Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
anyone know what might really play out?
will the oil decrease hurricane energy? will it make the water cooler or warmer?
does anyone have science or facts?
Here are a couple of relevant posts from Jeff Masters' blog:
Nor did I know my pension was tied up in BP.
Ignorance isn't an excuse? Maybe not, but this is going to fuck up a lot of peoples already meagre resources when they retire. Fuck em eh.
but you're assuming most people with a pension know who their monthly pension contribution gets invested in (usually quite a wide portfolio). Most have no idea. People save in pensions because it's the simplest way of saving for what to do when they retire. Most people don't have the financial knowledge, the inclination or the nous to look for alternative investment strategies. Would you rather they stuffed all their spare cash in their matress?
I largely agree with you, but on a human level I still feel a little bad for people whose pensions will be screwed by this, even if they aren't the primary victims.
And there are millions like me.
You don't get sent a list of all the companies your pension provider is investing in every week, and even if you did, if you went through the list with a fine moral toothpick, you could pretty much rule out every other company as being amoral bastards in one form or another.
You don't get profits from 'your investment' year after year. The pension operator does. When you eventually come to draw on your private pension, this is still likely to be much less in most cases (in relative terms) than the state pension people received only a few decades ago. People have to use private pensions as state pensions have reduced so dramatically in recent years. This will hit those on lower incomes the hardest. Still, just a bunch of thickies I guess.
You're taxed on the income when you recieve it, not when you put in.
You've been taxed on your contributions when you put in, but not when you take out.
...For a person not busting into higher tax bands or involved in any other taxation complications (i.e. lower income peeps) the return from a private personal pension investment is often accepted as being in the same ballpark as that from ISA savings when all is said and done.
Private personal pension investments are not the necessity that you imply.
Shall I mention the tobacco industry too?
Pension holders losing money because they supported an 'unethical' company, or pension holders losing money because their investments were held on the stock market.
Because if it's the former, then presumably you agree that anyone buying or taking illegal drugs or smoking cigarettes is implicitly supporting the practices of the people involved in their production?
ethical funds and investments?
perhaps it wasn't that clear.
You came on all high and mighty and unempathetic towards those that had supported an unethical industry.
In purely ethical terms, I see little difference in investing in BP, smoking cigarettes and buying illegal drugs.
If people want to do that, then fine, but to get superior over one while doing another just wound me up a little.
(I'll have to apologise for seemingly targeting you - one of my big bugbears is hippy types that take drugs and smoke, and it's too easy to set me off on a rant about them.)
so was it about ethical investments or not?
I don't see why we should abandon sympathy for them. Sympathy for BP is another thing entirely.
If you can afford to save enough money to live off from the age of retirement onwards on the average job, even using an ISA, I'd be impressed.
I want you to be impressed by me.
so your idea of retirement probably involves no fun. ;-)
Even at the height of great interest rates £8K-£10K in an ISA was only making about £25 a month.
You want say £15-20K a year once you're retired I reckon, given how inflation's going and people are regularly breaking the 100 year mark so want that sort of money to hand for 25 years, more or less, yeah? While I guess you COULD save £300,000 in 35 years, it's going to be tough to achieve.
Sympathy. Find some.
No one ever said it was gonna be easy
A pain to tease me, the barrier's broken
Climbing aboard on a white knuckle, ride
Churns my insides and the wheels are in motion
"it's going to be tough"
I don't say, "Oh well, motorbiking is risky, isn't it?" and I guess that's the point: You can feel sympathy for people hit by this 'risky' business.
Yeah there are risks but they are generally handled and this is unusual. I feel sympathy toward people whose pensions are affected by this, just as if their 'ethical' one was.
A pension is not the same as savings because it lasts for your retirement. You might well die early and they've made on the deal, or you'll keep on going and they lose out. That's why it's different.
I'm glad you have a house you can sell to keep you in clothes while you...erm...bum around on the street because you just sold where you were living to pay for it? People with houses have pensions.
I was simply stating that it's a bit fucking rich to act like they all knew what they were doing and, even if they did, they had the time, money and ability to change that.
Is it that unusual? Investment-based private pension funds have been shaky as you like for ages.
Sorry, I thought I'd put that. This is clearly an unusual blip for a single company.
But there have been plenty of examples of massive problems occuring as a result of pensions based on stock market activity.
