The economic consequences of Brexit (Vol 2)

[Sway]

jjlynn27 said:

Sway said:

To take your points in turn :

That really got to you didn't it petal. However, when the NHS itself admits that 75% of A&E activity was due to a previous failure in the NHS as a whole there's clearly a massive target. Beyond that, no one has yet come up with a single plausible difference between healthcare provision and every single other form of industry. All the others have delivered at least 25% improvements in cost of service over the last 50 years of the development of the approaches necessary, so why not healthcare. I get that a doctor saved the life of your kid, but you're putting the industry of healthcare provision on an emotional pedestal, not a rational one.

First link I can't read through paywall...

Euro clearing: the headline states "top EU lawmaker" - no he's not. He's a EuroParl MP who can ratify at best the proposals from the Commission. Who are noted as saying nothing (apart from thier chief negotiator reported to say Euro stability is dependant on achieving a FS deal).

That's the personality. Now onto facts. MrrT, massive proponent on here for the need for a passporting deal, someone who has worked in central bank funding, was amazed to find out Target2 does not require reconciliation. Everywhere else, it occurs overnight at minimum. That's to avoid systemic risk.

What the EU/ECB has done, is wilfully create a staggeringly vast Ponzi scheme, with systemic risk increase built into it by design. Frankly, that should be terrifying anyone who actually understands what that means.

To suggest that the capital and fx markets would accept an order of magnitude increase in that systemic risk by moving Euro denominated clearing in the Eurozone is naive at best. The sharks (not Soros as per the ERM, because of his love of the projeckt, but there are plenty more out there who wouldn't be so reticent to make billions off the shorting and collapse that would occur) would smell blood and eat meat within days.

London is pre-eminent in FS for a number of reasons. One is that overall, it's one of the safest and most stable markets in the world. The Euro is shaky and has been for sometime for entirely predictable structural reasons. If Barnier suggests trying to dual negotiate is a risky strategy, it's nothing on trying to force Euro clearing to the continent...

If by 'got to me' you meant to say 'you laughed so hard at my idiocy', you most certainly did.
I'm still surprised that one of the big four didn't snap you and made you multi-millionaire in the process (no, not really surprised).

As for the rest, I'm sure that view of some PH 'management consultant', carry more weight than the opinion of Sir Charles Bean, it's not like that he understands anything, is it?

Sir Charles Bean said:

"I will not say that it is likely that we will lose it: I will say that it is certain that we will lose it."

Excellent, appeals to authority, without rationale... That works so well in a debate.

Oh, and if you're going to question my job, and where I've worked without having a scooby about me then you're in for a fail - not everyone who joins a 'big 4' chooses to stay there... Equally, not all 'big 4' consultants are multi millionaires, even some of the very best...

[jjlynn27]

Sway said:

Excellent, appeals to authority, without rationale... That works so well in a debate.

Oh, and if you're going to question my job, and where I've worked without having a scooby about me then you're in for a fail - not everyone who joins a 'big 4' chooses to stay there... Equally, not all 'big 4' consultants are multi millionaires, even some of the very best...

lol. 'appeals to authority'? Seriously. Do you know who the guy is?

The big4 consultants who can deliver 10s of billions of savings to any client, year in year out, are multimillionaires. I don't need to know anything about you, to know that you are delusional, at the very best.

[Sway]

jjlynn27 said:

Sway said:

Excellent, appeals to authority, without rationale... That works so well in a debate.

Oh, and if you're going to question my job, and where I've worked without having a scooby about me then you're in for a fail - not everyone who joins a 'big 4' chooses to stay there... Equally, not all 'big 4' consultants are multi millionaires, even some of the very best...

lol. 'appeals to authority'? Seriously. Do you know who the guy is?

The big4 consultants who can deliver 10s of billions of savings to any client, year in year out, are multimillionaires. I don't need to know anything about you, to know that you are delusional, at the very best.

Yes. However he's not given a single reason why...

Barnier thinks differently: https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com...

Any comments on the view of the markets on counterparty risk not being managed at all within the Eurozone under Target2?

As for the big 4 - no one, not one person, can deliver multi billion savings every year, year in year out. At best, they have huge teams doing the work, and those things take years...

You may also wish to revisit my comments on the thread that this subject is actually pertinent to - where I repeatedly state I couldn't do it within the NHS, quite simply I haven't the patience for the utter intransigence displayed..

