) & a modest night for the yellows overall meant it was good. A shedload of Tory losers in the Midlands and the North, which I got completely wrong (Though my stakes were well restricted by Paddy...). Except Mansfield. That won me a cake
That's a good effort. I was one of those who messed up with a bag of sand at 1/4 on the majority which sunk me. I should have piled on the NOM at 2/1 at 22:01 but timed it all wrong on the night. Anyway, I suppose it's good to have a humbling experience occasionally, after 2015, Brexit and Trump all brought big wins.
Personally I am waiting for an offer to come in on pretty much all my worldly equity...
It went up about 20% in ~5 months, but I sold up and transferred the cash into my befair account for GE night.
Frustratingly, I ballsed up the exit poll, only betting a small % of my pot when NOM hit 2/1 between 10-12pm. Shoulda plonked it all on for a 200% return.
grr
GE 2017 is the election that most of us PBers will want to forget I suspect. I got on NOM at 9/1 in a small way when I started to get a feeling all was not well after the Dementia Tax fiasco. I also started to hear anecdotes of people voting Labour because "it wont matter and we need to stop a Tory landslide".
It was a bit of hedge and saved me from a total wipe out on just about everything except a couple of LibDem seats.
Bleak night.
Did anyone here make a decent profit? I know @MikeSmithson did well with a sell of Tory seats on the spreads at c.390. I ended the night £700 down, saved from a four figure loss by @GeoffM's Scottish Tory seats tip. The problem for me was that the exit poll was almost identical to 2015 and I stayed on the majority rather than hedging. By the time NOM looked on I was out of cash to cover the losses.
Based on Survation and Yougov, I backed Con and Lab minority governments and some of the Labour seats, and made a couple of thousand. There was some academic research posted here in (iirc) election week suggesting that pollsters should not discount respondents as non-voters because the people who did not vote didn't talk to pollsters either. That led to the two best pollsters for Labour. The bit I got wrong was the Conservative revival in Scotland.
Well done. Thinking back, I was probably too fixated on what I wanted to happen (an increased majority) and like a lot of others missed the sights from the pollsters in the final days that suggested NOM may have been on. I'm sure I wasn't the only Conservative shocked at what happened!
GE 2017 is the election that most of us PBers will want to forget I suspect. I got on NOM at 9/1 in a small way when I started to get a feeling all was not well after the Dementia Tax fiasco. I also started to hear anecdotes of people voting Labour because "it wont matter and we need to stop a Tory landslide".
It was a bit of hedge and saved me from a total wipe out on just about everything except a couple of LibDem seats.
Bleak night.
***
Did anyone here make a decent profit? I know @MikeSmithson did well with a sell of Tory seats on the spreads at c.390. I ended the night £700 down, saved from a four figure loss by @GeoffM's Scottish Tory seats tip. The problem for me was that the exit poll was almost identical to 2015 and I stayed on the majority rather than hedging. By the time NOM looked on I was out of cash to cover the losses.
I had £500 on NOM at 9/1 - another £750 on constituency markets lost £500 - my wife banned me from the SPIN markets !
The Black Swan is illuminating. He suggests positive returns for speculators come in a few huge events in a 50 or 100 year period. Investors are best off putting 90% into cash.
I think the only way to stay positive is to spread bets widely and hedge, hedge, hedge.
I believed the disastrous tip 'Tory majority @ 1.2 = free money'. so my net profit was only ~15% = poor given the risks.
IMO constituency bets are more often 'nearly free money'. I'll go back to mostly those whenever that nice Mrs May cares to call another GE.
Today, I've been learning about catastrophe bonds.
Does anybody on here know if there's a way for a retail investor to short them? Like an inverse ETF or something?
I'm new to investing.
If you are new to investing you should stay away from inverse catastrophe bonds.
Invest in something more straight forward and spread your risk until you have been through two crashes. The way to make money investing is to avoid losses.
From what I can tell, the logic behind buying CAT bonds is the opposite to that. Large amounts of capital prepared to absorb losses - for the promise of short term yield - disregarding reversion to the mean. And over the last few years, the yields appear to have been beaten down too low.
I want to pay the people picking up pennies and bet on the steamroller - if the odds are wrong enough.
If that's possible. I don't think it is though. At least not via my isa.
Oh well.
How is the Indian investing going ?
Personally I am waiting for an offer to come in on pretty much all my worldly equity...
