politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The CON race: A new poll, a May campaign denial and more fr

Jobabob said:

MaxPB said:

Jobabob said:

PrinceofTaranto said:

May needs to come clean on her health issues or apologise to the families of our fallen for her disrespect in nodding off during Cameron's statement.Either way she is clearly unfit to be PM.

That's a pretty low comment.

Driven by the same ideological purity as those who harass Labour women MPs that oppose Corbyn. The similarities between Leadsom and Corbyn are becoming more and more difficult to ignore.

Indeed. Two sides of the same coin.

No one is defined by those who post about them on the internet.

rcs1000 said:

DaemonBarber said:

SquareRoot said:

Pauly said:

Can we have a ban on Crabb jokes involving the word sideways or the STD?

there was an vaguely innocent time when STD meant subscriber trunk dialling.

And strictly speaking, crabs are not an STD either.

Is that what you told your wife?

That's what she told me anyway...

old_labour said:

PlatoSaid said:

GIN1138 said:

I think these extraordinary past couple of weeks are kind of like the final "death throes" of the whole Blair era.

Brexit and Chilcot, painful and jarring as they are, will allow us to finally move on from the 1994-2016 era.

Hopefully, from the ruins, will emerge a new, vibrant, kinder (and hopefully far less cynical) politics.

He's still talking - I've watched Jeremy Kyle, read several Times articles, caught up with PB, fed the cat...

Pah, I've developed a six pack while he was wittering on.

Enveloped a six pack is probably nearer the truth. It also has the benefit of relieving the tedium.

Tennis update on earlier tip: Raonic beats QUERREY 3-1 in sets. First 2 sets from Raonic were exemplarary.

Mr. Manson, I regret not backing that. AH well, these things happen.

F1: Sauber pull out of an in-season test at Silverstone to save cash:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/36725692

Not a good look for a team, but better than running completely out of money.

SeanT said:

Another property fund suspended.

http://www.cityam.com/244894/henderson-becomes-fourth-firm-close-commercial-property

Hmpf.

I wouldn't expect any open-ended property fund to do anything but close the doors. There's about £35billion in the sector iirc.

@jilltreanor: Henderson "temporarily suspended" all trading in its £3.9bn property fund "to safeguard the interests of all investors". That's the fourth

Federer/Cilic 2 sets all

Federer wins the fourth set - goes to the decider in the fifth!

(Brilliant tie-break: Federer won a challenge to Hawkeye by a blade of grass! Cilic double-faulted)

SeanT said:

Another property fund suspended.

http://www.cityam.com/244894/henderson-becomes-fourth-firm-close-commercial-property

Hmpf.

It's a stupid business model, they want people to invest in an illiquid asset while saying they can provide liquid funds for people who want out. Hopefully these funds all close.

Pulpstar said:

Jobabob said:

SeanT said:

I'm hearing that Blair has been going on so long, Charlie Falconer has resigned in protest.

The straw that broke the camel's back Sean.

Tear up your next Labour leader betslips,

Simba has confirmed he will run for leadership of the Labour party. He didn't vote for the Iraq war and reckons his chances are "better than 50-50" against Eagle.

I suspect once people have found the relevant sections and look into what funds were allocated and what equipment was NOT provided for (especially around the areas of IED's and the lightweight transport) he might start to feel some heat himself

Scott_P said:

@jilltreanor: Henderson "temporarily suspended" all trading in its £3.9bn property fund "to safeguard the interests of all investors". That's the fourth

Anyone owning investment property directly will be likely to get it on the market now to beat the rush to the exits. In an illiquid market it's best to panic first.

RochdalePioneers said:

Sean_F said:

SeanT said:

Jobabob said:

Chuka lived the high life, so what? Everyone knows that anyway. He was a DJ in Manchester in the nineties for crying out loud. I can't understand why anyone should give a hen's toss what he does in his private life. I suspect he is over-worrying about this.

Depends if what he did was legal.

Perhaps it involved goats?

Can't be worse than pigs. And other substances? Isn't there a certain very senior member of the front bench whose eyes are regularly glazed and pointing in different directions?

???

williamglenn said:

Scott_P said:

@jilltreanor: Henderson "temporarily suspended" all trading in its £3.9bn property fund "to safeguard the interests of all investors". That's the fourth

Anyone owning investment property directly will be likely to get it on the market now to beat the rush to the exits. In an illiquid market it's best to panic first.