As an example, this week on R4 there was a piece on a new systems thinking approach to managing osteoporosis within it's area. A trial, iirc in Nottingham, reduced fractures massively, as well as costs, with clearly far better patient outcomes. The biggest barrier quoted for it's rollout? Those managing the fracture centres and wards who were worried about the drop in funding caused by less admissions... I'm not a multimillion earning big 4 consultant, as unlike them I'd have thumped the tts more worried about their budget and empire than what's best for patients...

[///ajd]

London424 said:

So something that they've been trying to pull from London while we have been in the EU is an example of why we should stay in, because they'll let us keep it?

Yes. I think you're getting it.

Staying in allows us to stop them trying to pull GDP from London which we did very successfully while we were in the EU, and defending our interests.

Equally, leaving makes it more likely they will just take it away from us.

I'm glad you've worked this out now, but I wish you'd figured this out before the vote.

[Sway]

///ajd said:

London424 said:

So something that they've been trying to pull from London while we have been in the EU is an example of why we should stay in, because they'll let us keep it?

Yes. I think you're getting it.

Staying in allows us to stop them trying to pull GDP from London which we did very successfully while we were in the EU, and defending our interests.

Equally, leaving makes it more likely they will just take it away from us.

I'm glad you've worked this out now, but I wish you'd figured this out before the vote.

As others have pointed out, that's a real double edged sword for the Eurozone.

They could of course change the rules, no one is disputing that. What's not being understood is that the impact on the risk assessments against the Euro and Euro derivative trading would take a huge hit.

Currently, it's a free market. Even the US engages in some. The market has decided it wants to conduct the vast majority in London. It's done that for a reason...

[///ajd]

Sway said:

///ajd said:

London424 said:

So something that they've been trying to pull from London while we have been in the EU is an example of why we should stay in, because they'll let us keep it?

Yes. I think you're getting it.

Staying in allows us to stop them trying to pull GDP from London which we did very successfully while we were in the EU, and defending our interests.

Equally, leaving makes it more likely they will just take it away from us.

I'm glad you've worked this out now, but I wish you'd figured this out before the vote.

As others have pointed out, that's a real double edged sword for the Eurozone.

They could of course change the rules, no one is disputing that. What's not being understood is that the impact on the risk assessments against the Euro and Euro derivative trading would take a huge hit.

Currently, it's a free market. Even the US engages in some. The market has decided it wants to conduct the vast majority in London. It's done that for a reason...

Yes, but when it comes to Euro clearing/activities, the EU can chose to take this away. Whilst we're in we can always block them.

I know some argue only 13.5 people work in London on Euro clearing/activities, but I suspect its a few more, and any migration of jobs / work from London can't be a good thing.

Is there any financial work that can't be done in London? Fair to say everything can be done in London, yes?

I suspect the same is true of Paris and Frankfurt - pretty much any/all FS work can be done there as in London.

Post brexit, there might be a difference - all work can still be done in Paris and Frankfurt - but for the first time ever, some EU based activities will no longer be possible in London. It will no longer be a totally free market will it - it will be skewed and we will be outside the club.

That might (or might not) affect some collocation decisions. Decisions that might favour not being in London. Decision factors that never even arose pre Brexit.

[Sway]

///ajd said:

Sway said:

///ajd said:

London424 said:

So something that they've been trying to pull from London while we have been in the EU is an example of why we should stay in, because they'll let us keep it?

Yes. I think you're getting it. Euro

Staying in allows us to stop them trying to pull GDP from London which we did very successfully while we were in the EU, and defending our interests.

Equally, leaving makes it more likely they will just take it away from us.

I'm glad you've worked this out now, but I wish you'd figured this out before the vote.

As others have pointed out, that's a real double edged sword for the Eurozone.

They could of course change the rules, no one is disputing that. What's not being understood is that the impact on the risk assessments against the Euro and Euro derivative trading would take a huge hit.

Currently, it's a free market. Even the US engages in some. The market has decided it wants to conduct the vast majority in London. It's done that for a reason...

Yes, but when it comes to Euro clearing/activities, the EU can chose to take this away. Whilst we're in we can always block them.

I know some argue only 13.5 people work in London on Euro clearing/activities, but I suspect its a few more, and any migration of jobs / work from London can't be a good thing.

Is there any financial work that can't be done in London? Fair to say everything can be done in London, yes?

I suspect the same is true of Paris and Frankfurt - pretty much any/all FS work can be done there as in London.

