# "Brexit not a major issue for true investors" - Rory Gillen



## Brendan Burgess (27 Jun 2016)

A good article from Rory here: 

[broken link removed]

"In an interview with Warren Buffett on US television (mid-2015, I think), the interviewer asked Buffett if he was worried about the then upcoming Friday employment numbers. Buffett replied that he bought See's Candy, the Californian-based luxury confectionery maker, in 1972 for $25 million when it was earning $4 million annually. Today, See's Candy is earnings $80 million annually, a 20-fold increase. He said he didn't worry about the gyrations in employment numbers then, and he doesn't now.

That's kind of how this newsletter service thinks about Brexit. Sure it's an issue, but probably not overly relevant on a medium-term horizon, and certainly not hugely relevant to the vast majority of stocks and funds we cover and recommend to subscribers of this website."


----------



## cremeegg (27 Jun 2016)

Well then it is not a very good article is it.

Uk economic policy for the last 40 years has been based on closer integration with the EU. Now that has been stopped in its tracks, with no plan as to what the basis of future economic policy will be.

That is in no way comparable to fluctuations in employment numbers in an economy with continuity in its basic policies.

There are many possible futures for the UK economy, but all are starting from ground zero now and face but strategic and execution risk.

In my opinion the Uk will fall into the hands of neo-Thatcherists driving down taxes wages and government. Their overall economy may grow but inequality will soar.


----------



## Brendan Burgess (27 Jun 2016)

cremeegg said:


> Their overall economy may grow but inequality will soar.



So it is a good article? 

I am very confused now. 

Brendan


----------



## odyssey06 (27 Jun 2016)

I would find it hard to disagree with the general thrust of the article e.g. _"Sure it's an issue, but probably not overly relevant on a medium-term horizon, and certainly not hugely relevant to the vast majority of stocks and funds we cover and recommend to subscribers of this website."_

But I think the author was stretching it a bit with the quote from Buffet which feels like it has been shoe-horned in.
If he had a quote from Buffet about the UK joining the 'Common Market' back in the 1970s, that would be worth reading!
e.g. I bought British company X shares in 1972 before the UK joined Europe, they were a good investment then and still are now


----------



## cremeegg (27 Jun 2016)

Brendan Burgess said:


> So it is a good article?
> 
> I am very confused now.
> 
> Brendan



The article is about the effect Brexit will have on stocks and three named stocks in particular. I dont know if it is good or not in that respect. As far as the comments about Brexit go, the article completely misses the point.


_"Sure it's an issue, but probably not overly relevant on a medium-term horizon."
_
The Uks main trading relationship is ending. That is relevant over the medium-term and the long-term. No one knows whether whatever comes after will be better or worse, but the potential exists for it to be very much worse.

_"And we seriously doubt that Brexit ranks up there with any the real calamities that have occurred over time."_

Brexit may not even be a calamity, most people in the uk apparently think it is a good thing, but it is a BIG thing. Comparing it to fluctuations in monthly employment statistics is, dozy !


----------



## odyssey06 (27 Jun 2016)

cremeegg said:


> The Uks main trading relationship is ending.



*Possibly* ending... it's quite possible to imagine a scenario where the UK remains in the common market but not in the EU. 
All the referendum asked is whether to remain in or leave the EU. Most MPs favour remaining in the common market (the Norway \ Switzerland model) and I would expect majority of the population too given that 48% wanted to remain in the EU - though maybe not UKIP voters.


----------



## Brendan Burgess (27 Jun 2016)

cremeegg said:


> Brexit may not even be a calamity, most people in the uk apparently think it is a good thing, but it is a BIG thing. Comparing it to fluctuations in monthly employment statistics is, dozy !



OK, I see your point now. 

But the overall point is that the stockmarket does very well over the long term, and this is one, albeit unwelcome,dip along the way. 

Brendan


----------



## Sunny (27 Jun 2016)

odyssey06 said:


> *Possibly* ending... it's quite possible to imagine a scenario where the UK remains in the common market but not in the EU.
> All the referendum asked is whether to remain in or leave the EU. Most MPs favour remaining in the common market (the Norway \ Switzerland model) and I would expect majority of the population too given that 48% wanted to remain in the EU - though maybe not UKIP voters.



