« Corporate totalitarianism | Main | "Diversity" and nationhood »

March 05, 2008

Comments

Guido Fawkes

Hold on a second, the FTSE 100 is where the pension funds are, so given my underlying point was how pensions have performed the performance of minnows on AIM is not relevant.

Effectively you are saying that if we compare to the Japanese market - which is a disaster - we are not doing so bad. OK but is that a good thing?

Middle-class tax-paying private pension owning voters have been hit all ways by Brown.

chris

The pension funds aren't in the FTSE 100: less than 44% of their assets are now in UK equities (though it was more a few years ago):
http://mas.mellon.com/site/Press/press_details.aspx?id=201&region=US
And AIM stocks aren't included in the All-share index.
If pension funds have had a bias to larger UK stocks over the last 10 years, then it's a failure of asset allocation not of New Labour.
There are lots of good reasons to criticize the government; you don't need to invent bad ones.

GeoffH

"The pension funds aren't in the FTSE 100: less than 44% of their assets are now in UK equities "

The shift from equities to government bonds is the direct result of Labour legislation. To repeat: "Middle-class tax-paying private pension owning voters have been hit all ways by Brown"

Matthew

It also ignores dividends which pension funds certainly receive and are more common in the UK. The total return index returned 35% for the Ft-se and 48% for S&P, in a common currency of dollars that's 63% for the Ft-se and 48% for the S&P.

Shuggy

"If I were he"

But you're not.

I'm bet you're glad.

And you'd be right.

jameshigham

Reading Guido's reply here, it still seems a good point that the stock market is not the best criterion.

Alex

Also, it's a wholly spurious argument because it's based entirely on where you stick the goalposts. Labour took office not far from the top of the biggest stock market boom in the history of the world; had the Tories won the Feb'74 elections their record would be even better, simply because they would have started with the stock market in the toilet.

Further, as stocks trend up over time, this is also a free gift to longer-serving governments. Of course the Tories did "better"; they had another 7 years of trend to play with, and the regression to the mean from 1987.

In short, it's the kind of intellectually vacuous and dishonest fuckery we expect from Paul De'L Aire Staines. (Have I missed a noble particule in there? Shouldn't that be "Von"?) If he invested his clients' money on the basis of this shite, it should be no mystery why he turned to politics.

Forex Stock Blog

i like the quality insight you have provided here. keep this up and i will keep coming back!

Sales Training

It's hard to determine the lag between a new government and the effect their policies have on markets. Some policies have immediate effects while others can take 10 - 20 years to flow through.

The comments to this entry are closed.

blogs I like

Why S&M?

Blog powered by Typepad