Originally posted by Raoul Duke III
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Bad beat/Moaning/Venting thread - It's the end of the world as we know it
Collapse
This is a sticky topic.
X
X
-
Originally posted by Hectorjelly View Post
What are the fees involved in those funds? Do you have to choose actively managed funds over passive trackers?"We're not f*cking Burundi" - Big Phil
Comment
-
If one wanted to install a front garden driveway would one just rock up to the local planning office and seek their advice? There's precedence on the street for people converting from side entrances to front entrances, but I'm not sure how recently. We're in a bit of a hurry as there's about to be a cycle route installed, so it would need to be done before that. Mainly need it to ease permission for planning on the house being eventually built on the side-plot. Its not taking away any on-street parking spots."We're not f*cking Burundi" - Big Phil
Comment
-
I see now nursing homes see more $$$ in housing refugees than doing what they got planning for, like the hotels before them...lay off most of the staff...let the good times roll baby !
Give it 2 years and as well as a housing shitshow, we will have a nursing home availability shitshow.
Why the government cant do 2 things at once is beyond me, use temporary accommodation WHILE you build the bollix out of it.This too shall pass.
Comment
-
Originally posted by oleras View PostI see now nursing homes see more $$$ in housing refugees than doing what they got planning for, like the hotels before them...lay off most of the staff...let the good times roll baby !
Give it 2 years and as well as a housing shitshow, we will have a nursing home availability shitshow.
Why the government cant do 2 things at once is beyond me, use temporary accommodation WHILE you build the bollix out of it."We're not f*cking Burundi" - Big Phil
Comment
-
Originally posted by Raoul Duke III View PostDo you remember that this is exactly the opposite of what you said 6 months ago?
Originally posted by Raoul Duke III View Post
you should be on the highest risk plan up to retirement - and after it too
- Likes 1
Comment
-
Originally posted by ComradeCollie View PostHow long before they reveal that Biden's legs were provided by Boston Dynamics?
Comment
-
Originally posted by Denny Crane View Post
This is why I was skeptical of Raoul's assessment of Biden's strategic brilliance around the state of the union. Maybe he's team is on fire but I doubt Biden has much input.
Weapons, including imminently NATO fighters, continue to flow to Ukraine ahead of their big push.
Inflation sharply down.
He's doing ok."We are not Europeans. Those people on the continent are freaks."
- Likes 3
Comment
-
Originally posted by Denny Crane View Post
This is why I was skeptical of Raoul's assessment of Biden's strategic brilliance around the state of the union. Maybe he's team is on fire but I doubt Biden has much input.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Hitchhiker's Guide To... View Post
Can't actually see the annual management charges anywhere on the website. That seems dodgy, no? The ETF mantra makes sense for developed markets, I think active management makes sense for markets with more opaque information - like some developing markets. Active management is essentially paying for information gathering, and hoping the amount paid is less than the benefit of the information. There's no point paying for information gathering in developed markets where the available information is already fully incorporated in stock markets. But that's not the case in all markets.
​​​​​​​Also the top holding are just the largest companies by market cap, TSCM etc, i doubt there is much difference between that and something like the IShares developing markets ETF, except you are paying huge fees.
It's possible that developing markets have less perfect markets, but it's very unlikely that the benefits of active management are going to be available to you through a gigantic managed fund offered to anyone. I doubt you have JPMs best and brightest out working on deals not available to anyone else, they are just roughly tracking the index, and will underperform roughly by the amount of their fees.
​​​​​​​
- Likes 2
Comment
-
Apparently Gerald Ford (possibly the most athletically gifted President) used to trip all the time too.
And he lost the next election. So maybe there is presidential power-tripping precedent.
(Let's see AI come up with a sentence like that )"We are not Europeans. Those people on the continent are freaks."
- Likes 1
Comment
-
Originally posted by limpwhacker View PostThere may or may not be a large horses head on the gate post.
- Likes 1
Comment
-
Originally posted by Raoul Duke III View PostBacked Frankie to double up in the Group 1s today, the game is afoot.Turning millions into thousands
- Likes 1
Comment
-
Originally posted by Strewelpeter View PostFrankie factor will see Arrest go off silly short tomorrow, will probably go fav on the back of that."We are not Europeans. Those people on the continent are freaks."
