Your job, PISKIE, is, of course, that of "schoolboy." I hope you are enjoying the holidays, and not spending too much time in mum's closet, in the dark, alone, naked, under those stairs. You need to get out more on your bike.
Of course they're different. I used to trade some floating rate mtg backed securities. But, I used to run positions of sometimes several hundred million. Sometimes I would sell to end users through the sales force, sometimes to other market makers. But, even if for a relatively short time, I was the owner of what I was selling
I don't eat McDonalds, otherwise I might have cycled down to poke fun at you whilst you're flipping burgers. How many stars have you got on your badge now HIAG ?
Not too many, actually. The supervisor reckons I'm fairly stupid, and he mainly has me doing stuff, like scrubbing out the toilets. I don't mind that, though, because I tend to be left alone (no one else can stand the stench), and that means I can practice my Guitar Hero moves with minimal distraction.
Agreed. Jobber - now market maker. As I put in my other reply, I did actually own what I was selling. Don't get me wrong, if I saw a chance to flip some bonds for a quick profit with no risk to my P & L, I'd do it.
Make sure you put those slip hazard signs out when you're mopping the bogs so that nobody has an injury, otherwise you might have to deal with a real Lawyer.
Good advice, PISKIE. I'd hate to come against a real solicitor and/or barrister. I'd probably **** myself. Hell, I'm not even sure that I'd be able to control my bowel movements, if I came up against a legal executive, or a legal secretary!
Worst/busiest day I ever had was when Russia invaded Afghanistan and the price of Gold doubled - it was ****ing manic trade wise but the spreads I got away with were amazing and I could deal at both ends of spread as no-one knew what the real share prices should be coz the Gold price could double again or go back down again. Oh crazy days
I've never done any kind of a deal in Reading (not sure I've even ever been to Reading) so the local planning policies are of no interest to me. Planning policy varies in every council. Some are pro-development, others are anti-development. Some like resi, others like office. Some have draconian 106 policies (remember 106 Walter?!), others are very light on them. Planning policy constantly evolves and I know the planning policies in the areas I work in. When I go into a new area I read up on what their planning policies are. It's like top lawyers can't cover every field and therefore they tend to specialise ie Property, Corporate Finance, or in your case Fiction. It has been funny watching you get so wound up given you are the self styled WUM master! Then your clients are as stupid as you are. The ruling that you have got your knickers in a twist about relates to developments of 10 or fewer homes in urban areas and five in rural areas and currently it's only applicable to the council's that objected. Besides, the ruling isn't preventing development, it's making it a tad more expensive for smaller developers! Trust me, it's not the 1-10 unit schemes in Reading that will address the housing shortage in this country! As for planning committees refusing to implement the government's proposed policy, well I'm sure they will be guided by their own council, not Reading's and if their councils are happy with the proposals and don't take on the government then why would they refuse something they don't object to? You tell Howard Bernstein that he's going to have to scrap his plans for private and rental development in Manchester because of some ruling on micro developments in Reading. I'm sure he'll redraft the whole masterplan! You clown! No chance mate, I like debating with Perry Mason.
Yeah, I remember it. I was in N.Y. At the time. Then the Hunt brothers tried to ramp the silver market and got their arses handed to them
The Hunt bros failed to corner the market but if only they had held there nerve as the price of commodities are through the roof compared to then. Oh what fun we had pre computers and electronic trading and instant reporting of your business - as a Jobber we were allowed to hold any amount of shares without having to formally declare an interest so we got away with loads ! so if a someone wanted to take over a company they had to use a Jobber to build up a stake first prior to launching a takeover bid - I was involved in the first ever Dawn Raid which was on Cons Gold where we sold 29.9% to the buyer at a huge premium then the price sank ! Lol
You don't say! So, you think that decision only affects Reading, right? Please tell me you are joking! What will affect the housing shortage in this country is when every other local planning authority falls in line with the recent decision, and the bulk of house-building in this country (which is comprised of 1-10 house-schemes), once again, grinds to a halt. Count yourself fortunate if you are not affected, but do you really believe that no one else is going to be affected? I repeat, you seem to be quite clueless.
There was all sorts of stuff going on in those days that I won't talk about on here. The Hunt Bros problem was they didn't own the physical silver, or not enough of it. They got squeezed and when they couldn't deliver, got busted out.
There are plenty of councils that won't take the same view as Reading as they get enough social and affordable housing and/or contributions from larger schemes. Most of London and Manchester for instance. Same goes for Leeds and Brum. In fact the vast majority of cities. The bit about the bulk of house building in this country being made up of 1-10 unit schemes is quite frankly hilarious. It's a bit like saying most grocery shopping is done at the local corner shop. Even if that were true, then you seem to have misunderstood the ruling. It's not preventing development of smaller schemes, it's adding a cost to them. Development will still happen it's just that the additional cost will have to be swallowed by someone within the deal. That might be the landowner, it might be the developer or it might push house prices up in the regions. The bottom line though is that houses have to be built so the government will ensure they are built. By the way, if your "clients" wouldn't be able to swallow the additional costs then I'm not surprised you're their "lawyer" and they should really think of a career change! Rock star perhaps?
