I know tonight was the night where we was all supposed to slap the NHS, but also time to see that folk are still putting their personal greed first too.

Yesterday, I had seen that Jeremy Joseph, owner of nightclub brand G-A-Y, who has 4 nightclubs had posted on Twitter to bemoan his landlords. G-A-Y have a lot of money in the bank, they have the largest and most popular nightclub in the UK.

Jeremy had offered to pay all of his landlords the cost price of each venue. He didn't ask for a payment holiday, despite 200 staff. He just politely asked for rents to be at cost priced, instead of the £402k quaterly amount. They said no and offered him the holiday. By time that holiday is over, they'll owe £800k.

It's essentially a small business. In all of this kind stuff, there's plenty of horrid greed going about too.

I tried to type a constructive post to respond to this but I can't

You are just so effing stupid commenting on things that you have zero understanding of.

Rents to be at cost price. FML.

A lot of what is happening right now has nothing to do with personal greed how ever horrible you think the world is.

The exasperation in this post made me chuckle.  It’s the internet - of course people are going to make lengthy posts about things they have no understanding of

    finally some good news for the self employed, which is a relief

80% of net  monthly earnings to be paid , taken as an average from last 3 years

or £2947 whichever is lower

Source please?

It's somewhat amusing to see folk who didn't chose not to vote Labour because of Corbyn beg for a socialist Britain. Even amusing to see those Pub and Club owners who told us how prices would go down because of leaving the EU, see their business go to the wall.

Weirdly, Boris hasn't deal with this all as bad as I thought he would. But the problem is that he's always a couple of days beind with the measures the government announce and they really should some sort of higher allowance for self employed. But the self employed can't have their cake and eat it, but £94 isn't acceptable for anyone to live on.

But the grants and loans system is open to abuse, sadly.

PS - It's time for total shutdown (apart from the supermarkets).

Why would businesses going bust be amusing?

Those who do wrong things.

Wrong things as in not voting Labour?   What a strange outlook you have.   Still have a good laugh about people losing their livelihood.

Outstanding stuff Mint.  Thanks for this read.

£250,000 to the winner, £100,000 to the runner-up.

That's serious money to both if these lads.

Is a bit of business ever done in these things? Say, £160,000 each with the winner getting the extra £30,000, or even a straight chop?

It would have to be a bit under the radar, obv, but it must be a temptation for the lads who are a shade below the vey best.

How can you do it with the tax man issue?  You won for £250k and the tax man wants his 45% of that don't think he would buy 'business being done' .   Not sure how they can get round it.

Just agree that winner transfers £42,250?

It’s vital that you don’t vote without consulting this website:

https://votesmart2019.com/?fbclid=IwAR3TWgQi9RMLLlzpOx9pHQ8pHc46G1_RpX2sq-Y5MtMd2QpGC2GLHct1FgU

Well I took your advice on board, but the website didn't even ask my opinion on anything.

I entered my postcode and it just told me to vote Labour, which is strange as the Conservatives only won by 5k votes in my constituency in 2017, I know its only 1 vote but seems a risky strategy if I want the Conservatives to win?

So possibly checking this website isn't vital for everyone?

I chuckled

I don’t care what Corbyn watches at Xmas, but Rayner trying to wriggle out of that lie was cringeworthy.  Rayner is horrendous.

Today’s announcement of the uncosted £58bn is the icing on the cake. Policy making on the hoof. Total madness.

Jezza lurched them so far left, they have to be unelectable for a long time to come. Even if Corbyn goes there is unlikely to be a moderate anywhere near the leadership.

When you run down the list of prominent shadow cabinet names it's really hard to see a leader in waiting if you write off the obvious Starmer, I can't count him as I don't find him an appealing type.

Beyond that I quite like Ashworth and Gwynne and Andy Mcdonald always seems game and good value but doubt he's up for leader. Further down the page you get Valerie Vaz and John Healey but doubt either of them think of leadership. Of the women, the only one I find tolerable is Angela Rayner but imagine she's behind the naive and depressing Long Bailey and Pidcock.