Comment
-
Originally posted by GimmeabreakI think it is very unlikely that the Derby will go ahead tomorrow because of this Animal Rising crew. The talk of what they have planned to disrupt it will bring the entire day to a standstill I'd expect."We are not Europeans. Those people on the continent are freaks."
Comment
-
You should probably check your pension to see how exposed it is to insurance companies in the US - really well written article.president weekend at Bernie’s better pray for a quiet hurricane/wildfire season
There is a huge financial incentive to have the most clear-eyed possible understanding of reality. Wishful thinking or misguided ideology will do nothing except lose an insurance company money.
Because of this, insurance can tell you things about reality. It resembles global investment firms in this: The people running them may be greedy, and the clients may be evil, but the business is all about understanding the true and unvarnished state of the world in order to manage risk in order to protect wealth, and therefore these firms do their very best to operate according to what is true, whereas politicians, for example, often do their very best to lie. This is why every leftist and revolutionary should read the Wall Street Journal. There are far fewer lies when money is involved.
The insurance industry is going to serve a very useful role in the climate apocalypse. It is going to be the tip of the spear that punches through all of the bullshit of climate denialism once and for all. Indeed, the process is very much underway already. Politicians and oil lobbyists can lie all they want, but their homeowners insurance rates are going up.
Watching this process unfold is going to expose the hidden bedrock of many people’s belief systems in a rather violent way. That bedrock, in most cases, will not be “socialism” or “capitalism” but rather “whatever is good for me, personally, I don’t care what it costs, please god save me.” We are well on the road to the inevitable political crisis that will be sparked by insurance. State Farm just stopped selling home insurance in California, due to wildfire and other climate-driven risks. Coastal states in the path of hurricanes have seen tons of insurers pull out altogether in recent years, and the ones left are handing down eye-watering premium increases to homeowners. Florida property insurance rates are rising 40% in a single year(!). In Louisiana, it was even worse—the state insurance of last resort bumped its rates 63% this year.Will you ever fuck off with that shite... you are easily one of the worst posters on here for this-Pokerhand
- Likes 3
Comment
-
Originally posted by zuutroy View Post
Enjoy!
- Likes 1
Comment
-
Originally posted by BennyHiFi
MyHome.ie eh? I haven't really heard about them for many's the year. Even when I was looking to buy a new gaff a few years ago I don't think we ever really looked on there.
I remember 25-odd years ago when they started I wrote some copy for the website and some pre-SEO explainer stuff about what to look out for when buying property cos a guy I had worked with previously was helping build the website and recommended me.
They were on Aungier St., and I lived round the corner at the time. Handy auld number. Owned by the Irish times IIRC, or maybe bought by them a year or two later, maybe early 00s?
Anyone bought a gaff off of MyHome.ie?
When I was at the Indo about 10 years ago I recall we were working on a property portal project (I know ) and remember being in the pub with Daft.ie employee telling me how they were petrified about a new entrant into the market. I had to keep my powder dry - in the end the project came to naught but Daft seems to have gotten a pretty easy ride of it since then mind you.
People tend to just stick the ads up on every site so the competition hasn't seemed to matter much.
- Likes 2
Comment
-
The last of about ten different end-of-school events this evening. Good god they're exhausting. So far we've watched all manner of hapless performances across all manner of sporting and personal endeavours. Tonight was a bizarre hour spent listening to a play by Moliere, which really left many many things to be desired. The winning event was probably the judo - surprisingly entertaining watching little kids chuck each other around. But jesus the drama events have been brutal - there's a lot gained from the RADA fellowship that your average kid just doesn't have a proper grasp of."We're not f*cking Burundi" - Big Phil
- Likes 2
Comment
-
Originally posted by Raoul Duke III View Post
you should be on the highest risk plan up to retirement - and after it too
He also had some other points on it. We're living too long in retirement now. So you need your pot to go along for the ride. On that basis he was recommending a fund that was high risk. I believe it's passive and tracks the s&p top 100 or something like that.
Historically it's the only one with consistently positive return in my options. My old pot from a previous job had a noticeable dip last year on a moderate risk fund. Otherwise it was modest positive returns for the few years I had built up.