Maybe. But Norway allow free movement of people and contribute to the EU budget. Not exactly part of the Leave campaign. They seem to think they can leave and then act like nothing has happened. That won't happen. Wait for the first bank to confirm thousands of job losses in London and watch the panic start.


----------



## Sophrosyne (27 Jun 2016)

odyssey06 said:


> *Possibly* ending... it's quite possible to imagine a scenario where the UK remains in the common market but not in the EU.
> All the referendum asked is whether to remain in or leave the EU. Most MPs favour remaining in the common market (the Norway \ Switzerland model) and I would expect majority of the population too given that 48% wanted to remain in the EU - though maybe not UKIP voters.



Boris Johnson also thinks this is possible. He said so this morning.

Following Johnson's comments, David Cameron was asked in the House of Commons today whether there are any countries that are in the single market that don’t also have to contribute to the EU budget or accept the free movement of labour.

Cameron said there isn’t one.


----------



## odyssey06 (27 Jun 2016)

I don't know what the ultimate settlement will be... but in the range of options...
(1) UK stays in the EU with further opt outs after second referendum
(2) UK has same deal as Switzerland & Norway - this entails much smaller EU contributions than full membership, and requires free movement of labour.
(3) UK remains in Common Market but with ability to limit movement of labour.
(4) UK outside Common Market, but with some sort of 'most favoured nation' trading status
(5) UK has no trade deal with EU

(5) would be the one with potential for wider financial impact. Now that the ball is in parliament's court, and it's quite possible that a remainer will succeed Cameron, 2-3 would seem to me to be the likeliest outcomes given that the majority of MPs favour 1-3 and the majority of the population favour 2-4 (if not 1).

In 1975 the last time the UK population were consulted, they joined the Common Market. This time they were asked to leave the European Union. There's a big range of options between full EU membership and some membership of the Common Market.

Update: It should also be noted that 2 and 3 would likely appease the Scots, and mean no need for a border between Republic and the North - there is no border between Norway and EU countries.
The UK might be able to swing 3 on the basis of a higher contribution to the EU budget e.g. 50% of what they currently put in, which is their leverage in any negotiations.


----------



## T McGibney (27 Jun 2016)

odyssey06 said:


> In 1975 the last time the UK population were consulted, they joined the Common Market.



If it makes any difference, it was actually the other way around. The UK joined the common market in 1973. A post-hoc referendum was held in 1975 to approve it.


----------



## cremeegg (27 Jun 2016)

Brendan Burgess said:


> But the overall point is that the stockmarket does very well over the long term, and this is one, albeit unwelcome,dip along the way.
> 
> Brendan



It does while the market economy which underpins it continues to function as normal.

The St Petersburg stock market lost 100% of its value in 1917, when the economic system which supported it collapsed.

More comparably, the market value of the Irish banks fell effectively 100% following the recent crisis.

Unlike many others I cannot foretell the future however, Brexit may well be comparable in scale to the 2008 crisis.

Standard & Poors  has been the most supportive of the agencies toward Britain in recent years. Here is what they think of Brexit.

 “In our opinion, this outcome is a seminal event, and will lead to a less predictable, stable, and effective policy framework in the U.K. We have reassessed our view of the U.K.’s institutional assessment and now no longer consider it a strength in our assessment of the rating.”


----------



## Brendan Burgess (27 Jun 2016)

cremeegg said:


> The St Petersburg stock market lost 100% of its value in 1917, when the economic system which supported it collapsed.



I am not sure if you can compare Brexit to the overthrow of a government by a communist revolution. 

The banking crisis is probably a better comparison.  Have diversified portfolios not recovered?


----------



## Gordon Gekko (27 Jun 2016)

The point is that things happen...the Communist Revolution, World War II, the Cuban Missile Crisis, 9/11, the Financial Crisis. Of course an investment in the Russian stock market or Irish banks or Nokia can result in permanent wealth destruction. But a diversified investment portfolio has always done fine through whatever nastiness the world throws up. Brexit is just noise for the diversified investor with a medium to long term time horizon.


