Member Info for Guitarsolo

TFE: You say "the government gives a lift up of this magnitude, to everyone well over £100 billion he's still moaning"..... do you think it is free money? Do you think it doesn't have to be repaid? Do you think that future mini-budgets won't have to adjust and tax us more to make up for this uncosted splurge? Do you think the markets haven't priced in another early rate rise (hence rise in sterling)? Do you think the markets haven't seen long term UK decline (hence long guilts are enourmously high)? Do you think the people haven't seen the Tories reward the wealthy, and hit the poor? Do you think the people haven't seen the Tories make millionaires richer and then say they'll cut benefits? Do you think the people haven't seen that Kwarteng met with Odey just days before his mini-budget and Odey short the pound and make £10s if no £100s of millions? Do you think we don't remember Kwarteng worked for Odey?

Some of us do. Some of us do.

TFE: You seem to think that because I do well out of the mini-budget I should approve of it. You may think selfishly, but I am far more alturistic than that. I am far better off because of the mini-budget, but I shouldn't be. There are far more deserving people than me who will need help with the cost of living crisis.
The reason that it has destroyed lifestyles, is because it will need to be paid back. This is not a budget giveaway based on the Treasury having an unexpected surplus to share out. This is an uncosted, unfunded giveway (mostly to the already rich) that will add huge amounts to an already huge debt pile. The entirely predicted spike in interest rates and government borrowing rates will add even more to the annual interest bill that was over £80bn before this mess. We will be spending three times on interest what we spend to educate people. So in my books, fiscal prudence is not having an unfunded splurge now, but making sure we're still solvent tomorrow, next week, next year. So much for Tories being fiscally prudent!
And as for the events of this week being histerical, from my office in the City and the meeting I had with a BoE friend on Wednesday morning on Threadneedle Street, I can tell you first hand that I haven't seen this since Lehmans. As an American put it to me afterwards, the UK is about the same as Argentina now. Which is funny, because I've got a call later with their Central Bank. Should be interesting.

TFE: “How is the mini-budget destroying people’s lifestyles?”
You list a whole load of immediate tax reductions, which are nice aren’t they? Except you don’t explain that these need to be paid for. Even before the Kwarteng fiscal event the UK ran a large deficit on top of a large debt. The mini-budget ramped up the deficit to extraordinary levels.
So how did it destroy people’s lifestyles? BECAUSE IT NEEDS TO BE PAID BACK.
The Tories used to claim to be the party of fiscal competence with Labour the spendthrifts living on the never never.
That situation has completely reversed.
The view from the City after Wednesday was that this government’s credibility is entirely gone.

Safe as a house built on.......UK government gilts.
Put simply, there should be no more dependable asset than a government gilt, especially one issued by a G7 country. That is the most remarkable thing from this week and shows the shocking ineptitude of this new government/ chancellor.
I was on Threadneedle Street on Wednesday morning with a friend who works at the BoE who was called back to the office. I could hear the expletives coming from his phone. I haven't seen the City like that since 2008 and we were incredibly close to a Lehmans moment.
But unlike Lehmans, where the underlying asset was leveraged US housing stock and bank paper, this was UK government gilts.
Now you can argue about the merits of margin trading on gilts, but if there is ever an asset where you should be able to rely on its value, it has to be government debt. The fact we had margin calls on it is beyond shocking. The Truss/Kwarteng credibility is toast and whilst they remain in office, this thing is not over (imo). All eyes now on the OBR.

SD, you say I "would want to enforce my views on the majority.".....How is that the case? I'm saying put it to a vote.

The majority didn't want it before (28% voted against AV, ableit more than voted for it).

If you want to observe the views of the majority, how can you support FPTP? It absolutely gives a minority of voters a majority in parliament!

You say "we had a vote about that before" so there shouldn't be one again..... and yet you support Brexit that overturned a previous decision to join.....so you are in favour of a change of mind when it suits you.

You seem rather confused!

Guitarsolo

There WAS a vote, and AV was rejected.
If enough parties put PR in their manifesto (for a referendum) and win, there should be one.
How do you see that as "anti-democratic"? It's the complete opposite.
You seem to think that once there has been a vote on something it should forever remain the same.

Poker/ SD,
Just to be accurate, it was the Labour government in 2010 that passed the Constitutional Reform Bill at the very end of their term of office, basically a bill for the Alternative Vote. They did so to try and restore trust after the 2009 expenses scandal (which affected all politicial parties). However, Labour knew that there was no time to get the legislation passed before the end of their term so it was most likely a bit of political manouvering. The Lib Dems tried to table a motion for a quick passing, but it was defeated by Labour/Conservatives.
Thereafter, Labour included a committment in its 2010 manifesto to introduce the Alternative Vote if it was voted for in a referendum. However, Labour lost that election and we ended up with the Tory/Lib Dem coalition. The latter insisted on a referendum in May 2011. But the Tories adjoined it to local elections which typically have very low turn outs. Indeed, the turnout was only 42% as the Lib Dems didn't get any energy going in their campaign. Of the 42% who voted, 68% voted against AV (so 28.5% of the voting population).
Fast forward to 2022, and we have had years of government choices against the wishes of the majority:
2015: Vote for Cameron, you got May.
2017: Vote for May, you got Johnson.
2019: Vote for Johnson, you got Truss.
And they were the 40% odd that got the government of their choice!
Clearly the electoral system is bust and needs to be updated. So it makes sense for Labour (and the Lib Dems, Greens, even UKIP) to support proportional representation. There are many different options out there. So if it is in a few parties' manifestos, and they win, there can be a referendum about which model to choose. What we need above all else is some truth and integrity back.
Guitarsolo.

