Brexit and savers interest rates

[crankedup]

JagLover said:

crankedup said:

I am not suggesting BOE rates should rise to 3 or 4% that is your pure speculation and an almost impossible scenario at the present time.

Borrowers are becoming over indebted, I appreciate what the chart you posted argues this is not so, but it is three years out of date. My reading was indicating that banks are loosening the restrictions for mortgage applications a and borrowers are taking advantage of this.
.

More recent numbers do indeed show debt levels rising rapidly.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-35261373

as an example for household debt excluding mortgages

and as you say there is a big gap between 0.5% and 3-4%

What we should have seen is a co-ordinated rise in interest rates closer to more normal levels a few years back, combined with a fiscal stimulus and additional QE as required.

As an example the Eurozone has usually had a contractionary fiscal policy since the immediate aftermath of the crises. According to the FT in 15 of the 19 members fiscal policy is contractionary. This has left monetary policy to do all the work and has led us into this unheard of experiment in zero, or close to zero interest rates.

The problem with this has been that while we can all agree a cut in interest rates from 6% to 4% say stimulates the economy, the closer you get to zero the less effective it appears to be. That is why someone coined the phrase "pushing on a piece of string" to describe the use of interest rates alone to fight a severe recession when those rates get close to zero.

Edited by JagLover on Wednesday 25th May 17:57

Thanks for that, I was wondering if I had lost the plot completely earlier as I was sure that debt was a big problem again and a growing problem. Perhaps my comment regarding this growing debt will appear on stat's next year.
I really do need to start posting links regarding some of the stuff that I regurgitate in here, but then it's just who can find what suits the argument quickest to the draw. Thanks again.

[crankedup]

fblm said:

crankedup said:

I really do need to start posting links regarding some of the stuff that I regurgitate in here, but then it's just who can find what suits the argument quickest to the draw. Thanks again.

Seriously? You are suffering from a terminal case of confirmation bias!

"The figures... exclude mortgages."
"The average amount owed by households is now £11,800, the highest level yet.
However, debt was proportionately greater in 2008, when it reached more than 30% of household income."

I give up. If you only want replys to your posts that agree with your own assertions I'll leave you to Jaglover, you guys are going to make millions betting on what should have happened!

On going forward I have read nothing in here that would remotely assist in my decision making on any investments. Fair enough looking back at stats reveals history but are not indicators of a future.

Maybe I am the luckiest guy in the world as my personal investments have done me ok, apart from the early eighties when my business almost went bust!

I actually appreciate receiving replies to my posts that are Factually correct and interesting, I guess most posters would what I dislike is replies that exaggerate (your ridiculous comment regarding rates hitting 3 or 4% as if to prove your point).

[crankedup]

fblm said:

crankedup said:

...what I dislike is replies that exaggerate (your ridiculous comment regarding rates hitting 3 or 4% as if to prove your point).

Why don't you re read what I actually wrote? You seem hung up on this 3-4%. For the 3rd time I chose 3-4% as a level that would have been worthwhile to savers; any less yielding less than inflation over the period. I said that's what I was doing; I wasn't exaggerating, attributing any of that to you or implying anything. I can't be any clearer. In fact only yesterday I had an NSandI RPI index bond mature that worked out around £2500 or 3% give or take for the same period. You asked a question which I endevoured to answer honestly earlier in the thread. I'm sorry you didn't like the answer. Perhaps if you just want to read nonsense that you agree with, you should try the comments section of zerohedge or read positivemoney and moneyweek.

OK ! reread and TBH my thoughts were that you were being facitiuous with the 3 to 4% comment. My thoughts were that in view that I had mentioned returns of .25% some even less resulting in cash savers lo,sing money a lift to 1.5% would be very welcome. Clearly we were on different wave lengths. It's water under the bridge time to move on

[crankedup]

RYH64E said:

don4l said:

Up until last year the four accounts grew at an average rate of 17% p/a.

17% per annum? Really? You can achieve rates of return way beyond the wildest dreams of professional investors, in a few hours on a Saturday morning at that, yet waste your time working for a living?

Wish I had took more notice of the classic car market, returns astronomic last few years.

[crankedup]

Jockman said:

crankedup said:

RYH64E said:

don4l said:

Up until last year the four accounts grew at an average rate of 17% p/a.

17% per annum? Really? You can achieve rates of return way beyond the wildest dreams of professional investors, in a few hours on a Saturday morning at that, yet waste your time working for a living?

Wish I had took more notice of the classic car market, returns astronomic last few years.

Investing is soooooo easy with the benefit of hindsight.

You need to find an area that's underperforming at the moment and go with it - Oil? Emerging Markets? - or stick to a market you know, like Dignity

Indeed it is, was reading of Crispin Odey over the weekend. His followers have been dismayed with his star fund losing 20% whilst his fellow competitors have enjoyed rises. Even the best can get it wrong, so pleased I ignored the hype last year.

[crankedup]

'only' a paper loss until cashing in time is true. At least the chap puts his personal money where his mouth is, and his 'paper loss' is around the £200 million mark