I find Rayner horrendous.  Just loudly repeats pre-prepared party lines and unable to adapt or engage with an interviewer.  Abbot makes her gaffes but she still comes across as intelligent but Rayner just comes across as hectoring, loud and dense.

latest Brexit Blog post on the week's developments including analysis of Farage's new stance, prospects for the remain vote, why Swinson is making a mistake, problems of a 'Canada style' deal, how we are flying blind into Brexit - and more.

Just up: https://chrisgreybrexitblog.blogspot.com/2019/11/and-there-are-still-four-weeks-to-go.html

He talks a great deal of sense, as always, it’s a crazy world when the Lib/Lab alliance has to be organised without the involvement of either party.

Great to see you back David, hope you are feeling better now.

Good morning

Long way to go but I should be confirmed cancer free on December 3rd 😊. Just incredibly lucky that I got glandular fever, or it almost certainly would have been found too late.

Good to see you back here and sounds like good news for you. Did you undergo a bunch of treatment?

Partial kidney removal, still waiting on a suspect mass in my lung but all signs are good and I’m feeling more well than I have in about a year, no immunotherapy at this stage. Would be gold if Boris rolled up in The Lister cancer ward on Dec 3rd 😊.

All the best - sounds positive.

In my experience Momentum genuinely do believe that Tories enjoy torturing lower wage earners.   The average Labour voter normally has a more sensible view.

Arsenal awful across multiple competitions.  Manager is abject failure.

if "maturity" (whatever that means) means you need to be 25 years old to vote, how about we disenfranchise those with dementia and similar illnesses, Daily Mail readers and anyone else who can reasonably said not to be of sound mind. How about an IQ test before being allowed to vote? Menstruating women are out because they could be hysterical and can't be said to be 'mature' enough.

The only reason people don't want to enfranchise the young is because they think they'll vote the 'wrong' way. Take that argument to its limit and then ad absurdium and you come up with something like the above.

Ridiculous. If you're taxable, you should be represented. Simple as that.

Taking your argument to the limit and ad absurdism we give the vote to babies...

I’m sure we agree that there is an age, below which people aren’t ready to vote. Is your line firmly drawn at 16?

my line would be broadly similar to the well established principle in the law surrounding medial procedures, Gillick competence.
It doesn't have to be 16, it could be 14, or 10, or whatever.

And I do believe that if politicians were forced to engage with younger votes (because they vote) then they'd have more competence.

fwiw, the conservatives allow those members 15 and older to vote in their leadership elections.  but they won't allow the general public to do so. I wonder why that is.... :rolleyes:

I am agnostic to if 16 year olds vote to be honest.  But the driver is from the left who need more votes.  The Left have largely been rejected by the adult electorate over many decades.  It’s no surprise they seek more voters with a more childlike idealistic outlook.  I’m fine with letting them vote but the Left shouldn’t disguise their intentions here.

fine with that if you also insist that 'the Right' (or very specifically, Boris Johnson/Dominic Cummings) shouldn't disguise their intentions in bringing forward legislation to insist on ID to vote in order to tackle the totally non-existent issue of 'voter fraud'.

Yes agreed.

if "maturity" (whatever that means) means you need to be 25 years old to vote, how about we disenfranchise those with dementia and similar illnesses, Daily Mail readers and anyone else who can reasonably said not to be of sound mind. How about an IQ test before being allowed to vote? Menstruating women are out because they could be hysterical and can't be said to be 'mature' enough.

The only reason people don't want to enfranchise the young is because they think they'll vote the 'wrong' way. Take that argument to its limit and then ad absurdium and you come up with something like the above.

Ridiculous. If you're taxable, you should be represented. Simple as that.

Taking your argument to the limit and ad absurdism we give the vote to babies...

I’m sure we agree that there is an age, below which people aren’t ready to vote. Is your line firmly drawn at 16?

my line would be broadly similar to the well established principle in the law surrounding medial procedures, Gillick competence.
It doesn't have to be 16, it could be 14, or 10, or whatever.

And I do believe that if politicians were forced to engage with younger votes (because they vote) then they'd have more competence.

fwiw, the conservatives allow those members 15 and older to vote in their leadership elections.  but they won't allow the general public to do so. I wonder why that is.... :rolleyes:

I am agnostic to if 16 year olds vote to be honest.  But the driver is from the left who need more votes.  The Left have largely been rejected by the adult electorate over many decades.  It’s no surprise they seek more voters with a more childlike idealistic outlook.  I’m fine with letting them vote but the Left shouldn’t disguise their intentions here.