All those funds have a cash/liquid buffer to handle day-to-day churn. However, they have a fiduciary duty not to let outflows force a fire-sale of their assets. They're a terrible product for anyone who doesn't have an appetite for the long-term.

Alistair said:

I get that Djokavic is probably a better player than Federer if comparing like-for-like but this kind of stuff is why I consider Federer the best tennis player I have ever seen,

Best match of Wimbledon so far, for me.

Alistair said:

I get that Djokavic is probably a better player than Federer if comparing like-for-like but this kind of stuff is why I consider Federer the best tennis player I have ever seen,

Fred Perry was rather good.

Will Hill offering some very attractively priced money here:

@sharpeangle: Will George Osborne be Chancellor on January 1, 2017? 4/7 No; 5/4 Yes. #OsborneMustGo

GIN1138 said:

David_Evershed said:

May born 1956, seven years before Leadsom.

Is sixty too old to be PM nowadays?

No. 60 is the new 50. Actually I would say around 55-65 is the idea age for someone to be PM as they have lot's of life experience but are still young enough to be physically up to the job.

After the two fortysomething PMs we've had in the recent past, someone of 60 is probably a better fit for a tough next few years. Someone bringing a couple of decades' experience on the front benches is what we need now, rather than another Young Turk.

surbiton said:

TheWhiteRabbit said:

surbiton said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Good afternoon, everyone.

Saw some of Blair's statement today, and agree he's a fantastic actor. Shame he's a wretched politician.

And a war criminal. The son of a bitch.

There is no basis for calling Blair a war criminal, though. Unless we are using those words in a sense completely divorced from their meaning under international law.

Stop being an apologist.

I think you have to like someone to be an apologist, no?

TheWhiteRabbit said:

surbiton said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Good afternoon, everyone.

Saw some of Blair's statement today, and agree he's a fantastic actor. Shame he's a wretched politician.

And a war criminal. The son of a bitch.

There is no basis for calling Blair a war criminal, though. Unless we are using those words in a sense completely divorced from their meaning under international law.

It's being used in the context of "we don't like him and don't like what he did". Was Saddam Hussein a war criminal? Yes. Blair, no. That's as good as it gets for him and his inner council though.

JackW said:

Alistair said:

I get that Djokavic is probably a better player than Federer if comparing like-for-like but this kind of stuff is why I consider Federer the best tennis player I have ever seen,

Fred Perry was rather good.

Only those aged 104 and over like JackW have the benefit of seeing Fred Perry play.

Tissue_Price said:

Will Hill offering some very attractively priced money here:

@sharpeangle: Will George Osborne be Chancellor on January 1, 2017? 4/7 No; 5/4 Yes. #OsborneMustGo

WHERE :O ?

Can't find it

SeanT said:

Ishmael_X said:

SeanT said:

Another property fund suspended.

http://www.cityam.com/244894/henderson-becomes-fourth-firm-close-commercial-property

Hmpf.

February saw the biggest outflows from these funds since 2008, so this has been largely baked in since then.

The fall in £ may be the one thing that saves London property. It's going to look extremely attractive to speculators, at some point, as sterling slides

If you think the £ will recover - and I wouldn't be surprised, once May is installed and starts to take charge - then you go for a liquid asset, not property. Particularly if there is selling pressure if people relocate away from Uk/London and BTLs start to exit the market.

Sandpit said:

That doesn't sound like a particularly sensible business model, as it magnifies small changes in a particular sector. Great when the price is rising, but hideous on the way down. As you say, we need fewer of this sort of financial product around.

No, that's not right. Max is being over-dogmatic. As long as investors understand what the products are - and they damned well should do - they are a useful component as a small part (usually no more than 5% is recommended) of a long-term portfolio.

David_Evershed said:

May born 1956, seven years before Leadsom.

Is sixty too old to be PM nowadays?

Just 3 years younger than Blair who became PM 19 years ago.

Richard_Nabavi said:

SeanT said:

The fall in £ may be the one thing that saves London property. It's going to look extremely attractive to speculators, at some point, as sterling slides

These funds are in commercial property, though. Very sensitive to the UK domestic economy.

Which will also be open to foreign investment with a falling £. It's cheap now to invest in Britain then ride out the uncertainty.

Pulpstar said:

Tissue_Price said:

Will Hill offering some very attractively priced money here:

@sharpeangle: Will George Osborne be Chancellor on January 1, 2017? 4/7 No; 5/4 Yes. #OsborneMustGo

WHERE :O ?