This current turn of events is not without precedent.
This is a big blip is really the only point I was making - that there are risks and consequences and sometimes the two are disproportionate.
I think the issue here is that you're 'This'ing Vikram like mad under the mistaken belief that we're all true-blue Tories who are rabid for money while he's the do-gooder student who supports your socialist agenda...whereas in fact he's simply someone who acted like no one deserved any sympathy (and when offered the socialist option laughed at it to boot).
>"'This'ing Vikram like mad"
-I've 'this'd' one thing of his in this thread so far. And that was an accident when I tried to click 'reply'. Not that his point about investment = risk doesn't apply. Elsewhere I've put forward my own points, thanks.
>"...the mistaken belief that we're all true-blue Tories who are rabid for money..."
-What are you on about. It's obvious as anything that most on here aren't "true-blue Tories". As if that had anything to do with it anyway.
"while he's the do-gooder student who supports your socialist agenda"
-As far as I can gather, you're of a man of self-proclaimed socialist leaning. I've debated much with vikram before on a number of subjects and disagreed on some while agreeing on others. You've seen & read that. So with this in mind, so suggesting that I've got some "socialist agenda" as if it's some kind of slur is bizarre to say the least. As is using "do-gooder" as a jibe. That's just weak. Vikkers is being a smidge hardline on this one. But it's in response to what I view to be astounding belligerence and/or willful ignorance on the part of loads of others on here.
...all in all, a very odd post from you.
the banks invest the money that you pay into savings accounts, into companies worldwide. You're being a bit naive if you don't believe that some of that money is pretty likely to end up invested in BP and other 'blue chip' companies.
it's to do with the fact that BP are a morally corrupt/unethical company. Putting their money into a standard savings account isn't going to solve that problem, so by your own argument they deserve to get fucked over just as much as people with pensions that've invested into BP.
Your argument's full of holes.
Just admit you were wrong in what you originally said.
Either ethics come into your argument, or they don't. You can't have it both ways.
I'm suggesting that ethics have absolutely shit all to do with this.
I'll say again, if ethics have anything to do with it, why should someone who invested via a company pension plan that doesn't give them access to the share portfolio lose out, but a someone who's savings went into the company via their bank not?
Why should those who save with non-ethical banks, who may invest their money into companies such as BP, not get fucked as well? Clearly they don't care where their money was going either.
The moment you brought ethics into this is the moment your argument about the difference between pensions and savings collapsed.
The strawman argument's not going to work. Sorry.
Where did that money go?
this thread has got too unwieldy to follow.
I meant that I was viewing this thread in 'linear' and lost track of which posts were meant to go where.
Basically, I think that, in an ideal world, people would only use ethical investment plans and the taxation system would be set up so that buy-to-letters can't reduce the supply of homes in the market to the extent that the prices are inflated beyond responsible lending limits for first-time buyers (and money can’t 'trickle up' the system in rent). Don't forget that most new-build properties are funded by pension schemes anyway, so if you're buying a flat, you're effectively contributing to these anyway.
The distinction is a subtle one, but I think that more people have a direct influence on where their money goes if they are buy-to-letters (especially as most of these people are clued-up middle/upper class people with the disposable money to purchase second, or third, homes) than if they have a private pension plan (necessary when the state pension is being run down in significance, and often the ONLY source of income, post-retirement, that these people will have) where the investments are handled by their fund manager.
Having sympathy, or perhaps more accurately, empathy, with those that have lost money does not necessarily mean that one also feels that they should be compensated for their losses.
I never said that you should do.
But putting it into an ethical one is a big step towards solving it.
"The value of your investments may go down as well as up."
They never say "The value of your savings may go down as well as up", do they?
Yes, they all got it all back because the government bailed them out, but for a few days it was looking very dicey.
In anycase, again, that wasn't the point that Vikram originally made. The original point was they deserve to be fucked because their money was unethical. His solution - savings accounts. The vast majority of savings accounts don't have an 'ethical' policy. It's a nonsense argument he's been making.
A: UK savers with money in an Icesave account the first 20,000 Euros (Approx £16,000) were covered by the Icelandic protection scheme and the remainder under the UK Financial Services Compensation Scheme.
>"The vast majority of savings accounts don't have an 'ethical' policy."
