http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/bristol/7846445.stm

Here is the money program show:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00h3..._Made_Billions/

 

Porsche in $20bn 'sting'

By Mathieu Robbins
Wednesday, 29 October 2008

Independent.co.uk Web

The sports car giant Porsche has pulled off one of the greatest share killings on record in a coup that has left some of the world's largest hedge funds nursing combined losses that could total $20bn (

 

Matthew Paris had an interesting take in yesterday's Times:
There's no new motor to drive the economy

To paraphrase:
This recession is the re-assertion of market forces away from Britain and over to India and China. Strong UK sectors (e.g., technology) will remain strong; but those riding the wave of other people's strength will become re-balanced.

And there was another article suggesting that those relying on consumer confidence will need people like the 18 year old in the report, who was still buying 3 pairs of shoes a month while only paying her parents

 

Unfortunately, as the chap in the program points out; there's a strong chance that some of that money lost to Porsche will affect your pension\endowment etc; so although there's a bit of me that thinks the same as yourself there's also a bit of me that knows that Joe Public will pay the price long term on Porsches considerable gains.

If it turns out this was all pre-empted by Porsche and they are found to have manipulated the markets then I'd hope that something is done to redress it.

 

True.

But there is a subtle difference between investment and gambling, which has become blurred recently.

For every hedge fund winner, there's always several losers somewhere else. Money isn't actually created by these shitty boys, it's just mis-appropriated and re-distributed...

 

Recently

 

Well, every 60 years or so.

"But this time it's different", It always is...

 

The point here though isn't whether playing the market is considered an investment or a gamble, which are in any case the same thing as far as market speculation is concerned (a calculated gamble).

The point is that the markets need to be seen as being transparent and for them to function within a framework that protects the normal, and to some extent expected, ebb and flow (cause and effect).

The reality is that this can only happen to a certain degree and there will be a certain amount of manipulation/abuse that can be succesfully hidden.

However when something that appears to be as blatant as this appears then the regulators have to act in order to protect the 'integrity' of the marketplace itself.

 

What, exactly like they didn't over the last decade with other "investments"?

I know that most QUANGOs employ those too stupid to understand the complexities of what they're actually regulating, be it share options or pensions. The latter is a case in point, because a lot of over-complexity comes from gov'ts prodding their cocks in with more nannying and futile legislation.

Perhaps I'm hoping what Porsche did IS just about legal; The system has given us a good ride through the last couple of decades of the K-wave winter (mainly due to an asset bubble) and I don't want over-regulation strangling creativity entirely.

And as a corollary, if shitty boys shun Porsches henceforth, maybe the brand image will improve once more and we'll be able to enjoy them for what they are...

 

Ugly 4x4s ... ?