Can't find it

Just saw it on Twitter. Keep refreshing or ring in I guess.

Sandpit said:

GIN1138 said:

David_Evershed said:

May born 1956, seven years before Leadsom.

Is sixty too old to be PM nowadays?

No. 60 is the new 50. Actually I would say around 55-65 is the idea age for someone to be PM as they have lot's of life experience but are still young enough to be physically up to the job.

After the two fortysomething PMs we've had in the recent past, someone of 60 is probably a better fit for a tough next few years. Someone bringing a couple of decades' experience on the front benches is what we need now, rather than another Young Turk.

Seems to me the next few years are going to be so tough politically that it's quite likely another leader may be needed to take the Conservatives into the 2020 GE.

IanB2 said:

RepublicanTory said:

MaxPB said:

SeanT said:

Another property fund suspended.

http://www.cityam.com/244894/henderson-becomes-fourth-firm-close-commercial-property

Hmpf.

It's a stupid business model, they want people to invest in an illiquid asset while saying they can provide liquid funds for people who want out. Hopefully these funds all close.

EXCELLENT comment

First sensible comment on the subject that I have heard in the past few days. The average business correspondent seems to know the square roof of FA

(disclosure -i work in the property sector)

All true, but the fact remains that they have been hit by an unexpectedly large number of sellers. Which must tell us something, if just the human capacity for panic in the face of uncertainty. And why just property funds being sold?

As you say, panic. Some investors don't pay enough attention to the composition of their portfolios.

There might be lots of selling going on elsewhere, it's just not reported until you get these kind of events, which attract the attention of even the doziest financial journalist.

Sandpit said:

GIN1138 said:

David_Evershed said:

May born 1956, seven years before Leadsom.

Is sixty too old to be PM nowadays?

No. 60 is the new 50. Actually I would say around 55-65 is the idea age for someone to be PM as they have lot's of life experience but are still young enough to be physically up to the job.

After the two fortysomething PMs we've had in the recent past, someone of 60 is probably a better fit for a tough next few years. Someone bringing a couple of decades' experience on the front benches is what we need now, rather than another Young Turk.

In general I would add that someone of 60 is more likely to have the wisdom and confidence to be able to delegate effectively. Although with May that isn't entirely clear.

surbiton said:

GIN1138 said:

David_Evershed said:

May born 1956, seven years before Leadsom.

Is sixty too old to be PM nowadays?

No. 60 is the new 50. Actually I would say around 55-65 is the idea age for someone to be PM as they have lot's of life experience but are still young enough to be physically up to the job.

In May's case, given she's a Diabetic, there has to be a question mark as to how well she's able to do the job long term, though I think her Diabetes is very well controlled (you never hear stories about her having to go to hospital, etc.)

I am a diabetic and I consider myself reasonably healthy. My father was a diabetic and he died at the age of 90. It is how you look after yourself that matters.

This is true. Control of the condition and taking care of yourself are key.

Sandpit said:

MaxPB said:

SeanT said:

Another property fund suspended.

http://www.cityam.com/244894/henderson-becomes-fourth-firm-close-commercial-property

Hmpf.

It's a stupid business model, they want people to invest in an illiquid asset while saying they can provide liquid funds for people who want out. Hopefully these funds all close.

That doesn't sound like a particularly sensible business model, as it amplifies or even perpetuates small changes in a particular sector. Great when the price is rising, but hideous on the way down. As you say, we need fewer of this sort of financial product around.

The risk factors to investment clearly state that they are illiquid and that have concentration risks not covered by their risk weighting. The risk warning I have a in a document on my desk clearly and obviously states that "withdrawals....may be deferred for up to 6 months".

They provide a crucial part of funding CRE in the UK. Without them there would be far less recycling of development funds and far less development. As ever, its easy to say "close them down" without thinking about the consequences.

RepublicanTory said:

williamglenn said:

Scott_P said:

@jilltreanor: Henderson "temporarily suspended" all trading in its £3.9bn property fund "to safeguard the interests of all investors". That's the fourth

Anyone owning investment property directly will be likely to get it on the market now to beat the rush to the exits. In an illiquid market it's best to panic first.

If it is an investment property you should be looking to hold it for the Long term. in which case now is definitely NOT the time to sell.

It depends on your view of the long term effects of Brexit. If UK property is facing a decade-long downturn you'd need a lot of patience to want to wait it out.