- Likes 1
Comment
-
Originally posted by Hitchhiker's Guide To... View PostThe last of about ten different end-of-school events this evening. Good god they're exhausting. So far we've watched all manner of hapless performances across all manner of sporting and personal endeavours. Tonight was a bizarre hour spent listening to a play by Moliere, which really left many many things to be desired. The winning event was probably the judo - surprisingly entertaining watching little kids chuck each other around. But jesus the drama events have been brutal - there's a lot gained from the RADA fellowship that your average kid just doesn't have a proper grasp of.
- Likes 1
Comment
-
Interesting article on the E-car revolution..well to me anyway, admittedly as somebody who doesn't drive and has lived in households which have been car-less for over 75% of my life that doesn't mean much.
Written by none other than Rowan Atkinson who I was mostly surprised to read is actually a bit of a boffin when it comes to these things.
SPOILER
Electric motoring is, in theory, a subject about which I should know something. My first university degree was in electrical and electronic engineering, with a subsequent master’s in control systems. Combine this, perhaps surprising, academic pathway with a lifelong passion for the motorcar, and you can see why I was drawn into an early adoption of electric vehicles. I bought my first electric hybrid 18 years ago and my first pure electric car nine years ago and (notwithstanding our poor electric charging infrastructure) have enjoyed my time with both very much. Electric vehicles may be a bit soulless, but they’re wonderful mechanisms: fast, quiet and, until recently, very cheap to run. But increasingly, I feel a little duped. When you start to drill into the facts, electric motoring doesn’t seem to be quite the environmental panacea it is claimed to be.
As you may know, the government has proposed a ban on the sale of new petrol and diesel cars from 2030. The problem with the initiative is that it seems to be based on conclusions drawn from only one part of a car’s operating life: what comes out of the exhaust pipe. Electric cars, of course, have zero exhaust emissions, which is a welcome development, particularly in respect of the air quality in city centres. But if you zoom out a bit and look at a bigger picture that includes the car’s manufacture, the situation is very different. In advance of the Cop26 climate conference in Glasgow in 2021, Volvo released figures claiming that greenhouse gas emissions during production of an electric car are 70% higher than when manufacturing a petrol one. How so? The problem lies with the lithium-ion batteries fitted currently to nearly all electric vehicles: they’re absurdly heavy, many rare earth metals and huge amounts of energy are required to make them, and they only last about 10 years. It seems a perverse choice of hardware with which to lead the automobile’s fight against the climate crisis.
Unsurprisingly, a lot of effort is going into finding something better. New, so-called solid-state batteries are being developed that should charge more quickly and could be about a third of the weight of the current ones – but they are years away from being on sale, by which time, of course, we will have made millions of overweightelectric cars with rapidly obsolescing batteries. Hydrogen is emerging as an interesting alternative fuel, even though we are slow in developing a truly “green” way of manufacturing it. It can be used in one of two ways. It can power a hydrogen fuel cell (essentially, a kind of battery); the car manufacturer Toyota has poured a lot of money into the development of these. Such a system weighs half of an equivalent lithium-ion battery and a car can be refuelled with hydrogen at a filling station as fast as with petrol.
If the lithium-ion battery is an imperfect device for electric cars, it’s a complete non-starter for trucks because of its weight; for such vehicles hydrogen can be injected directly into a new kind of piston engine. JCB, the company that makes yellow diggers, has made huge strides with hydrogen engines and hopes to put them into production in the next couple of years. If hydrogen wins the race to power trucks – and as a result every filling station stocks it – it could be a popular and accessible choice for cars.
But let’s zoom out even further and consider the whole life cycle of an automobile. The biggest problem we need to address in society’s relationship with the car is the “fast fashion” sales culture that has been the commercial template of the car industry for decades. Currently, on average we keep our new cars for only three years before selling them on, driven mainly by the ubiquitous three-year leasing model. This seems an outrageously profligate use of the world’s natural resources when you consider what great condition a three-year-old car is in. When I was a child, any car that was five years old was a bucket of rust and halfway through the gate of the scrapyard. Not any longer. You can now make a car for £15,000 that, with tender loving care, will last for 30 years. It’s sobering to think that if the first owners of new cars just kept them for five years, on average, instead of the current three, then car production and the CO2 emissions associated with it, would be vastly reduced. Yet we’d be enjoying the same mobility, just driving slightly older cars.