It went up about 20% in ~5 months, but I sold up and transferred the cash into my befair account for GE night.
Frustratingly, I ballsed up the exit poll, only betting a small % of my pot when NOM hit 2/1 between 10-12pm. Shoulda plonked it all on for a 200% return.
grr
GE 2017 is the election that most of us PBers will want to forget I suspect. I got on NOM at 9/1 in a small way when I started to get a feeling all was not well after the Dementia Tax fiasco. I also started to hear anecdotes of people voting Labour because "it wont matter and we need to stop a Tory landslide".
It was a bit of hedge and saved me from a total wipe out on just about everything except a couple of LibDem seats.
Bleak night.
Did anyone here make a decent profit? I know @MikeSmithson did well with a sell of Tory seats on the spreads at c.390. I ended the night £700 down, saved from a four figure loss by @GeoffM's Scottish Tory seats tip. The problem for me was that the exit poll was almost identical to 2015 and I stayed on the majority rather than hedging. By the time NOM looked on I was out of cash to cover the losses.
I had £500 on NOM at 9/1 - another £750 on constituency markets lost £500 - my wife banned me from the SPIN markets !
That's another good effort, well done! I dabbled in the SPIN markets at £2 and lost £100, I think Mrs Sandpit doesn't get spreads and assumed it was a £2 bet.
Ends: "If it was not introduced next year and a driver was killed when the halo could have saved him, how would they feel then?
The risk might be small, but are aesthetics and the perceived appeal of something really more important than a driver's life?"
Leaving aside he used the indicative and not the subjunctive, an F1 fan might reply that if an F1 driver wants to be 100% safe he has no business driving at 200mph.
I'm a lot more neutral on the halo than most, but it's clear the fans and teams generally dislike it. It's also dubious that this is forced through on safety grounds in F1, but F2 (I think GP2 got renamed) drivers can do without.
It's not a question of 'how they might feel', Mr.D.
Having conducted tests and concluded that the halo is usable, F1 would be liable if they didn't fit it to being sued by a driver's family should, for example, he be killed by a tyre which came loose and hit his head. If the drivers really don't want it, it's up to them to insist on signing a waiver to say they'll race without it and absolving the promoters of liability. Though even then the legal position might be murky (and likely it would be up to F1's insurers).
I have a feeling this isn't going to happen, no-one wants it except the FIA lawyers. The teams and drivers will end up signing disclaimers saying that the additional head protection is outweighed by the lack of visibility and additional difficulty in evacuating a car on fire or upside down.
Also, if it's mandated in F1, why not in the lesser single seat formulae?
One can read too much into a single month's figures, especially with the distortion of an election, but the borrowing figures for June are seriously disappointing: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-40679277....
Still, look on the bright side. We are being treated to the hilarious spectacle of John McDonnell complaining that the deficit isn't being reduced fast enough.
You're right. That is funny.
Increase taxes, it's not rocket science!
The government should top trying to pursue some ideological neoliberal low tax nirvana; they should run decent public services, that's what we pay them to do!
The government wants low taxes because it thinks that this boosts spending and investment creating growth and thus more tax revenue. Increasing taxes can decrease the tax take through avoidance, relocation and overall reduced economic activity. At the extremes these are not really contentious points. It is where the optimum balance is that politicians have to judge.
Take Labour's fantasy increased in CT that was supposed to pay for everything. Reducing CT has increased the take considerably in recent years and there is a legitimate expectation that reversing it would have the opposite effect. The result may make those who resent the success of others feel better but it is unlikely to reduce the deficit, quite the reverse in fact.
Reducing CT hasn't necessarily increased the take - correlation is not necessarily causation
Well we know the rate has been reduced and that the take has increased. What else might be going on? There are some possibilities; some of the banks have just about exhausted their losses although I am not aware of any of the majors returning to tax paying ways; the Google tax/Starbucks rows have increased the pressure on multinationals to "recognise" more of their tax here rather than elsewhere; the economy has been growing, albeit only modestly, certainly a lot more slowly than the CT increase.
I think that the incentive to recognise and pay profits here and the disincentives of not doing so is the most likely explanation for the uplift. If that is right an increase in CT is likely to have an adverse effect. Do you have an alternative explanation?
"Well we know the rate has been reduced and that the take has increased."
Really?? Can we just kill that myth please...