Post brexit, there might be a difference - all work can still be done in Paris and Frankfurt - but for the first time ever, some EU based activities will no longer be possible in London. It will no longer be a totally free market will it - it will be skewed and we will be outside the club.

That might (or might not) affect some collocation decisions. Decisions that might favour not being in London. Decision factors that never even arose pre Brexit.

You're not getting it. It would stop being a free market, however the reason why London is so successful in winning that business is due to the way it manages the intrinsic risk - different regulations, different institutions, etc.

Forcing it to move makes Euro denominated derivatives significantly less attractive, as the risk is perceived rightly as being vastly higher. That causes a massive issue for the Eurozone overall.

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/www.cityam.com/262372...

[///ajd]

Sway said:

///ajd said:

Sway said:

///ajd said:

London424 said:

So something that they've been trying to pull from London while we have been in the EU is an example of why we should stay in, because they'll let us keep it?

Yes. I think you're getting it. Euro

Staying in allows us to stop them trying to pull GDP from London which we did very successfully while we were in the EU, and defending our interests.

Equally, leaving makes it more likely they will just take it away from us.

I'm glad you've worked this out now, but I wish you'd figured this out before the vote.

As others have pointed out, that's a real double edged sword for the Eurozone.

They could of course change the rules, no one is disputing that. What's not being understood is that the impact on the risk assessments against the Euro and Euro derivative trading would take a huge hit.

Currently, it's a free market. Even the US engages in some. The market has decided it wants to conduct the vast majority in London. It's done that for a reason...

Yes, but when it comes to Euro clearing/activities, the EU can chose to take this away. Whilst we're in we can always block them.

I know some argue only 13.5 people work in London on Euro clearing/activities, but I suspect its a few more, and any migration of jobs / work from London can't be a good thing.

Is there any financial work that can't be done in London? Fair to say everything can be done in London, yes?

I suspect the same is true of Paris and Frankfurt - pretty much any/all FS work can be done there as in London.

Post brexit, there might be a difference - all work can still be done in Paris and Frankfurt - but for the first time ever, some EU based activities will no longer be possible in London. It will no longer be a totally free market will it - it will be skewed and we will be outside the club.

That might (or might not) affect some collocation decisions. Decisions that might favour not being in London. Decision factors that never even arose pre Brexit.

You're not getting it. It would stop being a free market, however the reason why London is so successful in winning that business is due to the way it manages the intrinsic risk - different regulations, different institutions, etc.

Forcing it to move makes Euro denominated derivatives significantly less attractive, as the risk is perceived rightly as being vastly higher. That causes a massive issue for the Eurozone overall.

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/www.cityam.com/262372...

I understand the point you're making, and its true that sterling remains relatively attractive whilst the euro is suffering - to a certain degree because of all the anti-EU parties making noise in various states.

I'm not convinced the euro will sink the EU however, nor will the Le Pen type parties divide it. Could happen - Trump proves anything can happen - but it seems less likely than Brexit/Trump (even though they weren't predicted either).

[Sway]

///ajd said:

I understand the point you're making, and its true that sterling remains relatively attractive whilst the euro is suffering - to a certain degree because of all the anti-EU parties making noise in various states.

I'm not convinced the euro will sink the EU however, nor will the Le Pen type parties divide it. Could happen - Trump proves anything can happen - but it seems less likely than Brexit/Trump (even though they weren't predicted either).

It's not that sterling remains attractive, it's that clearing operations are handled very, very well in London. Pretty much better than anywhere else.

A lot of this is due to the regulatory framework, as well as the risk models and management processes within the institutions conducting it (which they aren't able to do in the same way in the Eurozone - especially when you take into account the desire for 'control' of the market stated by the strident voices calling for the market to be forced to move, note control, not revenue...) as well as the track record.

Flight from industry moving away from Euro denominated instruments is a big deal. It completely undermines the confidence in the currency. The market losing confidence in a currency means massive inflation, freezing of the monetary flow, and many other very bad things. The Euro is already very shaky, and the ECB have used pretty much every lever possible to retain confidence. Many are staggered they've managed to do it so far - however the potential shocks and collapse a forced move to a closed market under a shonky regulatory framework are orders of magnitude bigger. It would be true collapse, Great Depression style, all over the Eurozone...

It would take a chap with testes the size of houses and a deficient understanding of the market to force such a thing through.

[Burwood]

///ajd said:

Sway said:

///ajd said:

Sway said:

///ajd said:

London424 said:

So something that they've been trying to pull from London while we have been in the EU is an example of why we should stay in, because they'll let us keep it?