We need also to acknowledge what a great asset we have in the cars that currently exist (there are nearly 1.5bn of them worldwide). In terms of manufacture, these cars have paid their environmental dues and, although it is sensible to reduce our reliance on them, it would seem right to look carefully at ways of retaining them while lowering their polluting effect. Fairly obviously, we could use them less. As an environmentalist once said to me, if you really need a car, buy an old one and use it as little as possible. A sensible thing to do would be to speed up the development of synthetic fuel, which is already being used in motor racing; it’s a product based on two simple notions: one, the environmental problem with a petrol engine is the petrol, not the engine and, two, there’s nothing in a barrel of oil that can’t be replicated by other means. Formula One is going to use synthetic fuel from 2026. There are many interpretations of the idea but the German car company Porsche is developing a fuel in Chile using wind to power a process whose main ingredients are water and carbon dioxide. With more development, it should be usable in all petrol-engine cars, rendering their use virtually CO2-neutral.
Increasingly, I’m feeling that our honeymoon with electric cars is coming to an end, and that’s no bad thing: we’re realising that a wider range of options need to be explored if we’re going to properly address the very serious environmental problems that our use of the motor car has created. We should keep developing hydrogen, as well as synthetic fuels to save the scrapping of older cars which still have so much to give, while simultaneously promoting a quite different business model for the car industry, in which we keep our new vehicles for longer, acknowledging their amazing but overlooked longevity.
Friends with an environmental conscience often ask me, as a car person, whether they should buy an electric car. I tend to say that if their car is an old diesel and they do a lot of city centre motoring, they should consider a change. But otherwise, hold fire for now. Electric propulsion will be of real, global environmental benefit one day, but that day has yet to dawn.
- Likes 2
Comment
-
Originally posted by Iago View PostInteresting article on the E-car revolution..well to me anyway, admittedly as somebody who doesn't drive and has lived in households which have been car-less for over 75% of my life that doesn't mean much.
Written by none other than Rowan Atkinson who I was mostly surprised to read is actually a bit of a boffin when it comes to these things.
SPOILER
Electric motoring is, in theory, a subject about which I should know something. My first university degree was in electrical and electronic engineering, with a subsequent master’s in control systems. Combine this, perhaps surprising, academic pathway with a lifelong passion for the motorcar, and you can see why I was drawn into an early adoption of electric vehicles. I bought my first electric hybrid 18 years ago and my first pure electric car nine years ago and (notwithstanding our poor electric charging infrastructure) have enjoyed my time with both very much. Electric vehicles may be a bit soulless, but they’re wonderful mechanisms: fast, quiet and, until recently, very cheap to run. But increasingly, I feel a little duped. When you start to drill into the facts, electric motoring doesn’t seem to be quite the environmental panacea it is claimed to be.
As you may know, the government has proposed a ban on the sale of new petrol and diesel cars from 2030. The problem with the initiative is that it seems to be based on conclusions drawn from only one part of a car’s operating life: what comes out of the exhaust pipe. Electric cars, of course, have zero exhaust emissions, which is a welcome development, particularly in respect of the air quality in city centres. But if you zoom out a bit and look at a bigger picture that includes the car’s manufacture, the situation is very different. In advance of the Cop26 climate conference in Glasgow in 2021, Volvo released figures claiming that greenhouse gas emissions during production of an electric car are 70% higher than when manufacturing a petrol one. How so? The problem lies with the lithium-ion batteries fitted currently to nearly all electric vehicles: they’re absurdly heavy, many rare earth metals and huge amounts of energy are required to make them, and they only last about 10 years. It seems a perverse choice of hardware with which to lead the automobile’s fight against the climate crisis.
Unsurprisingly, a lot of effort is going into finding something better. New, so-called solid-state batteries are being developed that should charge more quickly and could be about a third of the weight of the current ones – but they are years away from being on sale, by which time, of course, we will have made millions of overweightelectric cars with rapidly obsolescing batteries. Hydrogen is emerging as an interesting alternative fuel, even though we are slow in developing a truly “green” way of manufacturing it. It can be used in one of two ways. It can power a hydrogen fuel cell (essentially, a kind of battery); the car manufacturer Toyota has poured a lot of money into the development of these. Such a system weighs half of an equivalent lithium-ion battery and a car can be refuelled with hydrogen at a filling station as fast as with petrol.