2008 rate = 28%; CT take = 3.28% of GDP 2016 rate = 20%; CT take = 2.36% of GDP
Still, look on the bright side. We are being treated to the hilarious spectacle of John McDonnell complaining that the deficit isn't being reduced fast enough.
You're right. That is funny.
Increase taxes, it's not rocket science!
The government should top trying to pursue some ideological neoliberal low tax nirvana; they should run decent public services, that's what we pay them to do!
The government wants low taxes because it thinks that this boosts spending and investment creating growth and thus more tax revenue. Increasing taxes can decrease the tax take through avoidance, relocation and overall reduced economic activity. At the extremes these are not really contentious points. It is where the optimum balance is that politicians have to judge.
Take Labour's fantasy increased in CT that was supposed to pay for everything. Reducing CT has increased the take considerably in recent years and there is a legitimate expectation that reversing it would have the opposite effect. The result may make those who resent the success of others feel better but it is unlikely to reduce the deficit, quite the reverse in fact.
Reducing CT hasn't necessarily increased the take - correlation is not necessarily causation
Well we know the rate has been reduced and that the take has increased. What else might be going on? There are some possibilities; some of the banks have just about exhausted their losses although I am not aware of any of the majors returning to tax paying ways; the Google tax/Starbucks rows have increased the pressure on multinationals to "recognise" more of their tax here rather than elsewhere; the economy has been growing, albeit only modestly, certainly a lot more slowly than the CT increase.
I think that the incentive to recognise and pay profits here and the disincentives of not doing so is the most likely explanation for the uplift. If that is right an increase in CT is likely to have an adverse effect. Do you have an alternative explanation?
"Well we know the rate has been reduced and that the take has increased."
Really?? Can we just kill that myth please...
2008 rate = 28%; CT take = 3.28% of GDP 2016 rate = 20%; CT take = 2.36% of GDP
2002 rate = 30%, CT take = 1.2% of GDP.
With a lower rate companies have more money to invest, pay staff etc. This would not be reflected in corporation tax takes.
Still, look on the bright side. We are being treated to the hilarious spectacle of John McDonnell complaining that the deficit isn't being reduced fast enough.
You're right. That is funny.
Increase taxes, it's not rocket science!
The government should top trying to pursue some ideological neoliberal low tax nirvana; they should run decent public services, that's what we pay them to do!
Take Labour's fantasy increased in CT that was supposed to pay for everything. Reducing CT has increased the take considerably in recent years and there is a legitimate expectation that reversing it would have the opposite effect. The result may make those who resent the success of others feel better but it is unlikely to reduce the deficit, quite the reverse in fact.
Reducing CT hasn't necessarily increased the take - correlation is not necessarily causation
Well we know the rate has been reduced and that the take has increased. What else might be going on? There are some possibilities; some of the banks have just about exhausted their losses although I am not aware of any of the majors returning to tax paying ways; the Google tax/Starbucks rows have increased the pressure on multinationals to "recognise" more of their tax here rather than elsewhere; the economy has been growing, albeit only modestly, certainly a lot more slowly than the CT increase.
I think that the incentive to recognise and pay profits here and the disincentives of not doing so is the most likely explanation for the uplift. If that is right an increase in CT is likely to have an adverse effect. Do you have an alternative explanation?
"Well we know the rate has been reduced and that the take has increased."
Really?? Can we just kill that myth please...
2008 rate = 28%; CT take = 3.28% of GDP 2016 rate = 20%; CT take = 2.36% of GDP
2002 rate = 30%, CT take = 1.2% of GDP.
With a lower rate companies have more money to invest, pay staff etc. This would not be reflected in corporation tax takes.
No, according to ukpublicrevenue.co.uk (based on OBR figures) 2002 CT take was 2.98% GDP, still above the take from a 19% CT rate.
Still, look on the bright side. We are being treated to the hilarious spectacle of John McDonnell complaining that the deficit isn't being reduced fast enough.
You're right. That is funny.
Increase taxes, it's not rocket science!
The government should top trying to pursue some ideological neoliberal low tax nirvana; they should run decent public services, that's what we pay them to do!
Take Labour's fantasy increased in CT that was supposed to pay for everything. Reducing CT has increased the take considerably in recent years and there is a legitimate expectation that reversing it would have the opposite effect. The result may make those who resent the success of others feel better but it is unlikely to reduce the deficit, quite the reverse in fact.