Philip_Thompson said:

Which will also be open to foreign investment with a falling £. It's cheap now to invest in Britain then ride out the uncertainty.

Yes, but it's cheap for a reason: low business activity means rents fall, voids increase and tenants go bust. If you're an overseas investor it's a completely different market from buying a pad in Chelsea for your own family's use.

PlatoSaid said:

Moses_ said:

GIN1138 said:

I think these extraordinary past couple of weeks are kind of like the final "death throes" of the whole Blair era.

Brexit and Chilcot, painful and jarring as they are, will allow us to finally move on from the 1994-2016 era.

Hopefully, from the ruins, will emerge a new, vibrant, kinder (and hopefully far less cynical) politics.

Maybe

I remember all the labour supporters going on and on and on for years about the sinking of the Belgrano. Now this today makes that situation look utterly minuscule in comparison.

Some of the Teflon has come away from Tone this afternoon.

He's still talking on Sky... I've made/eaten a late lunch, changed a litter tray, watched another tv show...

I really don't want to hear any more excuses/self-justification/handwaving from him.

There's a simple solution. It's an off button.

Sandpit said:

If it's a genuine long term investment, rather than short term leveraged speculation, then it's obviously a legitimate product - but if they're investing in illiquid assets yet allowing instant withdrawals, they're setting themselves up for a big hit when the asset prices start to fall.

In fact, they don't even need to start actually falling, just a feeling that they might fall in the near future could be enough to trigger an exodus.

Yes, but that is made clear in the prospectus and any even remotely competent financial adviser will warn you of that. No-one should be putting money in a property fund which they might need to get out quickly. That doesn't mean the funds don't have a place.

IanB2 said:

RepublicanTory said:

MaxPB said:

SeanT said:

Another property fund suspended.

http://www.cityam.com/244894/henderson-becomes-fourth-firm-close-commercial-property

Hmpf.

It's a stupid business model, they want people to invest in an illiquid asset while saying they can provide liquid funds for people who want out. Hopefully these funds all close.

EXCELLENT comment

First sensible comment on the subject that I have heard in the past few days. The average business correspondent seems to know the square roof of FA

(disclosure -i work in the property sector)

All true, but the fact remains that they have been hit by an unexpectedly large number of sellers. Which must tell us something, if just the human capacity for panic in the face of uncertainty. And why just property funds being sold?

As posted earlier by someone else-outflows have been high for a while for some funds.
Even if we had voted Remain many people felt the commercial London market was very much at or around a cyclical high.

I am afraid everything in the thread header will gain Leadsom votes with Conservative members - many of them, even if only on the quiet, will strongly endorse her views.

Conservative MPs have to go into this with their eyes wide open - if Leadsom is on the ballot she has a very good chance of winning.

30 or 40 May supporters should vote Gove and they should do so quite openly. They should say that MPs responsibility is to put forward a shortlist of two candidates - both of whom they believe are suitable to be leader and PM.

If they believe Gove is more suitable than Leadsom then they must put Gove on the shortlist of two candidates - even if their number 1 choice is May.

MikeL said:

I am afraid everything in the thread header will gain Leadsom votes with Conservative members - many of them, even if only on the quiet, will strongly endorse her views.

Conservative MPs have to go into this with their eyes wide open - if Leadsom is on the ballot she has a very good chance of winning.

30 or 40 May supporters should vote Gove and they should do so quite openly. They should say that MPs responsibility is to put forward a shortlist of two candidates - both of whom they believe are suitable to be leader and PM.

If they believe Gove is more suitable than Leadsom then they must put Gove on the shortlist of two candidates - even if their number 1 choice is May.

Gove is the least suitable of the three candidates.

I think that Conservative members would be well-advised to support May, on the ground that if Leadsom won, she would face relentless efforts to force her out from the word go.

Sandpit said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Sandpit said:

That doesn't sound like a particularly sensible business model, as it magnifies small changes in a particular sector. Great when the price is rising, but hideous on the way down. As you say, we need fewer of this sort of financial product around.

No, that's not right. Max is being over-dogmatic. As long as investors understand what the products are - and they damned well should do - they are a useful component as a small part (usually no more than 5% is recommended) of a long-term portfolio.

If it's a genuine long term investment, rather than short term leveraged speculation, then it's obviously a legitimate product - but if they're investing in illiquid assets yet allowing instant withdrawals, they're setting themselves up for a big hit when the asset prices start to fall.