In general, I think that derivatives should be limited to those with an "insurable interest".  They are simply gambling otherwise and increase risks to the economic system.  In addition in cases like this, where the collapse of a company is going to benefit certain parties (albeit I acknowledge that counterparties obviously suffer) there are incentives for corrupt practices. 

Who should take the other side of those trades, other than a bank /  “gambler”

Not sure what your point is.  There is nothing wrong with making an investment of some kind and wanting to hedge against certain liabilities.  My issue is the instruments being used for pure gambling by organisations whose failure could have a major effect on the real economy.

His point is who is going to take the other side of your insurable interest CDS trades?  They will by definition be “gambling” themselves.  Do you understand that the person selling the CDS protection has bigger risk than the other side?

In general, I think that derivatives should be limited to those with an "insurable interest".  They are simply gambling otherwise and increase risks to the economic system.  In addition in cases like this, where the collapse of a company is going to benefit certain parties (albeit I acknowledge that counterparties obviously suffer) there are incentives for corrupt practices.  

That would be fraud.

Really? fraud?  

Well blow me down!

You seem a bright chap.  Has there ever been a case of fraud in the city?

Of course.  However there are consequences for fraud, although I imagine you'll lump banks taking too much risk into the fraud bucket to try and make a point.

Anyway, on your idea - banning derivatives without insurable interest on the grounds you are gambling.  Working through the steps

1) Hedge Fund has purchased protection on a CDS, paying premiums and gets a lump sum on default (like insurance).  This is disgusting in your view.
2) The counterparty is likely the market making desk of an investment bank.  They receive premiums but need to pay out a lump sum on default.  This is a riskier trade.  They won't have any insurable interest either as they are going about their market making business and will likely be taking bid offer by doing the opposite trade with someone else.  (granted there will be some scenarios where they have insurable interest but the quickest way for them to make money is the match buyers and sellers).
3) Okay so let's ban this activity on both sides.  Desk closes.  Jobs lost.  But that's not really the point.
4) Another hedge fund or bank is buying corporate bonds.  That’s good right?  A good solid investment and honourable activity.
5) But hold on!  If I buy a bond what is my risk profile?  I get coupons every so often, but if the company goes bust I lose my lump sum investment.  This looks an awful lot like (2) where we receive CDS premiums but lose the house when company goes bust.
6) Hmm – this is bad as well.  Let’s ban trading in corporate bonds apart from primary issuance as we are just gambling again.
7) However, if we kill the secondary market, we kill the primary market because companies are now issuing an illiquid asset which is far less appealing.
8 ) It is now impossible for Companies to raise money by bond issuance, and investors have also lost access to what can be a good investment vehicle.
9) I’m sure we can now do equity derivatives and get the equity market banned as well.
10) In short, regulate things.  Don’t ban things.

Why does the concept of insurable interest exist and is enforced in the insurance market?

I could go through your "list" but it is frankly embarrassing.  In short, my only suggestion was that "derivatives" unlinked from the primary instrument were gambling and had no economic value.  In addition to that they greatly increased risk in the financial system.  If you want to debate that point fair enough but to suggest that I was wanting to ban selling bonds in secondary markets or ban insuring against losses by the holders of those bonds is desperate stuff.

The counterparty of the CDS that paid out to the hedge fund has the same risk profile as a bond holder.  Calling for banning stuff you don’t understand isn’t a great look.

What has that got to do with it?

Bonds are limited in value.  If CDS are limited to that value the systemic risk is obviously lower than if many multiples of the bonds value are in play (and the value of those contracts used as assets for other derivative liabilities).

And you still haven't answered the first question:

Why does the concept of insurable interest exist and is enforced in the insurance market?

The entire City is a casino and is built on liquidity.  If you introduce insurable interest the CDS market is dead.  There would not be enough customers.  Add to that it is unworkable.  Every market participant would need to recalculate their insurance interest status every morning.

There is already regulation to at least partially address your concerns (eg compression requirements/capital charges).  Why do you want to kill an entire market?