But some do.
you're missing the point. People absolutely bricked it when IceSave went under because the FSCS didn't have to cover them due to a few technicalities. It took about 48 hours before it was clear that all retail investors would eventually get their money back.
just that Mum was absolutely bricking it for a few days because she was looking at potentially losing £50k of savings to Iceland. Absolutely distraught.
So I'll certainly refrain from talk of eggs and baskets just yet.
And without any specifics about why the European/FSCS guarantees were gonna potentially be overridden and not honoured, there's not much more that can be said about that.
"We will not finance any business whose core activity contributes to global climate change, via the extraction or production of fossil fuels (oil, coal and gas), with an extension to the distribution of those fuels that have a higher global warming impact (eg tar sands and certain biofuels)."
as it happens, I've always used Smile for my current account and credit card.
Top me, that looked like an across-the-board statement that didn't account for the notable exceptions. If not intended that way, then that was a misunderstanding.
Pretty much every large business contributes to climate change by the very nature of them being a large business. Some of them are trying to get better of course. But are the Co-op going to strictly monitor every single company they invest in? Or are they, more likely, going to feign outrage and pull-out their investments only when some kind of disaster comes to light.
I notice that their animal welfare policy only entends to apes for some reason, so I can only assume that they invest in pharmaceutical companies that use animal testing.
It just seems like an attempt to woo some well-meaning but dim potential customers who like to give the impression that they care.
seems to be your argument here. Which is a weak one.
is a better way of putting it. There's no such thing as an "ethical" investment in the kind of big business that makes investment financially rewarding.
All of the clients I work for (banks, insurers, other PLCs) bang on about "ethics" and "corporate responsibility" because it's trendy and they don't want to miss the boat and look bad next to their competitors. It's lip service.
In your opinion regarding the former. Which is pretty defeatist. What else should we not bother attempting to do cos it's not the perfect answer?
In many cases, yes, regarding the latter. Many many companies have definitely jumped on the bandwagon.
It's always gonna be subjective, but I think we can confidently draw some kind of distinction between the ethical policy of any number of petrochemical companies & banking multinationals and that of the Co-op.
"The Bank, which already avoids organisations involved in animal experimentation for cosmetic or household products, will extend its policy to cover activities connected with the exploitation of great apes, be it for experimentation or general commercial use. They are human’s closest living relatives, and have cognitive abilities and a degree of self-awareness not shown by other animals."
"Since the launch of the policy, the bank has declined over £1 billion of potential finance. Funding requests for fossil fuel extraction and production have resulted in the highest value of declines at £169 million, followed by finance for cosmetic manufacturers utilising animal testing (£118 million) and oppressive regimes (£112 million)."
^This seem like a bit more than "an attempt to woo some well-meaning but dim potential customers" to me.
on my behalf by my pension manager, and it has on occasionally been invested in BP, then that makes me morally culpable for BP fucking the ocean up?
I'm just kidding, you're ok. Though clearly dappy and mental
I'm also guessing Judge_B felt some sympathies for those affected rather than just saying "fuck 'em".
the financial knock-on of a kajillion pension funds going south for everyone, investor or not, is not only fairly sizeable but magnified by the current pension shortfalls and general economic status of the world.
That's before you get on to any ympayhies felt for those that were hoping to save the state money by not forcing them to fund their existence post-retirement
^LOOK! Now you've got me AND the (admittedly oil covered) seals on your side, vikkers.
and non-share centric options, too, when it comes to pensions.
I'm not getting caught up in any pesnion scheme that's subject to the vagries of the stockmarket if I can help it. Far far too risky.
Cash ISAs, and worry about other options if/when I get to the ISA limit and/or bank guarantee limit is my pension plan.
And BP is the biggest, or was, I thought...
This is really fucking bad shit all round, not least that Obama's getting fucked over by his electorate over something he really could have done NOTHING about it.
(but was under UK/EU law)
Every other company is doing the same in that region, and, for example in Africa (where Shell have been very active).
You're being a twat, vikkers. Perhaps you'd like to tell us what the ethical pension fund you use is so we can all join.
we're mainly talking about FUTURE pensioners, before you start going round punching old people for owning dubious companies.
I find that concept dubious. If you're investing in a company to make a profit you're already admitting that there's money being made off the backs of other people. If you're going to take some holier-than-thou standing about this then you may as well go the whole hog.