In fact, they don't even need to start actually falling, just a feeling that they might fall in the near future could be enough to trigger an exodus.

The whole point of property investment is that you ride out short-term downturns for long-term gain.

If you look at equity falls, they are far steeper in continental Europe than the UK or the US (dow nearly neutral now ).

The big problem is Italy's banks - apparently they are getting close to total meltdown because of Brexit, though I'm not sure why.

williamglenn said:

RepublicanTory said:

williamglenn said:

Scott_P said:

@jilltreanor: Henderson "temporarily suspended" all trading in its £3.9bn property fund "to safeguard the interests of all investors". That's the fourth

Anyone owning investment property directly will be likely to get it on the market now to beat the rush to the exits. In an illiquid market it's best to panic first.

If it is an investment property you should be looking to hold it for the Long term. in which case now is definitely NOT the time to sell.

It depends on your view of the long term effects of Brexit. If UK property is facing a decade-long downturn you'd need a lot of patience to want to wait it out.

Fair point but if you believe that Uk is headed for a decade long down turn as a result of Brexit then you should have offloaded your investment before the vote as clearly the risk/reward profile would not have been good enough bearing in mind how close the vote was going to be.

foxinsoxuk said:

MikeL said:

I am afraid everything in the thread header will gain Leadsom votes with Conservative members - many of them, even if only on the quiet, will strongly endorse her views.

Conservative MPs have to go into this with their eyes wide open - if Leadsom is on the ballot she has a very good chance of winning.

30 or 40 May supporters should vote Gove and they should do so quite openly. They should say that MPs responsibility is to put forward a shortlist of two candidates - both of whom they believe are suitable to be leader and PM.

If they believe Gove is more suitable than Leadsom then they must put Gove on the shortlist of two candidates - even if their number 1 choice is May.

Leadsom looks to be "socially conservative" enough to be able to pick up kipper votes.

What a dreadful thought — that the Conservative Party might actually be led by someone with socially conservative views.

Richard_Nabavi said:

Sandpit said:

If it's a genuine long term investment, rather than short term leveraged speculation, then it's obviously a legitimate product - but if they're investing in illiquid assets yet allowing instant withdrawals, they're setting themselves up for a big hit when the asset prices start to fall.

In fact, they don't even need to start actually falling, just a feeling that they might fall in the near future could be enough to trigger an exodus.

Yes, but that is made clear in the prospectus and any even remotely competent financial adviser will warn you of that. No-one should be putting money in a property fund which they might need to get out quickly. That doesn't mean the funds don't have a place.

I'm on the phone to Will Hills trying to sell Osbornes !

I accept that my property investments (Debt not equity) related are probably going to be somewhat stodgy for the forseeable future, though https://savingstream.co.uk?a=11425248 better to be in the resi/debt side over the commercial/equity right now I think...

MarqueeMark said:

Masterful performance by Federer to come back to win in 5 sets.

His Wimbledon title to lose, I reckon.

Richard_Nabavi said:

Sandpit said:

If it's a genuine long term investment, rather than short term leveraged speculation, then it's obviously a legitimate product - but if they're investing in illiquid assets yet allowing instant withdrawals, they're setting themselves up for a big hit when the asset prices start to fall.

In fact, they don't even need to start actually falling, just a feeling that they might fall in the near future could be enough to trigger an exodus.

Yes, but that is made clear in the prospectus and any even remotely competent financial adviser will warn you of that. No-one should be putting money in a property fund which they might need to get out quickly. That doesn't mean the funds don't have a place.

Yes, that makes sense, providing they're sold properly and the risks pointed out before committing.

I have memories of the Dubai property market in '05-'08, where residential off-plan prices were rising 10% a quarter and banks were lending with a 10% deposit. People were borrowing money from anywhere to invest, double your money every three months! Of course by September '08 they were at unsustainable London or NY prices and corrected in some cases 50% down from the peak. A lot of people had got very greedy, ending up holding expensive unfinished or delayed apartments when the financial music stopped playing.

Of course, eight years later the absolute prices are now higher than the previous 2008 peak, so anyone who could afford to stay in has done okay and most have still done well. Property is a good long term investment, provided you never have to sell it in a hurry.

Regulations here are much tighter here now, in terms of loan to value lending criteria, use of escrow for off-plan developments, regulation on estate agents and stamp duty increases.