Reducing CT hasn't necessarily increased the take - correlation is not necessarily causation
Well we know the rate has been reduced and that the take has increased. What else might be going on? There are some possibilities; some of the banks have just about exhausted their losses although I am not aware of any of the majors returning to tax paying ways; the Google tax/Starbucks rows have increased the pressure on multinationals to "recognise" more of their tax here rather than elsewhere; the economy has been growing, albeit only modestly, certainly a lot more slowly than the CT increase.
I think that the incentive to recognise and pay profits here and the disincentives of not doing so is the most likely explanation for the uplift. If that is right an increase in CT is likely to have an adverse effect. Do you have an alternative explanation?
"Well we know the rate has been reduced and that the take has increased."
Really?? Can we just kill that myth please...
2008 rate = 28%; CT take = 3.28% of GDP 2016 rate = 20%; CT take = 2.36% of GDP
With a lower rate companies have more money to invest, pay staff etc. This would not be reflected in corporation tax takes.
This is another spurious argument btw; companies do not pay CT on money they invest or pay staff, only on profits.
This is another spurious argument btw; companies do not pay CT on money they invest or pay staff, only on profits.
I am talking about what they do with the money that would have otherwise gone into corporation tax.
Here's an IFS study on the matter. Looks like the UK is bringing in as much as a fraction of national income as it did in 2002/3 when the rate was 30%.
I agree with a lot Nick says although you can be pretty sure that "events" will intervene. If I were TM, I'd be looking to sack someone during the hols. If I felt brave, it would be Boris, otherwise any old sub prime cabinet oik would do. She has the 1922 troops on side and she needs to instil a few doubts in the minds of those who would be king
GE 2017 is the election that most of us PBers will want to forget I suspect. I got on NOM at 9/1 in a small way when I started to get a feeling all was not well after the Dementia Tax fiasco. I also started to hear anecdotes of people voting Labour because "it wont matter and we need to stop a Tory landslide".
It was a bit of hedge and saved me from a total wipe out on just about everything except a couple of LibDem seats.
Bleak night.
***
Did anyone here make a decent profit? I know @MikeSmithson did well with a sell of Tory seats on the spreads at c.390. I ended the night £700 down, saved from a four figure loss by @GeoffM's Scottish Tory seats tip. The problem for me was that the exit poll was almost identical to 2015 and I stayed on the majority rather than hedging. By the time NOM looked on I was out of cash to cover the losses.
I had £500 on NOM at 9/1 - another £750 on constituency markets lost £500 - my wife banned me from the SPIN markets !
The Black Swan is illuminating. He suggests positive returns for speculators come in a few huge events in a 50 or 100 year period. Investors are best off putting 90% into cash.
I think the only way to stay positive is to spread bets widely and hedge, hedge, hedge.
I believed the disastrous tip 'Tory majority @ 1.2 = free money'. so my net profit was only ~15% = poor given the risks.
IMO constituency bets are more often 'nearly free money'. I'll go back to mostly those whenever that nice Mrs May cares to call another GE.
Comments
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/07/21/ex-dragons-den-star-theo-paphitis-donates-5000-david-davis-did/
Doesn't sound very appealing to me.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/40681759
Ends:
"If it was not introduced next year and a driver was killed when the halo could have saved him, how would they feel then?
The risk might be small, but are aesthetics and the perceived appeal of something really more important than a driver's life?"
Leaving aside he used the indicative and not the subjunctive, an F1 fan might reply that if an F1 driver wants to be 100% safe he has no business driving at 200mph.
I'm a lot more neutral on the halo than most, but it's clear the fans and teams generally dislike it. It's also dubious that this is forced through on safety grounds in F1, but F2 (I think GP2 got renamed) drivers can do without.
Which, I accept, is an odd thing to do - but if the odds are good enough...
Stuartrc Insurance Corp has written USD 1 billion of property insurance in florida and wants to protect itself from extreme wind events.
So I structure a Cat bond that will indemnify me from any losses above USD 750,000,000 incurred as a result of a single named windstorm.
USD 250,000,000 of bonds are issued and Stuartrc Insurance Corp pays a coupon of 1%.
If my losses from a single named windstorm do not exceed USD 750,000,000 then the bond is not drawn down and the investors get their coupon. If my losses exceed USD 750,000,000 for the named event the the bond is drawn down until exhausted.
