Is the NTMA behaving responsibly?

realitykeeper

Jawgap wrote: »

You do realise that in the last month or so, in addition to issuing an inflation-indexed bond, they also got away a similar sized amount of 12 month debt that offered a negative interest yield......people are effectively paying the NTMA a 0.43 per cent rate for the privilege of holding their money for 12 months!!

That does not surprise me in the slightest. These anomalies are a feature of extraordinary times and they mask the extraordinary consequences we will see later this year.

tomwaterford

Owryan wrote: »

Actually in another thread he brought the impending doom forward to sometime this year, or next year, maybe the year after or the one after that, but definitely this year....or not.

Tbf perhaps it's time to use/check outside econmic models??


Yous are all starting to sound like people who laughed at others for saying the Celtic tiger was false/property bubble and would implode??

Owryan

tomwaterford wrote: »

Tbf perhaps it's time to use/check outside econmic models??


Yous are all starting to sound like people who laughed at others for saying the Celtic tiger was false/property bubble and would implode??

If you look back at the op's history you ll see just how based in "reality" they are. They have been promising a glorious recession for the last few years.

Thats before you look at the fact they want to bring back workhouses, eliminate the poor, force people into homelessness so others can have their houses, make the low paid take pay cuts so the better off dont have to.

So pardon me if i dont take their ramblings so seriously

tomwaterford

Owryan wrote: »

If you look back at the op's history you ll see just how based in "reality" they are. They have been promising a glorious recession for the last few years.

Thats before you look at the fact they want to bring back workhouses, eliminate the poor, force people into homelessness so others can have their houses, make the low paid take pay cuts so the better off dont have to.

So pardon me if i dont take their ramblings so seriously

However is there inflation theory based in reality??

Jawgap

realitykeeper wrote: »

I was referring to the amount of junk they can dump on the ECB.

Except none of it carries a junk rating - even the short term money is well rated, not top tier, but way off a junk rating.

And if it's junk, why are the yields so low?

Jawgap

realitykeeper wrote: »

That does not surprise me in the slightest. These anomalies are a feature of extraordinary times and they mask the extraordinary consequences we will see later this year.

So I take it you are shorting like crazy and taking advantage of the low gold (relative) price?

Zubeneschamali

Jawgap wrote: »

So I take it you are shorting like crazy and taking advantage of the low gold (relative) price?

There's no point, everything wil be equally worthless apparently. The entire concept of money is going to explode.

Jawgap

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

There's no point, everything wil be equally worthless apparently. The entire concept of money is going to explode.

Yeah, that's why if I honestly believed what the OP believed I'd be buying gold like crazy - actual golf, not just trading it

realitykeeper

Owryan wrote: »

If you look back at the op's history you ll see just how based in "reality" they are. They have been promising a glorious recession for the last few years.

Thats before you look at the fact they want to bring back workhouses, eliminate the poor, force people into homelessness so others can have their houses, make the low paid take pay cuts so the better off dont have to.

So pardon me if i dont take their ramblings so seriously

Everyone need to take pay cuts, and what is wrong with ending poverty in the long term, are you suggesting the poor want to remain poor and making them rich is an act of genocide?

Wanderer78

realitykeeper wrote:

Everyone need to take pay cuts, and what is wrong with ending poverty in the long term, are you suggesting the poor want to remain poor and making them rich is an act of genocide?

Maybe we need to change the systems that distribute wealth so that it's more evenly distributed rather than potentially sending many into poverty?

realitykeeper

Jawgap wrote: »

Except none of it carries a junk rating - even the short term money is well rated, not top tier, but way off a junk rating.

And if it's junk, why are the yields so low?

So, these bonds have not been given a junk rating by the same rating agencies that gave Ireland a AAA rating right before the economy imploded and the IMF were called in. Negative interest rates don`t even need a junk rating in order to be junk. Holders of these bonds are guaranteed to loose money.

realitykeeper

Jawgap wrote: »

So I take it you are shorting like crazy and taking advantage of the low gold (relative) price?

They say holding 10 to 15% of ones portfolio in gold is a good idea and I agree with that. I also agree that money should be used and not hoarded but one must be careful. If an economy spends a lot on benefits, bailouts and adopts protectionist policies, it is best avoided altogether. Buying negative yielding bonds so you will not loose too much when the economy implodes is just lazy. There is value to be had in economies based on real capitalism.

realitykeeper

Wanderer78 wrote: »

Maybe we need to change the systems that distribute wealth so that it's more evenly distributed rather than potentially sending many into poverty?

Rather than change wealth distribution, it would be better if systems were put in place so that the low paid would earn more, and that can be done. Forcing people to hand out charity will only cause them to move abroad.

Jawgap

realitykeeper wrote: »

So, these bonds have not been given a junk rating by the same rating agencies that gave Ireland a AAA rating right before the economy imploded and the IMF were called in. Negative interest rates don`t even need a junk rating in order to be junk. Holders of these bonds are guaranteed to loose money.

So you are rating the debt being issued as 'junk' - on what basis?

And yes, people are paying the NTMA to hold their money - maybe, as bonkers as it sounds, it's a vote of confidence in the NTMA and Ireland? They're happy to pay a small premium to keep their money safe.

And surely it was the decision to guarantee the banks that turned our debt to junk? Prior to that there was nothing inherently wrong with it.

Jawgap

realitykeeper wrote: »

They say holding 10 to 15% of ones portfolio in gold is a good idea and I agree with that. I also agree that money should be used and not hoarded but one must be careful. If an economy spends a lot on benefits, bailouts and adopts protectionist policies, it is best avoided altogether. Buying negative yielding bonds so you will not loose too much when the economy implodes is just lazy. There is value to be had in economies based on real capitalism.

Yes, but if you honestly believe we're months away from imploding then surely you'd be hoovering up all the gold you can get your hands on? Especially as gold seems a bit 'bearish' at the moment?

I believe in a diversified portfolio, but if I genuinely thought for one minute there was a killing to be made in a single asset class, I'd pile into it.

Btw, who is the 'they' - on the one want you seem to be eschewing conventional market wisdom, then on the other embracing it?

realitykeeper wrote: »

Rather than change wealth distribution, it would be better if systems were put in place so that the low paid would earn more, and that can be done. Forcing people to hand out charity will only cause them to move abroad.

How?

Surely, if wage cuts, per your previous posts, are cut discretionary spending falls off, people focus on saving and paying down debt.....so how would the low paid earn more?

If anything they'd earn less as more of them would be chasing a decreasing pool of money?

Seth Brundle

realitykeeper wrote: »

Rather than change wealth distribution, it would be better if systems were put in place so that the low paid would earn more, and that can be done. Forcing people to hand out charity will only cause them to move abroad.

Define low paid.

Anyhow, surely paying more to unskilled workers will mean that skilled workers will also want more meaning that even more skilled workers will want more?
You'd just be driving up wage inflation which in turn would drive up the cost of living, etc.

Owryan

realitykeeper wrote: »

Everyone need to take pay cuts, and what is wrong with ending poverty in the long term, are you suggesting the poor want to remain poor and making them rich is an act of genocide?

You wanted everyone but you to take pay cuts. And you wanted to end poverty by putting them into camps.

Hardly an inspiring idea

Chips Lovell

Thread locked, since we've already been here many times before.