Yes. I think you're getting it. Euro

Staying in allows us to stop them trying to pull GDP from London which we did very successfully while we were in the EU, and defending our interests.

Equally, leaving makes it more likely they will just take it away from us.

I'm glad you've worked this out now, but I wish you'd figured this out before the vote.

As others have pointed out, that's a real double edged sword for the Eurozone.

They could of course change the rules, no one is disputing that. What's not being understood is that the impact on the risk assessments against the Euro and Euro derivative trading would take a huge hit.

Currently, it's a free market. Even the US engages in some. The market has decided it wants to conduct the vast majority in London. It's done that for a reason...

Yes, but when it comes to Euro clearing/activities, the EU can chose to take this away. Whilst we're in we can always block them.

I know some argue only 13.5 people work in London on Euro clearing/activities, but I suspect its a few more, and any migration of jobs / work from London can't be a good thing.

Is there any financial work that can't be done in London? Fair to say everything can be done in London, yes?

I suspect the same is true of Paris and Frankfurt - pretty much any/all FS work can be done there as in London.

Post brexit, there might be a difference - all work can still be done in Paris and Frankfurt - but for the first time ever, some EU based activities will no longer be possible in London. It will no longer be a totally free market will it - it will be skewed and we will be outside the club.

That might (or might not) affect some collocation decisions. Decisions that might favour not being in London. Decision factors that never even arose pre Brexit.

You're not getting it. It would stop being a free market, however the reason why London is so successful in winning that business is due to the way it manages the intrinsic risk - different regulations, different institutions, etc.

Forcing it to move makes Euro denominated derivatives significantly less attractive, as the risk is perceived rightly as being vastly higher. That causes a massive issue for the Eurozone overall.

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/www.cityam.com/262372...

I understand the point you're making, and its true that sterling remains relatively attractive whilst the euro is suffering - to a certain degree because of all the anti-EU parties making noise in various states.

I'm not convinced the euro will sink the EU however, nor will the Le Pen type parties divide it. Could happen - Trump proves anything can happen - but it seems less likely than Brexit/Trump (even though they weren't predicted either).

I'm not going to make a snide comment but finance isn't your thing. Euro parties causing a weak euro. The reason is its a dogs hit ccy. Several countries high default risk and the central bank's just printing more euros.

[turbobloke]

Magic eurobeans are truly wonderful. They're magic beans that grow on magic trees.

[jjlynn27]

Sway said:

Yes. However he's not given a single reason why...

Barnier thinks differently: https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com...

Any comments on the view of the markets on counterparty risk not being managed at all within the Eurozone under Target2?

As for the big 4 - no one, not one person, can deliver multi billion savings every year, year in year out. At best, they have huge teams doing the work, and those things take years...

You may also wish to revisit my comments on the thread that this subject is actually pertinent to - where I repeatedly state I couldn't do it within the NHS, quite simply I haven't the patience for the utter intransigence displayed..

As an example, this week on R4 there was a piece on a new systems thinking approach to managing osteoporosis within it's area. A trial, iirc in Nottingham, reduced fractures massively, as well as costs, with clearly far better patient outcomes. The biggest barrier quoted for it's rollout? Those managing the fracture centres and wards who were worried about the drop in funding caused by less admissions... I'm not a multimillion earning big 4 consultant, as unlike them I'd have thumped the tts more worried about their budget and empire than what's best for patients...

Have you figured out why typing 'appeal to authority' was so stupid in this case?

Read that guardian article again. It doesn't say what you think it does if you go past the headline.

New systems thinking? Is that the one between blue sky thinking and out of the box thinking? I've heard that one is actually fantastic.

I know that you are not multi-million earning big 4 consultant. That is very obvious from your posts.

[Sway]

jjlynn27 said:

Sway said:

Yes. However he's not given a single reason why...

Barnier thinks differently: https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com...

Any comments on the view of the markets on counterparty risk not being managed at all within the Eurozone under Target2?

As for the big 4 - no one, not one person, can deliver multi billion savings every year, year in year out. At best, they have huge teams doing the work, and those things take years...

You may also wish to revisit my comments on the thread that this subject is actually pertinent to - where I repeatedly state I couldn't do it within the NHS, quite simply I haven't the patience for the utter intransigence displayed..

