![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
I finally decided on my sterling-dollar target. A quick look at the charts indicated a profit-taking point of just north of $1.54. Indeed, there's a double signal for this (one in a medium time scale and one in a long one). That kind of thing is so rare that one is tempted to say that it is guaranteed to screw up as a result. However, I was sorely of a mind to double down this morning, even though the rapid drop in the first few hours of trading would normally indicate a clawback later on in the week.
++++++++++
The Money section of the FT on Satuirday had an article on "expected value", pointing out that this was very different from "expected return" (one is the mean, the other is the mode). However, somewhat to my disappointment, there was no mention of volatility and "risk of ruin". I guess that the concept of "risk of ruin" is not something that the FT personal finance section would like to emphasize.
++++++++++
The decision to refer to the Serious Fraud Office the findings of the four-year independent inquiry (original timestable, one year; cost so far to British taxpayer, £16m) into the collapse of MG Rover is one of the great scandals of modern government.
As the Phoenix Four and others have observed, this is the most blatant "kicking into touch" that this government has ever tried. It was bad enough when Blair overruled the SFO when it came to the Saudis (business before law...) but now they are using the SFO's legendary slowness to keep under wraps the findings of the inquiry. And the SFO is slow when they have funding. How much help will they get if the government doesn't want the report to be released?
Of course, all of this doesn't mean that the Phoenix Four are innocent of the charges of aset-stripping that have been levelled at them. After all, they got a very good deal when they bought MG Rover in 2000 (with the backing of the then Labour Government) and they got an even better deal when they were bailed out in 2005 by the then Labour Government. For five years they paid themselves very handsomely because, of course, you need to pay high salaries (a) to incentivize the executives and (b) to ensure that you get the best.
Curious, therefore, that the company still went tits up.
The grey area here is: should executives who pay themselves rather high salaries and then see their company go bust be prosecuted for fraud? Players of 1830 won't have any trouble in taking a view on this.
However, the SFO doesn't work by the far superior standards of boardgame justice, so I doubt that we will see any recommendation that criminal charges be brought any time soon.
And, even if we eventually do see such a recommendation. Well, remember the Saudis.
Alternatively, if the Tories are in power whent he findings come out, it might be more a case of "Remember The TV programme 'The Trial of Tony Blair'".
________________
++++++++++
The Money section of the FT on Satuirday had an article on "expected value", pointing out that this was very different from "expected return" (one is the mean, the other is the mode). However, somewhat to my disappointment, there was no mention of volatility and "risk of ruin". I guess that the concept of "risk of ruin" is not something that the FT personal finance section would like to emphasize.
++++++++++
The decision to refer to the Serious Fraud Office the findings of the four-year independent inquiry (original timestable, one year; cost so far to British taxpayer, £16m) into the collapse of MG Rover is one of the great scandals of modern government.
As the Phoenix Four and others have observed, this is the most blatant "kicking into touch" that this government has ever tried. It was bad enough when Blair overruled the SFO when it came to the Saudis (business before law...) but now they are using the SFO's legendary slowness to keep under wraps the findings of the inquiry. And the SFO is slow when they have funding. How much help will they get if the government doesn't want the report to be released?
Of course, all of this doesn't mean that the Phoenix Four are innocent of the charges of aset-stripping that have been levelled at them. After all, they got a very good deal when they bought MG Rover in 2000 (with the backing of the then Labour Government) and they got an even better deal when they were bailed out in 2005 by the then Labour Government. For five years they paid themselves very handsomely because, of course, you need to pay high salaries (a) to incentivize the executives and (b) to ensure that you get the best.
Curious, therefore, that the company still went tits up.
The grey area here is: should executives who pay themselves rather high salaries and then see their company go bust be prosecuted for fraud? Players of 1830 won't have any trouble in taking a view on this.
However, the SFO doesn't work by the far superior standards of boardgame justice, so I doubt that we will see any recommendation that criminal charges be brought any time soon.
And, even if we eventually do see such a recommendation. Well, remember the Saudis.
Alternatively, if the Tories are in power whent he findings come out, it might be more a case of "Remember The TV programme 'The Trial of Tony Blair'".
________________