MV, they are fighting over religion, not cricket.
You said "people from the south continent are fighting on one of OUR cities" (emphasis added).
Most of those fighting were born here. They are British whether you like it or not. Therefore, it is THEIR city.
We can all see what your motivation is here, as it is expressed in most of your posts.

Disingenuous use of dates there Gate.
On the day before the Brexit referendum it was £1 = Eur 1.3091
It's now £1 = Eur 1.139
So that's a 13% fall.....against a currency that is far from strong in the first place.
You were at least correct about the dollar, it is incredibly strong now against practically all currencies.

MV: "This tells us a couple of things, firstly we have been lied to at every turn....."

The difference is whether we chose to believe the lies MV. You did, I didn't.

Oh, and the problems in Leicester are with British people. The colour of their skin or their family heritage is irrelavant.

Skill58, do you mean how do I think the 5-yearly NAV buy back would work, or how else would I reduce the discount?

If the former (and I am not very educated about this technique) Staude's plan would be to offer investors a chance once every 5 years to surrender some of their shares and receive the NAV for them (less costs). There would have to be T&Cs attached (e.g. ownership for X period, max % of shares that can be surrendered etc). In theory, this would allow investors to cash in some of their shares for around the NAV which, by definition if there is a discount to NAV, would be above the current share price. I presume those shares then need to be cancelled. By doing this, the share price should rise as we approach the exit date because if you "know" you can sell your shares for 100p on 1st November then the price will rise towards that. That's why many people say this approach forces the discount to NAV to close. My concern is that forcing a share price to do something is unnatural on the stock market! Why wouldn't all investment trusts, REITs, even equities want to do that?

If your question is how "else" would I close the discount? I don't know! Many investment trusts out there are operating at massive discounts, it is just part of the game. Part of investing is spotting when you think you're able to buy something for less than it is really worth. Alternatively, a progressive dividend would close the gap - but I don't think VSL is in a position to do that and has never indicated it would.

Guitarsolo

RXD, you make a fair point (although your bedside manner needs work!). I think most private investors who take this seriously to any degree also use other platforms such as ADVFN (previously iii as well). You learn which boards are better for particular stocks and post accordingly. Some posters will cover both boards, which is helpful. However, that is time consuming so I would understand if some didn't do it.
For the benefit of those who are only on LSE, the major issue at the moment is Staude's open letter about a proposal for a 5-yearly exit at NAV. It's an interesting idea, and designed to force the discount to the NAV to close in my opinion.
Guitarsolo

Thanks Rivaldo,
I am hoping that the year end results will be the usual under-promise/ over-deliver. Not sure where earnings will be (high 50s?), but hopefully debt with be low or completely paid off and they'll be in position to follow the pattern of adding an earnings accretive bolt-on soon enough.
I am a bit surprised by the relative share price weakness (below 750p). Is this a reflection of concerns over the government's ability to fund some of the infrastructure spend given the very high levels of debt?
Guitar

Gate, you said it was rubbish that Conservative/UKIP voters caused Brexit. I showed you that the parties with a majority of Brexit voters were the Conservatives and UKIP.
You said the greens don't count, because a % of nothing is still nothing. True, but I also gave you the UKIP figures, so I was being even handed.
Yes, some of Labour's supporters in the north supported Brexit. But the majority of Brexit voters are Tory supporters. Therefore this is a Tory mess.
You're so lazy, you resort to the typical trope that Remainers hate their country and should go and live somewhere else. It's the complete opposite. Remainers hate what you have done to this country!
But unless Truss makes a huge success of Brexit in the next two years (not looking likely given you can't show any benefits) then I expect the British public will do the sensible thing at the next election.
Now, I haven't got all day to argue with you old, retired men.
GS.

Brixton, VAT disproportionately affects the poorer and middle classes who spend a greater % of their income. So it is unfair. There are many fairer options.

Rubbish you say Gate:

% of Brexit votes by party:
UKIP: 96%
Conservatives: 58%
Labour: 37%
SNP: 34%
Lib Dems: 30%
Greens: 25%

Of course, the support for Brexit is nothing to do with Conservatives (and UKIP).....nothing at all! Own you own mess.

My preferred candidate is a superb independent. Pretty centrist I would say, which matches me quite closely.

I live in a part of the world where you could pin a blue rosette on a turd and it used to win. But the tide is turning and I am now so motivated (in part by people live MV, LTI etc - well done old boys) that I will swing whatever resources I have behind that candidate.

There you go again MV, thinking you have the right to tell me to go and live somewhere else.

The supporters of Conservatives/ UKIP are the reason we have Brexit. You have voted for them and their leaders. Therefore, you are responsible for them being in power. Pretty simple really.

No, and no.

I did once vote for Vince Cable when I lived in West London. But that was a long time ago.

Gate, no I am not.