I like how you sidestep my question of where your pension is invested and combine that with the impression that you know what you're talking about without actually going into any details revealing you probably haven't the first clue how easy it is to create an entirely ethical pension yourself from the ground up.
That's before we consider whether a pension you ran privately could hope to offset the matched input from your employer in the average company scheme over years, thus putting you the situation of being poor and 'ethical' or able to sustain yourself and not so 'ethical', a decision the average working person probably can't afford to make.
Where do you draw the line, precisely? You seem to be just coming up with some amazing bullshit for a person who apparently has never worked.
How can you NOT feel sympathy for people whose pensions are screwed because the NI system is fucked and they were advised to get out there and get private pensions by the government?
Max your cashISA.
Our current interest rate is 0.50% AER
You won't be as rich as you thought you were going to be. Boo hoo.
At least my modest gains from interest won't be as a result of fucking over some poor, unseen fucker on the other sde of the world. Which helps me sleep at night.
at 0.5% interest, you're losing money. You're actually better off spending it now than saving it at anything less than about 3.5% at the moment.
given that the rate of inflation's over 3% right now, on a yearly basis it's losing around 2.5-3% of it's value every year.
putting my meagre ISA cash into a mortgage offset is on my to do list.
And I'm sure you'll on the edge of your seats wondering who the mortgage is with... it's Yorkshire Building Society. You are now free to find ethical holes in their policy to expose my hypocrisy for not getting it from the C-op. I am free to be relatively happy on balance that the YBS are not owned by shareholders and so not really a major contributing factor in this global economic clusterfuck that seems to be unfolding before our eyes.
My IF one is too.
You still haven't answered my post here http://drownedinsound.com/community/boards/social/4258532#r5377540 either.
I'm not planning to be rich (boo hoo) I pay into some company pension and that's it really. I'm simply not assuming that anyone who was affected by the shares issue of BP is a raging Thatherite cunt who deserves no sympathy as vikram apparently was.
And, y'know, it's hardly 1983 but good comeback.
but that's something you choose to do. The NI situation has made sure choosing not to have a private pension was tantamount to putting yourself in poverty.
an oil driven super-heated hurricane power-up cell in the middle of the gulf is new!
people's pensions go tits up all the time
How did a discussion about a massive disaster being potentially magnified by a further massive disaster turn so serious?
the main fear regarding hurricanes arriving while the oil spill continues is more to do with the need to stop containment efforts for the period while it’s happening rather than some sort of PETROL CYCLONE situation. The marshes in Lousiana which supposedly help contain some of the worst damage in a normal storm are already damaged themselves from the oil so that’s not going to help either.
Obama’s approval rating have gone slowly down each day that it has been leaking as well – so if it goes into hurricane season he’s going to be fucked. Given that Bush & Cheney have more culpability for the mess than anyone in the current admin, that’s gotta sting
reading the jeff masters blog that amnuck posted to it's quite interesting that there are both potential positives and negatives in terms of highly diluted oil coming ashore is a lot less threatening to the environment than a slick, though obviously the impact will be over a MUCH wider area
though there really isn't a precedent
this bit was interesting though
"I expect that during the peak portion of hurricane season (August - October), the clockwise-rotating eddy that is attempting to cut off from the Loop Current this week will be fully separated from the Loop Current. The separation of this eddy will substantially reduce the possibility that significant amounts of oil will reach the Florida Keys and Southeast U.S. coast, since the Loop Current will be much farther south, flowing more due east towards the Keys from the Yucatan Channel. Oil moving southwards from the spill location due to a hurricane's winds will tend to get trapped in the 250-mile wide eddy, potentially covering most of the surface of the eddy with oil. Thus we might have a 250-mile wide spinning oil slick in the middle of the Gulf of Mexico for days or weeks after a hurricane. This could potentially have a significant warming effect on the Gulf waters, since the oil is dark and will absorb sunlight, and the oil will prevent evaporation from cooling the waters underneath it. Since Loop Current eddies contain a large amount of very warm water that extend to great depth, they often act as high-octane fuel for hurricanes that pass over. The rapid intensification of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita were both aided by the passage of those storms over Loop Current eddies. Thus the warming of the Loop Current Eddy by oil pulled into it by a passing hurricane or tropical storm could lead to explosive intensification of the next hurricane that passes over the eddy. "
I'M SORRY I EVER MENTIONED IT
good thread, would read again.