If the lithium-ion battery is an imperfect device for electric cars, it’s a complete non-starter for trucks because of its weight; for such vehicles hydrogen can be injected directly into a new kind of piston engine. JCB, the company that makes yellow diggers, has made huge strides with hydrogen engines and hopes to put them into production in the next couple of years. If hydrogen wins the race to power trucks – and as a result every filling station stocks it – it could be a popular and accessible choice for cars.
But let’s zoom out even further and consider the whole life cycle of an automobile. The biggest problem we need to address in society’s relationship with the car is the “fast fashion” sales culture that has been the commercial template of the car industry for decades. Currently, on average we keep our new cars for only three years before selling them on, driven mainly by the ubiquitous three-year leasing model. This seems an outrageously profligate use of the world’s natural resources when you consider what great condition a three-year-old car is in. When I was a child, any car that was five years old was a bucket of rust and halfway through the gate of the scrapyard. Not any longer. You can now make a car for £15,000 that, with tender loving care, will last for 30 years. It’s sobering to think that if the first owners of new cars just kept them for five years, on average, instead of the current three, then car production and the CO2 emissions associated with it, would be vastly reduced. Yet we’d be enjoying the same mobility, just driving slightly older cars.
We need also to acknowledge what a great asset we have in the cars that currently exist (there are nearly 1.5bn of them worldwide). In terms of manufacture, these cars have paid their environmental dues and, although it is sensible to reduce our reliance on them, it would seem right to look carefully at ways of retaining them while lowering their polluting effect. Fairly obviously, we could use them less. As an environmentalist once said to me, if you really need a car, buy an old one and use it as little as possible. A sensible thing to do would be to speed up the development of synthetic fuel, which is already being used in motor racing; it’s a product based on two simple notions: one, the environmental problem with a petrol engine is the petrol, not the engine and, two, there’s nothing in a barrel of oil that can’t be replicated by other means. Formula One is going to use synthetic fuel from 2026. There are many interpretations of the idea but the German car company Porsche is developing a fuel in Chile using wind to power a process whose main ingredients are water and carbon dioxide. With more development, it should be usable in all petrol-engine cars, rendering their use virtually CO2-neutral.
Increasingly, I’m feeling that our honeymoon with electric cars is coming to an end, and that’s no bad thing: we’re realising that a wider range of options need to be explored if we’re going to properly address the very serious environmental problems that our use of the motor car has created. We should keep developing hydrogen, as well as synthetic fuels to save the scrapping of older cars which still have so much to give, while simultaneously promoting a quite different business model for the car industry, in which we keep our new vehicles for longer, acknowledging their amazing but overlooked longevity.
Friends with an environmental conscience often ask me, as a car person, whether they should buy an electric car. I tend to say that if their car is an old diesel and they do a lot of city centre motoring, they should consider a change. But otherwise, hold fire for now. Electric propulsion will be of real, global environmental benefit one day, but that day has yet to dawn.
Theres a fair few logical flaws in his arguments:
- the idea that people only keep new cars for five years - but these electrical cars still keep on in circulation in the secondary market
- he doesn't actually compare the excess of carbon on electrical car production with the excess of carbon on petrol cars using petrol - this is the critical flaw and surely was deliberate as its so obvious
See this chart here which compares full carbon emissions across car life cycle: https://www.transportenvironment.org...electric-cars/. Electric cars do indeed require more carbon to produce - on average 8.6 tonnes for electric cars vs 5.4 tonnes to produce a petrol car. But at say 100km travelled the petrol car has emitted 13.2 tonnes of emissions total while the petrol car has emitted 27.7 tonnes. At 200km its over three times the emissions for a petrol car.
The other issue - petrol car's emissions are largely fixed within the bounds of minor improvements, while electric car emissions are constantly falling, primarily due to a more renewable electric mix going into cars. So electric cars will get even better for the foreseeable future.
None of the above changes the fundamental point that we need to get many cars off the road, and electric cars are only useful within the category of cars, but that the category of cars for transport needs to fall."We're not f*cking Burundi" - Big Phil
Comment
-
Originally posted by coillcam View Post
Our company plan's advisor said the same thing. His take was you want it to keep growing or at least matching inflation. After retirement he said you're essentially cashing out and sticking it in the mattress on a super low risk strategy.