As an example, this week on R4 there was a piece on a new systems thinking approach to managing osteoporosis within it's area. A trial, iirc in Nottingham, reduced fractures massively, as well as costs, with clearly far better patient outcomes. The biggest barrier quoted for it's rollout? Those managing the fracture centres and wards who were worried about the drop in funding caused by less admissions... I'm not a multimillion earning big 4 consultant, as unlike them I'd have thumped the tts more worried about their budget and empire than what's best for patients...

Have you figured out why typing 'appeal to authority' was so stupid in this case?

Read that guardian article again. It doesn't say what you think it does if you go past the headline.

New systems thinking? Is that the one between blue sky thinking and out of the box thinking? I've heard that one is actually fantastic.

I know that you are not multi-million earning big 4 consultant. That is very obvious from your posts.

As per normal, you're ability to actually understand the approach to forming a cogent argument is severely lacking...

Appeal to authority is entirely appropriate. An ex member of the MPC does not make an expert in fx denominated clearing activities. When making a very bold claim, logical argument and evidence is required to support that claim, regardless who's making it.

Wrt to the fracture prevention methodology, once again you're completely ignoring the approach, results, impact on the patients concerned, and mindset change needed - instead focusing on the description of the approach (which has worked in every single industry, including this example). Oh, a description and approach that McKinsey at least is making a fkton of money with, due to it's success... They call it McKinsey 7S, and many of those 'multi millionaire consultants' there are using it as thr basis for their 'multibillion savings'...

Your ignorance and unwillingness to educate yourself is telling, reverting consistently to ad hominems (as though I have the slightest care that I'm not a multimillionaire, life is for living, not earning).

[Unbusy]

I have a headache.
Get a room you guys.

[B'stard Child]

Unbusy said:

I have a headache.
Get a room you guys.

Feels sorry

There you go

[turbobloke]

B'stard Child said:

Unbusy said:

I have a headache.
Get a room you guys.

Feels sorry

There you go

And in case of a dicky tummy...

[jjlynn27]

Sway said:

As per normal, you're ability to actually understand the approach to forming a cogent argument is severely lacking...

Appeal to authority is entirely appropriate. An ex member of the MPC does not make an expert in fx denominated clearing activities. When making a very bold claim, logical argument and evidence is required to support that claim, regardless who's making it.

Wrt to the fracture prevention methodology, once again you're completely ignoring the approach, results, impact on the patients concerned, and mindset change needed - instead focusing on the description of the approach (which has worked in every single industry, including this example). Oh, a description and approach that McKinsey at least is making a fkton of money with, due to it's success... They call it McKinsey 7S, and many of those 'multi millionaire consultants' there are using it as thr basis for their 'multibillion savings'...

Your ignorance and unwillingness to educate yourself is telling, reverting consistently to ad hominems (as though I have the slightest care that I'm not a multimillionaire, life is for living, not earning).

Apart from being an 'ex-MPC';

• Cambridge 1st Hons Maths and Economics.
• Cambridge MA
• MIT PhD
• member of FPC with responsibility for monetary policy and market operations
• professor @ LSE
• professor @ Stanford

Quite obviously, he doesn't understand systemic risk as much as the random 3rd rate 'consultant' who can't figure the difference between 'your' and 'you are' and can save 30-50% of NHS budget, but really doesn't want to, because he can't really be arsed.

I'm not ignoring any 'approach'. What I'm sure is that if those savings are to be made anywhere, anywhere at all, they'd be realised by the likes of McKinsey, PwC, Deloitte. Not by random who did online lean six sigma course in 3 days.

[Tuna]

jjlynn27 said:

Apart from being an 'ex-MPC';

• Cambridge 1st Hons Maths and Economics.
• Cambridge MA
• MIT PhD
• member of FPC with responsibility for monetary policy and market operations
• professor @ LSE
• professor @ Stanford

Oh... so he's an academic - why didn't you say?!

[Murph7355]

jjlynn27 said:

...they'd be realised by the likes of McKinsey, PwC, Deloitte. ...

Anecdotally of course, I'm not entirely convinced your confidence there is well placed.

[///ajd]

We have so many threads now, but this used to be the right one for the economic discussion...

Trump appears to favour EU trade deal over one for the UK. Isn't that exactly what Obama said?

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/dona...

Maybe Brexit has forced the EU wake up and get its act together on pushing for more trade deals to negate the U.K. trying to get ahead. It seems they have already shown here the effect of their extra clout - 460m vs 60m, as widely predicted.

Edited by ///ajd on Saturday 22 April 08:08