Defaults running at a low, interest rates to stay low, tight credit criteria in place for borrowers, half and increasing number on fixed interest rates, unemployment at a record high. I'd put any money on there being no material levels of defaults in the foreseeable.
These four US lenders set tone for Lloyds Bank results.
Your rambling about cap has no bearing on the point we were talking about either... the question of farm subsidies is a completely separate point as I explained before. That applies as a question with any brexit. The UK government promises to match those subsidies for seven years come what may. And yes the biggest landowners get paid the biggest subsidy as they always will. Guess why.
The issue in this case though is NOT subsidies. It is farmers and fishermen facing difficulties in exporting their goods, and in importing goods for reprocessing in a NO DEAL situation. Tariffs and non tariff barriers.
I explained this.. I filter some the minute they start posting nothing by way of valid arguments nothing sensible just insults. It happens too often here. I take that after they have calmed down others are filtered full time.
LTI farmers and fishermen can point to the explicit reasons no deal would be a problem. It is axiomatic - self evident - without the possibility of controversion. How many times have you heard someone offering a £6 billion cushion to people who had no case. I hope that is a biodegradable straw you are clutching at.
"Hunt is in no position to promise anything and he knows it". Indeed not but that is not the point - the point is he said it because of the alarm being raised by farmers and fisheries.
You are right about the share price rising again. As I said it was largely a blip - a reaction to the fall of the pound.
LTI different things.
That article is talking about replacing EU based subsidies with UK based subsidies and a transition to focus on environmental good (in theory). That will be necessary whether there is a no deal or not. Hunt is talking about a "boost" for a no deal for farmers and fishermen to get over the problems of a no deal. Farmers are not known for being so easily tricked. That said these figures often get mashed up and changed once the promise has had an effect. What is clear is Hunt has responded to the alarm farmers have raised over no deal.
What is extraordinary that these wages figures have not boosted the pound - the reason ids very obvious and widely agreed,
boomerbower you are talking nonsense based on delusions. I shouldn't have to point out I said no such things about currency rates, and I have not insulted anyone, not even you, even though you roundly deserve it. I filter you when your posts degenerate into the worst of your nonsense and insults as they always do, simply so I don't have to waste time reading it and it discourages you from trolling the board. Here you go - by by.
You never seem to keep up boomerbower. The subject was what affected the Lloyds share price- however little that was- and then what affected the pound. You chose to enter a hapless ramble on other things.
Since you have done this , wages are not up because of Brexit plans boosting the economy if that is what you think. Wage increases are not being caused by our economy suddenly becoming stronger. Our growth and jobs creation are teetering around 0, with negative PMI figures due to low investment due in turn to Brexit uncertainty.
The ONS who produce the figures said wages were boosted by "pay increases for some NHS staff and the introduction of the new National Living Wage rate, which is now 4.9% higher than the 2018 rate". Others mention the fact people are going to less secure self employment. Our country has a strong underlying economy - it's a shame to see it being threatened by foolish ideologies - Brexit on one hand and Corbyn on the other.
Attempts to identify the cause of the blip in Lloyds share price this morning limited by pet theories and the improbable here. Jefferries reiterated its buy rating on Monday for Lloyds. JP Morgan changed its rating to neutral with a target price of 70p today, so that would not affect Lloyds. So that's hardly likely to be the cause.
Monetary policy, and Europe's growth and QE prospects have not changed since yesterday so that's not it either. In fact QE or interest rate falls there tend to lift stocks, and of course the pound which is good for Lloyds.
No the fall relates to damage to the pound .. tske a look at the GBP EUR chart. What xaused that ? Very simple very obvious. The prospect of a madcap Brexit and the Tory leaderships fantasy plans for digging up a golden unicorn the day after one ilof them takes office. Some here welcome Brexit making us poorer for some weird reason though. Take a look at the GBP EUR chart. The good news for Lloyds is Johnson and Hunt's plans are fantasies and they know it. That will very soon become clear. The pound will get some support then and pick up.
And no I'm not a socialist. You clearly don't understand what it is. Few are who worked in retail, then banking for most of their career then set up their own business sre socialists.
You're filtered for a day or two, I don't want to listen to you sobbing. Instead, try some research, start by reading and understanding posts, yours and other peoples.
Boomerbower is smarter than the world scientific community, world airline regulators, world trade experts and every government in the world. So he tells us. He proves it by descending into rants and abuse the second anyone questions his ideas. A sure sign of a genius.
"You are clearly a socialist as you argue for more state interference in all things"
The words of a numpty who
A. claims to know about banking IT but doesn't think there was a year 2000 problem for banks. Lloyds alone will have expended hundreds, possibly 1000 years of total staff work years in correcting the issues.
B. Just finished arguing the credit crunch was caused by too little regulation.
C. Was arguing plane builders should be self regulated because "they would alwsys do it properly and be safe" ... at the same time Boeing "self regulating" had just led to two airplane disasters with the Airmax 737. Boeing then said it fixed the faults and was ready to fly again. The real regulators said no. What happened next ? Boeing found another fault. Result of boomerbowers theory of regulation ? Two plane disasters and loss of billions to the industry. They miggt get glying again in 2020.
It is very hard to imagine someone so consistently wrong as you and so intent on proving it. The list of incorrect theories you bang on about goes on and on.
Fitch drops Turkey's credit rating further because of Erdogan's sacking of Cetinkaya, head of the central bank. Fitch stress the importance of an independent bank in maintaining stability. Turkey take delivery of Russian missile system. Chances of EU accession fade even further. They've been wondering about it for 30 years but so far managed to meet one of the EU's 30 picy area requirements.
You have not been paying attention. Firstly as I have often told you, I am not a socialist, and nothing I have said suggests it. Other than that nothing you said is at odds with anything I said nor does it have any bearing on what I said. That doesn't mean I agree with what you said. Poor regulation failed to prevent and check bad actions being taken, but that didn't cause the problems. They issues were diverse and caused primarily by people working at the head of commercial banks not central banks. Given the quality of your 1st email, that's the end of my interest in the conversation.
The statement I was commenting on was ".... Bankers. The world would be a much better place without them."
That's a bit different to saying you think some banks should cut some staff, which I would probably agree with. The bank workers who do bother me are those, the handful who caused the financial crisis by their diverse actions and then walked away with pockets loaded. The world has not recovered from their economic damage and its effects have gone way beyond just money into impact on politics.
Banks may or may not make too much profit. Most people complain of the opposite here and profits for some are thin on the ground. Top bankers certainly make too much money in my view, but then again so do people at the top of energy companies and social media giants.
That's not the point though, your suggestions is we should get rid of bankers and banks, neither of which can survive without the other. The vast majority of bank staff provide infrastructure and capabilities as essential as water, power etc. Without banks and bank staff functioning society would collapse inside weeks. It's why banks are included in national critical infrastructiure.