He also had some other points on it. We're living too long in retirement now. So you need your pot to go along for the ride. On that basis he was recommending a fund that was high risk. I believe it's passive and tracks the s&p top 100 or something like that.
Historically it's the only one with consistently positive return in my options. My old pot from a previous job had a noticeable dip last year on a moderate risk fund. Otherwise it was modest positive returns for the few years I had built up."We're not f*cking Burundi" - Big Phil
Comment
-
Can't edit that post for some reason - those are the weights for the S&P500 - its even worse for the S&P100 - 30% of your future is reliant on the fate of just four tech stocks - Apple, Microsoft, Amazon, Nvidia. Its almost criminal financial advice to suggest your pension should be invested in that. You also have the big exposure to the US dollar on top of that."We're not f*cking Burundi" - Big Phil
Comment
-
Originally posted by Raoul Duke III View PostNice to see CC in person yesterday when he picked up his Soft Cell tix, although he seemed rather discombobulated by the amount of licking he received."We're not f*cking Burundi" - Big Phil
- Likes 3
Comment
-
Originally posted by Hitchhiker's Guide To... View Post
SPOILERIt seems like hydrogen will be the eventual solution, mainly due to the faster charging possibilities and the fact that it can be produced from the coming global excess of electrical power generation and easily transported, unlike electricity.
Theres a fair few logical flaws in his arguments:
- the idea that people only keep new cars for five years - but these electrical cars still keep on in circulation in the secondary market
- he doesn't actually compare the excess of carbon on electrical car production with the excess of carbon on petrol cars using petrol - this is the critical flaw and surely was deliberate as its so obvious
See this chart here which compares full carbon emissions across car life cycle: https://www.transportenvironment.org...electric-cars/. Electric cars do indeed require more carbon to produce - on average 8.6 tonnes for electric cars vs 5.4 tonnes to produce a petrol car. But at say 100km travelled the petrol car has emitted 13.2 tonnes of emissions total while the petrol car has emitted 27.7 tonnes. At 200km its over three times the emissions for a petrol car.
The other issue - petrol car's emissions are largely fixed within the bounds of minor improvements, while electric car emissions are constantly falling, primarily due to a more renewable electric mix going into cars. So electric cars will get even better for the foreseeable future.
None of the above changes the fundamental point that we need to get many cars off the road, and electric cars are only useful within the category of cars, but that the category of cars for transport needs to fall.
Also the 10 year battery life mentioned above is extremely questionable, probably driven by manufacturers who want their customers to upgrade earlier than they are. Most hybrid and electric early adopters are seeing much better than expected longevity from their batteries, at least the ones that were made ~15 years ago anyway. Also those batteries can be repurposed as domestic storage after they've been used for cars, because the main thing that diminishes is their ability to deliver fast acceleration. They are still perfectly serviceable as storage to supplement the grid for many years after that. So the carbon footprint of these batteries is probably much lower than many would like to suggest.
There's a huge amount of unnecessary pessimism out there in regards to climate issues imo. It'll be grand."I can’t find anyone who agrees with what I write or think these days, so I guess I must be getting closer to the truth." - Hunter S. Thompson
- Likes 3
Comment
-
Originally posted by Hitchhiker's Guide To... View PostCan't edit that post for some reason - those are the weights for the S&P500 - its even worse for the S&P100 - 30% of your future is reliant on the fate of just four tech stocks - Apple, Microsoft, Amazon, Nvidia. Its almost criminal financial advice to suggest your pension should be invested in that. You also have the big exposure to the US dollar on top of that.
https://markets.ft.com/data/funds/te...0431992006:USD
I'd imagine coillcam is misremembering, and it's, the S&P500, as it's quite hard to invest in the S&P 100, the 500 is much more likely.
The last ten years of the Chinese S&P 500 are almost flat - https://www.spglobal.com/spdji/en/in...-500/#overview
Take that in ten years of extraordinary Chinese GDP growth, and the stock market has returned about 3.83% Annualized
Compare that to the US S&P 500, which has returned around 14% (typically around 11%)
It's pretty misleading to say your fate relies on four tech stocks; that's not how indices work. It's famously hard to beat the S&P500; even Warren Buffet, the world's most famous investor, has now underperformed the index over the last 20 years.
- Likes 1
Comment
Comment