New Labour Leader

Sky_Blue_Dreamer

Well-Known Member
Aug 16, 2018
7,160
4,346
113
It's much more complex than you imagine. I'll not go into it now, but 'bet' is the wrong word and positions *are* hedged. Needless to say, risk managers have learned from their mistakes. I agree that private companies should not be bailed out, for free markets to work correctly the weak have to fail. I'd argue that a lack of legislation both contributed to the issue's cause and meant that the banks had to be bailed. I don't think it could happen now that capital ratios are healthier.
Hence why I put bet in inverted commas - it's analogous because it's people guessing what will happen in the future and putting money on it but it's not entirely the same.

I agree about the lack of legislation but we hear people in the industry talk about self/de regulation. Those regulations had to be put in place because some of those involved couldn't be trusted to make sensible decisions. Same as with people complaining about complicated tax law and how is should be simplified - it's become so complex because some people could not be trusted to work within the spirit of the legislation and took advantage, so it had to become more complex to close loopholes etc.

The increased liquidity is having to be enforced by legislation rather than common sense and prudence.

Although I feel most of the managers/traders etc are conscientious I think it's naive to say they've 'learned from their mistakes' - how soon after being bailed out did we have the markets issuing 'hands off' and 'stop interfering' messages to the state despite the fact without their interference a number of them wouldn't even exist anymore? Sadly it only takes a few to start slowly building up problems that will bite us on the arse in future.

if they had we'd have learnt from the Depression, we'd have learnt from the dotcom bubble etc but cyclically these situations occur again and again. We've heard numerous times that boom and bust won't happen again, but it does and I'm certain will again.

I think a large part of that is due to time as new people replace the old in the industry and didn't experience those times and end up repeating the mistakes, especially those who are greedy. It's not just markets that this is true of - it's not really a surprise we're seeing this rise in nationalism/populism at a time when pretty much all those who last experienced it and saw where it led are now dead. We don't learn the lessons of history and as such as doomed to repeat those mistakes.

Which brings me back to the original point of using financial growth as the main/sole metric of the performance/importance of a country. If you give a single metric it that much importance you'll inevitably get people chasing it and taking higher risks to achieve it. So it needs to be watered down as a performance factor.
 
  • Like
Reactions: shmmeee

mrtrench

Well-Known Member
Aug 17, 2008
3,999
2,463
163
Somewhere between the waitress and her table.
Hence why I put bet in inverted commas - it's analogous because it's people guessing what will happen in the future and putting money on it but it's not entirely the same.
That really is not what happens in investment banks at all - not even close. Possibly in Hedge Funds (which are small) but not in banks. The main business strategy is selling (providing instruments for business so that they can hedge their risks). The sales desk is taking business from customers and putting it into the traders' positions. They make money by quoting a spread (one price to buy and one price to sell). The trader manages the position within a set limit - so yes, he can have a view on the future and take a position WITHIN a LIMIT but all the rhetoric about betting and casinos is very wide of the mark.

Different risks belong to different desks. Each desk is permitted to carry a limited position in their risk and in no other. Let me explain a risk; it's a combination of a market and a factor in that market that can alter the price. So there will be a GBP interest rate market; a GBP fx market...

Let's take the interest rate market as an example (as is my main experience). Risks are measured as how much the price can change given a move in the market (i.e. the interest rate) - I assume you have good maths with your degree so I'll say that these are derivatives (differentiation) of the movement in Price with respect to a move in interest rates. The first derivative, dP/dR is called the delta. The delta impact on the trader's position is measured against a one basis point move in the rate (a basis point is 1/100th of one percent). There is a limit on how much IR delta that desk can hold and the limit is monitored and set according to how much capital is allocated to the desk.

Some instruments sold by that desk may also have an IR gamma (which is the second derivative d^2P/dR^2) - because the impact of a one basis point movement may be different depending on what the price is right now - this is called convexity. They MUST hedge that gamma with the IR gamma desk (who have their own limits). Similarly, there may be a vega (a movement in volatility in the market) - and they hedge that with the IR vol desk.

