LondonMix

God, all I am saying is that a liquidity issue in the banks (such as deposit withdrawals) wouldn't be addressed by buying bonds. What you described in your original post simply isn't accurate and is rather misleading. If you want to move on from that original point, we can discuss Cyprus as well as the specific measures the EU has put in place to try to break the link between a banking crisis inevitably leading to a country being locked out of the bond markets. Cyprus' banks are insolvent and need to be restructured and recapitalised. The banks are also an off-shore tax haven. EU politicians want Cyprus to accept the terms of the bail-out they propose and want the depositors (mostly Russian) who have been using the island as a tax haven to cover some of the costs. The ECB is threatening to cut off Cyprus's banks' access to emergency funding which would cause the banks to collapse. They will do this if Cyprus doesn't accept the terms. They are using all of this as a political tool to force Cyprus to adopt needed measures. The situation is totally different to what the EU has been trying to do on other fronts. The link between banks and the sovereign that they want to break is this-- certain Spanish banks were on the verge of insolvency because of the property crisis. These banks also hold a large amount of their country's sovereign debt and when yields rise, banks make marked-to-market losses that can further threaten their solvency necessitating a recapitalisation. Fears that a country will need to recapitalise its banks and won't be able to successfully issue bonds can cause yields to increase and you are back at the beginning of the vicious circle. These links create the possibility of a a self-fulling prophecy. The ECB,in Spain, has agreed to provide more than double the amount that is necessary to recapitalise certain banks and Spain has created a national bad bank to clear the toxic real estate assets off the banks balance sheets. Therefore, everyone now believes the banks are solvent and if they needed more capital to deal with solvency issues it would readily be available without Spain having to specifically issue sovereign bonds. Similarly, no country will need to rescue its banks for a liquidity issue (lack of wholesale funding or withdrawal of deposits) because the ECB has provided a 3-year liquidity facility- this was necessary across all of Europe. The main concern over Spain was that it would need to rescue its banking sector like Ireland- the country's actual debt isn't that high relatively speaking and wasn't the main concern. Now that the link described above is broken (as well as other measures), Spanish yields have plummeted to 4.85%. In other Southern Eurozone countries, higher yields weren't the result of concerns about the solvency of the banking sector but reflected concerns about the sustainability high levels of debt to GDP and contagion fears.

Rosie H, generally you can't. But if I see someone that owns a single speed bike that they've put breaks on... You usually can tell when you speak to them and you realise they have no idea about anything.

Scared me thinks!

Depends. Is the Southern aspect exposed? How long is the garden? The longer the garden the later you will get sun at the back. If the Southern aspect is relatively exposed you could get lots of sun until quite late. The devil is in the detail...

No, if there was a run on the banks (meaning withdrawal of deposits), the banks would draw down on the liquidity facility. There is no reason to believe that there would be an increase in government bond yields and therefore, there would not need to be any intervention in the bond markets. When things kicked off with Cyprus the bond markets didn't react. There was no impact on sovereign debt yields. The only thing that occurred was that share prices for banks dipped (this has no impact on solvency or liquidity) which reflects the economics -- banks might have to offer higher interest rates on deposits going forward to maintain their existing deposit base, this reducing profitability marginally. The entire point of the measures that have been put in place throughout the EU over the last 18 months was to break the link between the banks and the sovereign. Its the express goal of everything that has been put in place and has been working.

Hipsters (at least what we mean by that in the US) are seen as a new breed that have emerged in the last 20 years or so. There have always been cool / art-house kids. When someone says ?hipster? to me though what that usually means is a lack of authenticity. A very shallow follower of a mish-mash of trends without any real depth of passion or understanding. Hipsters are obsessed with the appearance and image of things but lack any true conviction or appreciation of anything. Pop culture (to some extent) has always been like that, so there?s nothing new there. What's unusual is they take themselves to be making some sort of counter-culture statement. That and the worship of everything retro. In the past being counter-culture was about expressing a new / fringe aesthetic or philosophy not some asinine regurgitation of the past.

It?s supposed to help people who are ostensibly paying as much in rent as they would have to pay for a mortgage but can?t get a mortgage only because they can?t save up a deposit. I can understand as I have friends in this position who are paying rent higher than my mortgage. However, without an increase in supply, this program is just going to lead to massive house price inflation. Also, given that its not means tested, its fundamentally unfair to those who do save up a deposit and risk their own money (rather than tax payer money) buying a home. Even in London, no one is prevented from buying a house because they can?t afford a 600k price tag. There are lots of places you can live in London for less than that and the idea that tax payers will effectively subsidize the purchase of high value homes in relatively affluent areas is outrageous. It shows how desperate the government must be to put forward policies they think will win them votes however I?ve never seen anything so fundamentally irresponsible and ill thought out.