So when buying a Cat bond your variables are not just the the likely hood of an event but also the underwriting skill of the insurance company and where the bond sits in the liability structure.
Buying a single cat bond is much like buying a single equity - foolish for diversification reasons alone. Can a well run Cat bond fund provide good place to allocate part of your investments - yes.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/07/21/poland-marches-towards-jaws-autocracy-eu-faces-battle-soul/
They'll be a Con leadership election during Summer 2019 with the new leader and Prime Minister announced shortly afterwards.
The "transitional deal" that is currently the talk of the town adds a couple of extra dynamics (if it happens)
1. A time limited transitional deal (two years) almost guarantees a Leaver will take over from Theresa May, Reason being, rather than Brexit being finalized it will still be a "live" issue in 2019.
I think Con WILL wear a transitional deal as long as there is an "end date" and they will want to make sure there's no more back-sliding at the end of the time period... So this pretty much guarantee's a Leaver will become leader in 2019 to ensure Brexit is complete in 2021.
2. It pretty much rules out a general election until Spring 2021 at the earliest. Con will not dare go to the country without having ended free movement. So 2021 or 2022 for the next general election... Until then they'll keep the show on the road one way or another,
Personally I am waiting for an offer to come in on pretty much all my worldly equity...
http://news.sky.com/story/hammond-met-goldman-sachs-board-for-private-brexit-talks-10956637
Frustratingly, I ballsed up the exit poll, only betting a small % of my pot when NOM hit 2/1 between 10-12pm. Shoulda plonked it all on for a 200% return.
grr
It was a bit of hedge and saved me from a total wipe out on just about everything except a couple of LibDem seats.
Bleak night.
Remember the formula: good stuff is "despite", bad stuff is "because".
A couple of decades later and he's still loaded.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-40687521
Edited extra bit: anyway, must be off.
When the exit poll came out was desperate to find WHERE those Tory losses were. Fortunately not in Scotland or the SouthWest, which I'd tilted blue (London & Wales Red - My largest single seat bet was North Cornwall Tory £500 @ 1-3) & a modest night for the yellows overall meant it was good.
A shedload of Tory losers in the Midlands and the North, which I got completely wrong (Though my stakes were well restricted by Paddy...). Except Mansfield. That won me a cake
Having conducted tests and concluded that the halo is usable, F1 would be liable if they didn't fit it to being sued by a driver's family should, for example, he be killed by a tyre which came loose and hit his head.
If the drivers really don't want it, it's up to them to insist on signing a waiver to say they'll race without it and absolving the promoters of liability. Though even then the legal position might be murky (and likely it would be up to F1's insurers).
As for spelling his name:
I see a little silhouetto of a man
Scaramucci, Scaramucci, will you do the fandango?
Thunderbolts and lightning - very very frightening me
Galileo, galileo
Galileo, galileo
Galileo figaro - magnifico
Can an employer withhold your P45 when you leave? I know someone who's left a company having taken a fair chunk of their annual leave in the early part of their leave year and then left. The company says she owes them £350 to cover the excess leave she took proportional to the amount of the leave year she worked.
Can they do that?
I made a big loss laying the election itself for which my campaign trading/on the night profit didn't quite cover, so overall I was down a bit.
Confidence in my politicalbetting radar took a big hit when that non-#10 branded podium appeared, seemingly out of nowhere. I ended up being too risk averse during the campaign and on the night.
My betting edge relies on politicians being rational actors.
Politics / 2017 - UK General Election : Prime Minister After Election 24.64
Politics / 2017 - UK General Election : Labour Vote Percentage 0.48
Politics / 2017 - UK General Election : Lib Dems Vote Percentage 3.8
Politics / 2017 - UK General Election : Conservative Vote Percentage 0
Politics / 2017 - UK General Election : UKIP To Win A Seat? -9.45
Politics / 2017 - UK General Election : Lib Dems U/O 18.5 Seats 75.55 <- Amazing mispricings by the bookies here all the way through
Politics / 2017 - UK General Election : Total Seats - Lib Dems 10.83
Politics / 2017 - UK General Election : Size Of Conservative Majority 523.92 <- On the night traded
Politics / 2017 - UK General Election : Overall Majority 31.49
Politics / 2017 - UK General Election : Total Seats - Conservative 2.69
Politics / 2017 - UK General Election : Total Seats - Labour -5
Politics / 2017 - UK General Election : Most Seats -61.93 <- 10 PM panic
Politics / 2017 - UK General Election : Conservative U/O 337.5 Seats 2.16
Politics / 2017 - UK General Election : Conservative U/O 370.5 Seats 25.79
Politics / 2017 - UK General Election : Labour U/O 218.5 Seats -27 <- Thought this was free money lol
Politics / 2017 - UK General Election : Year Of Next UK General Election -387.97 <- Was topping this one up as Mrs May got the lectern out, redded out from ~ -400 or so.