So, the IR delta desk gets trades from the sales desk and hedges out everything but the delta. They then MUST hedge the delta also so it's within the limit set by Risk Management (independent control function). So the only betting in any sense that takes place is whether the trader is long or short within their limits.

I'm not an expert in credit markets but I know it will be the same - a limit on the credit risk delta. I think what went wrong is that some of these CDOs (credit default obligations - a derivative dependent on a package of mortgages) were mistakenly believed to hedge more risk than they did. I could be wrong. But I absolutely blame Greenspan and Brown as much as the banks.

It's not fool-proof but every time there is an issue the control function is improved. For example with Barings, Nick Leeson was not booking all of his trades and so his risk profile was reported incorrectly. That cannot happen to that scale any more - there is so much tracking and scrutiny.

There is a lot of rhetoric from some politicians who haven't got the faintest idea what they are talking about.
 

tisza

Well-Known Member
Aug 2, 2011
3,473
1,559
163
My view is:

If Momentum are going all in on Long-Bailey she isn't getting my vote in a million years

Starmer has no skeletons in the closet, comes across well and has said that Brexit is shit but he supports making the best of it. With a legal background he would fare well at the despatch box and appear 'Prime Ministerial'

Phillips comes across like an idiot and has form for rambling incoherently

Thornberry can get to fuck-pompous but without the brain to justify it

Nandy-the most interesting of the female candidates but don't know enough about her stances to make a comment. Would like to hear a bit more.

'It needs to be a Northerner in touch with the working classes'-they have just elected an Etonian charlatan who hasn't had a difficult day in his life and who wrote essays for and against Brexit before he calculated which would be best for him personally. So no, it doesn't. Nor does voting for Starmer make one a sexist despite that being the obvious play
Agree with most of this.
Something about Nandy.
Think there's a strong character there. Stood up to Neill comfortably enough. Understands the need to regain the towns. Been preaching it for several years.
Generally to the left so not a centrist compromise or allied to the more "extreme" elements of the party.
Needs that GMB backing.
Phillips reminds me of a young Claire Short. Seems to be something of a loose cannon.
Long Bailey just seems to reek of a continuation candidate. Just have the feeling there is damaging clips out there waiting to flood youtube etc.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bezzer and shmmeee

Brighton Sky Blue

Well-Known Member
Jan 11, 2012
18,906
5,479
263
Coventry
Agree with most of this.
Something about Nandy.
Think there's a strong character there. Stood up to Neill comfortably enough. Understands the need to regain the towns. Been preaching it for several years.
Generally to the left so not a centrist compromise or allied to the more "extreme" elements of the party.
Needs that GMB backing.
Phillips reminds me of a young Claire Short. Seems to be something of a loose cannon.
Long Bailey just seems to reek of a continuation candidate. Just have the feeling there is damaging clips out there waiting to flood youtube etc.
What's her policy positions? Any notable achievements?
 

skybluetony176

Well-Known Member
Aug 2, 2013
25,585
10,505
263
I've never met anybody in England who thought that holding onto part of Northern Ireland was a good idea, ever.
Part of Northern Ireland? Like Belfast. The irony of your ignorance though, like most brexiteers, is that they go on about Dunkirk spirit, we won the war etc blissfully ignorant that Monty was an Ulster man, as was other heroes and leaders in the British army. People like Paddy Mayne who would have been a multiple ace if he was a fighter pilot because of the number of Nazi aircraft he destroyed on the ground in raiding parties. Two names of many Ulster men who led the way fighting for king and country. But you don’t give a rats arse about the heroes who risked and gave everything for you to have the right to be as stupid as you are. You’re caught in your own loop of ignorance and stupidity.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Brighton Sky Blue

tisza

Well-Known Member
Aug 2, 2011
3,473
1,559
163
What's her policy positions? Any notable achievements?
Going to see the candidates reveal more soon hopefully.
Going through tonight's hustings and none have said that particularly separates them from the others. More cleaning up the issues from GE - party unity, manifesto, antisemitism, media relations.
 