Again, what are you talking about? My point was that deposit flight from the banks would not necessitate Germany buying bonds in Southern Europe as you suggested. Buying bonds on the secondary debt market wouldn?t do anything to deal with any potential deposit flight because the two things are not directly connected. Deposit flight would lead to a liquidity crisis within the banking sector. However there is already a liquidity facility available to deal with funding gaps (deposits are a type of bank funding). Therefore your conclusion below makes no sense: "Money will be flying into German banks from all > Southern European economies as we speak, this then > means that to counterbalance this the Germans have > to buy more bonds in the southern european > economies, a potential risk spiral not unlike, um, > 2007......" To answer the questions you raised (though again I don?t see how they support your original assertion). 1. The ECB hasn?t intervened in the secondary bond market in the last 12 months but did so intermittently between 2010 and early 2012. Draghi has pledged to do so again if yields (due to market disruption) rise to unsustainable levels as long as certain preconditions are met. This has in and of itself resulted in a reduction in bond yields as the perceived risk in the market is lower. Please note that the ECB can?t buy bonds directly issued by the government and never has but only has bought them via secondary trading (i.e. buying them from investors thus indirectly influencing yields). 2. The ESM (European Stability Mechanism which replaced the EFSM) has pledged to provide up to 100b to recapitalize Spanish banks. Of this 40b is believed to be needed and that is all that has been used. All Spanish banks have a core capital ratio of 9% or higher and ESM capital has dealt with the solvency issues affecting the banking sector (not solvency vs. liquidity). The ESM has funding pledges from all Eurozone countries. Again, I don?t see how any of that supports the assertion that a liquidity crisis caused by deposit flight will result in Germany buying Southern European bonds. It will result on further drawdowns by the banks on the ECB?s LTRO 3 year liquidity facility. Nothing more, nothing less. The potential risk spiral you outline doesn?t exist. I?m not saying there aren?t any risks in Europe, just not the ones you?ve outlined. ???? Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > "Err, what are you talking about. Buying Spanish > bonds has nothing to do with the bank deposits. > The ECB has already provided an unlimited 3 year > liquidity facility to all European banks > (including Spanish banks) to deal with disruptions > in the wholesale funding market. Should deposits > shrink, the same liquidity facility can and would > be used as this would represent a liquidity rather > than a solvency issue." > > > So the Bundesbank or the ECB hasn't being buying > southern european debt? and the 100bn capital > injection for spanish banks was provided by? > Underpinned by?

Who has a God given right to own a house worth up to 600k?! The maximum amount on this scheme is rediculous. Not means testing it is rediculous. The concept of being able to buy existing homes is rediculous-- at least for new homes you can argue that its stimulating building to address the fundamental issue of lack of supply. This is literally just buying votes. It's outrageously irresponsible. Who in their right mind will even bother saving for a 25% deposit anymore when all you need is 5% and can get this rest (interest free) from the government (i.e. us the tax payers)!

Am I the only one horrified by the government's plans to give people interest free money for worth up to 20% of the purchase price for both new and existing homes wirth up to 600k? And this is without any means testing... Everything about it is madness and can only lead to massive price inflation.

Do they really get off lightly? I have no ideas what the sentencing guidelines are. To the OP: Very sorry this happened to you. As its not worth very much and is very distinctive hopefully you will get in back soon. DJKillaQueen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Agreed e-dealer, but what can the Police do when > under 18's who commit burglary are only given a > slap on the wrist?

First figure out where all your money is going. Credit cards are actually helpful regarding tracking expenditure in this way if you can avoid the temptation to over spend! Once you know what you spend your money on, see what you are able or willing to change. Figuring out what you can sacrifice will be the hardest part as you'll feel you deserve / need everything.

Err, what are you talking about. Buying Spanish bonds has nothing to do with the bank deposits. The ECB has already provided an unlimited 3 year liquidity facility to all European banks (including Spanish banks) to deal with disruptions in the wholesale funding market. Should deposits shrink, the same liquidity facility can and would be used as this would represent a liquidity rather than a solvency issue. In addition to this, the Spanish banks are now the best capitalised banks in Europe with most of the small ones wound up, Bankia recapitalised etc. All of the troubled banks have had to transfer all of their troubled real estate assets to SAREB (similar to NAMA in Ireland). The total value of property and loans transferred totals 90b and these are no longer in the banks' balance sheet so future movements in real estate valuations etc can no longer erode their core capital. ???? Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I can't think of a better way to start a run on > the banks in say Italy/Greece/Portugal etc than > the Germans saying we'll levy a 10% tax on all > savings for the cost of bailing your banks out. > Money will be flying into German banks from all > Southern European economies as we speak, this then > means that to counterbalance this the Germans have > to buy more bonds in the southern european > economies, a potential risk spiral not unlike, um, > 2007...... > > idiot policy, by the clueless, in > desperation........ a situation largely made by > the Euro.

Anyone have a link to the actual article?

Agree! What on earth are estate agents saying to you people these days. edhistory Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > When did Nunhead become part of Peckham? > > In your dreams? > > John K

Are you new to the city?

Holy sh*t, that's really bold on such a public intersection that time of day!

Are you sure these are the same incident? I ask because you and James make reference to a couple of criminals while that police report suggests only one attacker. Either way, it?s pretty awful. I'm glad he's not too seriously hurt but being mugged and stabbed has got to be terribly traumatizing psychologically. I?ll certainly be more cautious late at night.

Given the reasons the DofE have asked for the information not to be released (so as not to complicate their negotiations for the site), trying to find out where it is on a public forum seems counter productive if you want things to go smoothly for Judith Kerr.

I thought Nunhead was the new ED. Clearly I'm out of touch. My in-laws keep reading ED is the new Clapham (and they don't even live in London).

Sorry, I thought the " everything else would be so much more easily solved" part of your post was referring to the world's problems.

Was it a stabbing during a robbery or do they believe there was an ongoing disagreement between the two parties involved?

I like a man who can pull off pink.

Err, I like the sentiment, but I've never really bought the whole, if women ruled the world we'd be so much better off idea! Ending discrimination for me is an end in and of itself. Not sure women in banking / the judiciary etc would be any better than men.

Is the Sunday Times aware of the stabbings?