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/100-million-boost-for-small-housebuilders Some highlights from that link: In the last 25 years, the number of firms building between 1 and 100 units a year has fallen from over 12,000 to fewer than 3,000. The 2008 economic crash devastated our army of small builders, with delivery falling from 44,000 homes to just 18,000 – 7 years on, companies are getting back on their feet but we’re determined to give them all the help they need. With housing starts at a 7-year high and climbing and homes granted planning permission at 261,000 – the highest since 2007, this work will ensure we maintain this momentum and keep the country building. So what do we learn from this? HIAG's claim that the bulk of house building in the UK is made up of developers who build 1-10 units is perhaps a tad incorrect as developers who build 1-100 units only delivered just over 18,000 units at the last count. That's 1-100, not 1-10. As a comparable, Barratt deliver around 15,000 homes a year. Taylor Wimpey deliver around 11,000. That's two developers without even considering Bellway, Redrow, Bloor, Bovis, Crest Nicholson, Persimmon etc Therefore it's highly unlikely that the 1-10 unit developers account for the bulk of house building in this country. In fact the numbers confirm that it's impossible. But you would have thought the country's top property lawyer who is advising major clients would know that!
Yes, it is a fact that the smaller builder has practically been wiped out over the last 25 years, with the last 5 or 6 taking the greatest toll. Over that time, there was a massive slow-down in overall house-building, at a time when Lady Butler was making it clear that there had to be a substantial increase in house-building over the 20 years (from the date she published her report), to simply catch up with current demand. The simple fact is that the likes of Wimpey, Persimmon, Bellway, etc, cannot be expected to build all the new homes that are required, and that has proven to be the case. One of the reasons why the Government brought in the policy to relax the social housing requuirement on 1-10 units (or less than 1000 sq metres) was for the very fact that this would incentivize the smaller/medium-sized developer, and get a significantly greater number of houses built. The Reading decision is not confined to Reading. It has an over-arching effect, because of the comments made by the judge. It's there for everyone to read. I'm not going to keep going over this with you. It remains to be seen, of course, just how serious the consequences will be. You might be right, and we find that the consequences are not as great as some are fearing; but you might be wrong, and the consequences could be severe, requiring the Government to put its policy into legislation. Only time will tell. For you to use this as an opportunity to have a pop at me - someone you know absolutely nothing about - is very strange, and informs me that you have very low self-esteem, or are under so degree of pressure. Perhaps a solicitor has been shagging your missus? Whatever it is, I clearly represent some form of demon that you are trying to exorcise.
That's a very long winded way of trying to avoid the fact that you posted the following "the bulk of house-building in this country (which is comprised of 1-10 house-schemes)" which is utter nonsense. You could always just admit that you were talking out of your hole but then again why would you as me taking the piss out of you all started when I called you on your statement that s106 had been abolished! No low self esteem here pal, I don't have to pretend to be something I'm not! But I do find your attempts to convince a bunch of strangers that you're a legend very entertaining, especially when you make such a balls up of it. Rock on Walter!
Why do you think this country had a massive slow-down in house-building (leading the Government to set up an enquiry into the problem)? Yes, that's right, because the small/medium-sized developer got squeezed out. The policy-change to the sec 106 (which is what I previously referred to) was brought in by the Government to incentivize small/medium-sized developers to get back into business, and kick-start the building program. It was a recognition that the big developers (who are not interested in small projects) cannot do the job themselves. I'm avoiding nothing. As usual, you're trying very hard to make yourself look very clever, but without confronting the fact that you don't really know the significance of the judgement that was handed down last Friday. As for my being a rock legend, I didn't ask for the glory. Some seek greatness, others have it forced upon them. I think you know what category I fit into, eh, Schteeve?
Walter, you make big statements assuming that no one's going to call you on them. Very silly. You stated as fact that s106 had been abolished. When it was pointed out to you that your statement was bollocks you went off at a tangent in the hope that you could bury your **** up. Didn't work! Now amongst many silly statements you've said that developers of 1-10 unit schemes make up the bulk of UK house building. Also bollocks so another attempt to go off at a tangent to try and bury your **** up. Going back to your original statement that s106 had been abolished, it's ironic that you're now trying to save face by crapping on about how s106 could potentially be extended to also impact smaller schemes. It's a very confused argument that you're presenting. I'm suspicious about whether you are in fact a top property lawyer. I don't doubt however that you are a top rock legend. Rock on Walter.
Blah blah blah blah. You keep living in your little bubble, Schteeve. Don't you worry about that little judgement that was handed down by the High Court on Friday. Leave the debate for those that actually do the development work.