dutchman

Well-Known Member
Mar 6, 2010
3,883
1,284
163
Spon End
Part of Northern Ireland? Like Belfast. The irony of your ignorance though, like most brexiteers, is that they go on about Dunkirk spirit, we won the war etc blissfully ignorant that Monty was an Ulster man, as was other heroes and leaders in the British army. People like Paddy Mayne who would have been a multiple ace if he was a fighter pilot because of the number of Nazi aircraft he destroyed on the ground in raiding parties. Two names of many Ulster men who led the way fighting for king and country. But you don’t give a rats arse about the heroes who risked and gave everything for you to have the right to be as stupid as you are. You’re caught in your own loop of ignorance and stupidity.
Somewhere between 42,600 and 66,000 citizens of the Irish Free State also served in British armed forces in WW2 so your point is irrelevant. It would probably have been a lot more if Britain had not still occupied part of Ireland which soured relations between the two countries.
And by the way only six of the nine counties of Ulster belong to the UK.
 
Last edited:

Brighton Sky Blue

Well-Known Member
Jan 11, 2012
18,906
5,479
263
Coventry
Somewhere between 42,600 and 66,000 citizens of the Irish Free State also served in British armed forces in WW2 so your point is irrelevant. It would probably have been a lot more if Britain had not still occupied part of Ireland which soured relations between the two countries.
And by the way only six of the nine counties of Ulster belong to the UK.
Except it wasn’t occupied was it. The Free Staters knew that much of Ulster was opposed to an all Ireland state. The British government itself would have faced insurrection from the loyalists had they not pursued some kind of partition. You can rightly argue that the plantation is the only reason loyalism exists but you can’t pin blame on a community for their ancestors arriving hundreds of years previous. Even those who designed the tricolour understood that.

But this is drifting away from the point. If you are happy to sacrifice the country in its current form just to flip off Europe then who are the real patriots?
 
  • Like
Reactions: skybluetony176

skybluetony176

Well-Known Member
Aug 2, 2013
25,585
10,505
263
Somewhere between 42,600 and 66,000 citizens of the Irish Free State also served in British armed forces in WW2 so your point is irrelevant. It would probably have been a lot more if Britain had not still occupied part of Ireland which soured relations between the two countries.
And by the way only six of the nine counties of Ulster belong to the UK.
Fucking Hell. You’ve actually said something based in fact. Have a medal. Nothing to do with the context of what you actually said of course but fair play for actually saying something factual for a change. Not all fact off course. Occupied for instance. That insinuates that we’re not actually welcome in Northern Ireland. The majority of Northern Ireland are proud to be British, or were before we started along the moronic path we are now. The project fear story of Brexit breaking up the union is alive and well. Congratulations.
 

skybluetony176

Well-Known Member
Aug 2, 2013
25,585
10,505
263
Except it wasn’t occupied was it. The Free Staters knew that much of Ulster was opposed to an all Ireland state. The British government itself would have faced insurrection from the loyalists had they not pursued some kind of partition. You can rightly argue that the plantation is the only reason loyalism exists but you can’t pin blame on a community for their ancestors arriving hundreds of years previous. Even those who designed the tricolour understood that.

But this is drifting away from the point. If you are happy to sacrifice the country in its current form just to flip off Europe then who are the real patriots?
There’s also the little fact that more IRA men have died fighting as members of the British Army in two world wars than have died fighting the Republican cause. So how anyone can claim it would have been more had the British not “occupied” Northern Ireland is beyond me. When the most extreme of the extreme can pick up a gun for the British and fight side by side with them theirs nothing in an assumption that there would have been more but...
 

Sky_Blue_Dreamer

Well-Known Member
Aug 16, 2018
7,160
4,346
113
That really is not what happens in investment banks at all - not even close. Possibly in Hedge Funds (which are small) but not in banks. The main business strategy is selling (providing instruments for business so that they can hedge their risks). The sales desk is taking business from customers and putting it into the traders' positions. They make money by quoting a spread (one price to buy and one price to sell). The trader manages the position within a set limit - so yes, he can have a view on the future and take a position WITHIN a LIMIT but all the rhetoric about betting and casinos is very wide of the mark.