Politics / UK - Party Leaders : Corbyn To Go Before Next General Election? -67.69 <- Mistraded
P45
You get a P45 from your employer when you stop working for them. It's a record of your pay and the tax that's been deducted from it so far in the tax year. It shows:
your tax code and PAYE (Pay As You Earn) reference number
your National Insurance number
your leaving date
your earnings in the tax year
how much tax was deducted from your earnings
A P45 has four parts - Part 1, Part 1A, Part 2 and Part 3. Your employer sends Part 1 to us and gives you the other three. When you start a new job, or claim Jobseeker's Allowance, you give Part 2 and Part 3 to your new employer or to the Jobcentre. You keep the remaining one - Part 1A - for your own records.
Your employer should automatically give you a P45 when you stop working for them. If not, ask for it - you're entitled to it by law.
You can fill out a P46 in the event of them (as with tlg86' friend) playing silly arses. The employer will also need to produce the P60 at the end of the year.
Edit: Sorry, linky: https://www.gov.uk/paye-forms-p45-p60-p11d/p45
Listen to "Home", and just experience how beautifully he weaves in Nimrod in there.
Tear down my cheek.
A more practical issue is whether she left the company on good terms and, if so, whether she might need a reference from them in the future. If so, there is an argument for paying to maintain the goodwill.
GE 2017 is the election that most of us PBers will want to forget I suspect. I got on NOM at 9/1 in a small way when I started to get a feeling all was not well after the Dementia Tax fiasco. I also started to hear anecdotes of people voting Labour because "it wont matter and we need to stop a Tory landslide".
It was a bit of hedge and saved me from a total wipe out on just about everything except a couple of LibDem seats.
Bleak night.
***
Did anyone here make a decent profit? I know @MikeSmithson did well with a sell of Tory seats on the spreads at c.390. I ended the night £700 down, saved from a four figure loss by @GeoffM's Scottish Tory seats tip. The problem for me was that the exit poll was almost identical to 2015 and I stayed on the majority rather than hedging. By the time NOM looked on I was out of cash to cover the losses.
I had £500 on NOM at 9/1 - another £750 on constituency markets lost £500 - my wife banned me from the SPIN markets !
The Black Swan is illuminating. He suggests positive returns for speculators come in a few huge events in a 50 or 100 year period. Investors are best off putting 90% into cash.
I think the only way to stay positive is to spread bets widely and hedge, hedge, hedge.
I believed the disastrous tip
'Tory majority @ 1.2 = free money'.
so my net profit was only ~15% = poor given the risks.
IMO constituency bets are more often 'nearly free money'. I'll go back to mostly those whenever that nice Mrs May cares to call another GE.
Also, if it's mandated in F1, why not in the lesser single seat formulae?
Really?? Can we just kill that myth please...
2008 rate = 28%; CT take = 3.28% of GDP
2016 rate = 20%; CT take = 2.36% of GDP
With a lower rate companies have more money to invest, pay staff etc. This would not be reflected in corporation tax takes.
http://www.ukpublicrevenue.co.uk/downloadsrs_ukgr.php?codes=CN445&units=p&group=&fy=2017
Here's an IFS study on the matter. Looks like the UK is bringing in as much as a fraction of national income as it did in 2002/3 when the rate was 30%.
https://www.ifs.org.uk/publications/9207
The Black Swan is illuminating. He suggests positive returns for speculators come in a few huge events in a 50 or 100 year period. Investors are best off putting 90% into cash.
I think the only way to stay positive is to spread bets widely and hedge, hedge, hedge.
I believed the disastrous tip
'Tory majority @ 1.2 = free money'.
so my net profit was only ~15% = poor given the risks.
IMO constituency bets are more often 'nearly free money'. I'll go back to mostly those whenever that nice Mrs May cares to call another GE.
Labour in Wales left me up