Different risks belong to different desks. Each desk is permitted to carry a limited position in their risk and in no other. Let me explain a risk; it's a combination of a market and a factor in that market that can alter the price. So there will be a GBP interest rate market; a GBP fx market...

Let's take the interest rate market as an example (as is my main experience). Risks are measured as how much the price can change given a move in the market (i.e. the interest rate) - I assume you have good maths with your degree so I'll say that these are derivatives (differentiation) of the movement in Price with respect to a move in interest rates. The first derivative, dP/dR is called the delta. The delta impact on the trader's position is measured against a one basis point move in the rate (a basis point is 1/100th of one percent). There is a limit on how much IR delta that desk can hold and the limit is monitored and set according to how much capital is allocated to the desk.

Some instruments sold by that desk may also have an IR gamma (which is the second derivative d^2P/dR^2) - because the impact of a one basis point movement may be different depending on what the price is right now - this is called convexity. They MUST hedge that gamma with the IR gamma desk (who have their own limits). Similarly, there may be a vega (a movement in volatility in the market) - and they hedge that with the IR vol desk.

So, the IR delta desk gets trades from the sales desk and hedges out everything but the delta. They then MUST hedge the delta also so it's within the limit set by Risk Management (independent control function). So the only betting in any sense that takes place is whether the trader is long or short within their limits.

I'm not an expert in credit markets but I know it will be the same - a limit on the credit risk delta. I think what went wrong is that some of these CDOs (credit default obligations - a derivative dependent on a package of mortgages) were mistakenly believed to hedge more risk than they did. I could be wrong. But I absolutely blame Greenspan and Brown as much as the banks.

It's not fool-proof but every time there is an issue the control function is improved. For example with Barings, Nick Leeson was not booking all of his trades and so his risk profile was reported incorrectly. That cannot happen to that scale any more - there is so much tracking and scrutiny.

There is a lot of rhetoric from some politicians who haven't got the faintest idea what they are talking about.
That's given me some unpleasant flashbacks to lectures and exams. It would've been nice as part of my course to be able to spend a day observing a trading floor because you can do the theory, strategies, equations etc all you like but the reality in the workplace is often quite different.

I agree that each time it happens the controls are improved but to say it will not happen again or to such a big extent is IMO a bit naive. There are examples where large losses have been made by a trader which they have effectively been able to 'sign off' themselves and thus 'hide' in the short term. The rules stated this shouldn't have been possible, but they did it. Most of the scrutiny/regulation should be stuff that a prudent trader would be happy to agree to anyway and so having it written in law shouldn't bother them. Yet we're constantly getting calls for deregulation which can only be from those who have no intention of being prudent. History has shown that deregulation tends to be followed by a short period of high growth and ends with a big crash when the regulations are tightened again.

I'm sure most of those involved are careful and sensible, but like the TU movement it only takes a handful of selfish individuals using it for personal gain to ruin the reputation for all. Given the influence financial services have on our economy overall the knock on effect of such times are felt by all, with the poorest usually being the worst affected. When that industry is populated with people who place an unhealthy level of emphasis on money mixed with greed it is something that needs to be monitored very closely for the good of everyone.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mrtrench

mrtrench

Well-Known Member
Aug 17, 2008
3,999
2,463
163
Somewhere between the waitress and her table.
That's given me some unpleasant flashbacks to lectures and exams. It would've been nice as part of my course to be able to spend a day observing a trading floor because you can do the theory, strategies, equations etc all you like but the reality in the workplace is often quite different.

I agree that each time it happens the controls are improved but to say it will not happen again or to such a big extent is IMO a bit naive. There are examples where large losses have been made by a trader which they have effectively been able to 'sign off' themselves and thus 'hide' in the short term. The rules stated this shouldn't have been possible, but they did it. Most of the scrutiny/regulation should be stuff that a prudent trader would be happy to agree to anyway and so having it written in law shouldn't bother them. Yet we're constantly getting calls for deregulation which can only be from those who have no intention of being prudent. History has shown that deregulation tends to be followed by a short period of high growth and ends with a big crash when the regulations are tightened again.

I'm sure most of those involved are careful and sensible, but like the TU movement it only takes a handful of selfish individuals using it for personal gain to ruin the reputation for all. Given the influence financial services have on our economy overall the knock on effect of such times are felt by all, with the poorest usually being the worst affected. When that industry is populated with people who place an unhealthy level of emphasis on money mixed with greed it is something that needs to be monitored very closely for the good of everyone.

I don't think I've ever said that nothing can happen again... I don't think the *same* thing with credit derivatives would happen again now the risk is better understood - but for sure there will be something. Whatever it is, it's unlikely to be quite as destructive as 2008 I believe, but I could well be wrong.

Traders have much less scope for hiding bad positions that they used to have. Remember that this industry is really only about 40 years old - so it's growing up. When I started, interest rate swaps were newish and exciting - they are now part of the vanilla flow business and thought as being basic. But an individual bank losing money due to a rogue trader isn't going to hit the country - just the shareholders.

I agree that in terms of impact, these things hit the poorest hardest, as they don't have much to lose before struggling. However there is evidence from 2008 that the crunch actually hit wealthier people more in terms of absolute size/percentage wise too. Look at the Gini coefficient for the UK since 2008... it fell and hasn't since gone back up... implying that inequality *fell* as a result of the crash (i.e. wealthier people lost more). The same is true for relative poverty stats (which is effectively another measure of income distribution).
 

mrtrench

Well-Known Member
Aug 17, 2008
3,999
2,463
163
Somewhere between the waitress and her table.
Oh, and about traders themselves. They certainly have a bad rep and I've worked with some wankers over the years (the worst being an electricity trader). However I've also noticed that more are quiet, geeky types than used to be the case. But that's possibly because I tended to work more in exotics in the latter part of my career - where you need a Phd to understand the risk on the products (I understand the principles but the maths behind pricing these kinds of products is well beyond my BSc).
 

chiefdave

Well-Known Member
Sep 27, 2008
25,909
14,188
363
Coventry
Too late for me to sign up and vote. Hopefully common sense sees Starmer over the line but doesn't look promising.
Looks like he's using the Boris Johnson trick and swerving Andrew Neil. He won't be on until 4th March when most votes will have already been cast.

Nandy has been getting better with every media appearance. Don't know who is on her team and coaching her but the improvement in just a couple of weeks is very noticeable.
 
  • Like
Reactions: shmmeee

Brighton Sky Blue

Well-Known Member
Jan 11, 2012
18,906
5,479
263
Coventry
Looks like he's using the Boris Johnson trick and swerving Andrew Neil. He won't be on until 4th March when most votes will have already been cast.

Nandy has been getting better with every media appearance. Don't know who is on her team and coaching her but the improvement in just a couple of weeks is very noticeable.
Momentum is too well organised. Though I did see Ian Lavery trying to say that Keir Starmer's dick makes him unsuitable for the post
 

chiefdave

Well-Known Member
Sep 27, 2008
25,909
14,188
363
Coventry
Momentum is too well organised. Though I did see Ian Lavery trying to say that Keir Starmer's dick makes him unsuitable for the post
That seems to be getting pushed quite a bit by the media. I would have thought best person for the job would be the criteria but there's already people criticising that it might not be a women.
 

tisza

Well-Known Member
Aug 2, 2011
3,473
1,559
163
That seems to be getting pushed quite a bit by the media. I would have thought best person for the job would be the criteria but there's already people criticising that it might not be a women.
Just clouds the issue.
Needs the best person on merit. Or else you're arguing about the person not the policies again
 

shmmeee

Well-Known Member
Jul 11, 2011
26,149
16,587
263
Coventry, United Kingdom, United Kingdom

Ian1779

Well-Known Member
Dec 6, 2012
6,076
3,570
163
It’s just factional bollocks. Ian Lavery was thinking about running FFS, then once polling shows Starmer wiping the floor with RLB he thinks the men should step down. Dickhead.
And the factions will continue. The membership dynamic is completely at odds with the PLP dynamic. If the PLP win then the membership will disappear - and that’s the campaign arm of the party gone. If the membership win then the PLP will continue to just fight itself. I just can’t see anyone there right now that can bring both sides together.
 
  • Like
Reactions: clint van damme