----------



## joe sod (27 Jun 2016)

Sophrosyne said:


> Boris Johnson also thinks this is possible. He said so this morning.
> 
> Following Johnson's comments, David Cameron was asked in the House of Commons today whether there are any countries that are in the single market that don’t also have to contribute to the EU budget or accept the free movement of labour.
> 
> Cameron said there isn’t one.



I wouldn't put much importance on what boris johnson says, he hasn't a clue what to do now because he never believed that brexit would win referendum. No european leader will deal with Johnson now so the tories are mad if they make him leader, especially as europe is now the no 1 issue for them and will be for a very long time. There is talk that they will never initiate article 50 once they realise the huge costs on their economy.


----------



## horusd (27 Jun 2016)

There is of course the added issue of Scottish independence and all that throws up.  Scotland will not be led out of the EU against its will per  the SNP.  If/when article 50 is triggered it requires approval from these mini parliaments -approval it won't get, what then?  Regardless of immediate economic impact, Brexit is and will continue to convulse the  entire British political system with deep and seismic existential impacts.  Not exactly the right environment for stability or business confidence. And of course we haven't even mentioned  NI and its majority in  favor of Remain.  Tis a complete and utter mess.


----------



## Sophrosyne (27 Jun 2016)

joe sod said:


> I wouldn't put much importance on what boris johnson says, he hasn't a clue what to do now because he never believed that brexit would win referendum.



That was essentially my point!

The slogan of the Vote Leave campaigners was "take back control", which convinced older voters and those in deprived areas that the UK could return to its former glory, control its own destiny, raise its own taxes, control immigration, replace EU laws and regulations with its own _and _pull out of the EU more or less overnight.

But it is all unravelling. Vote Leave, including Boris Johnson, had no forward plans and were shooting from the hip.

Since the stark reality of what they have done has dawned, they have backtracked, deflected and denied.

UK politics is in turmoil. The continued existence of the "United" Kingdom is under question.

By resigning David Cameron has, quite rightly, dumped them in it.

The new, more than likely pro-Brexit Prime Minister will have to negotiate a deal with the EU from a vastly weakened position.

Would British citizens who backed Vote Leave accept any deal that involved free movement of labour or the all pay and no say Norwegian style agreement?

Uncertainty will rule for at least a two-year period.

Meanwhile, businesses and the markets, to which uncertainty is an anathema will not wait.


----------



## cremeegg (28 Jun 2016)

While comparing brexit to the russian revolution is certainly over the top, things indeed do happen.



Gordon Gekko said:


> The point is that things happen...the Communist Revolution, World War II, the Cuban Missile Crisis, 9/11, the Financial Crisis. Of course an investment in the Russian stock market or Irish banks or Nokia can result in permanent wealth destruction.
> 
> But a diversified investment portfolio has always done fine through whatever nastiness the world throws up. Brexit is just noise for the diversified investor with a medium to long term time horizon.



A well diversified portfolio in St Petersburg, Shanghai, and Berlin were all wiped out in the 20th century.

The idea that a "diversified investment portfolio has always done fine through whatever nastiness the world throws up" is only true if you confine your attention to those parts of the world that have not undergone a seismic shift in the basis of their legal and economic systems.

Brexit by itself is a seminal event to quote S&P, the political turmoil that seems to be engulfing the UK, may pass but it may do considerable damage before it does.


----------



## Steven Barrett (28 Jun 2016)

We all know that there will be stock market crashes, investment risk is part of why we make returns. What we never know is what will cause these crashes to happen. We have just found out the reason for this one!

These crashes are indiscriminate and ignore the qualities of individual companies. As the CEO of Domino's said when their stock price fell by 7.9%, "People will still want to eat pizza"


Steven
www.bluewaterfp.ie


----------



## joe sod (28 Jun 2016)

Regarding Russian revolution , yes shareholdings may have been wiped out but so too were property and cash , maybe only gold if you could successfully horde it but then how do you sell it , the authorities would have confiscated that too and you would be severely punished from hiding it from state. As for Germany after ww2  shareholdings in German industrials survived and prospered after the war with rebuilding, I think they fared much better than property which was wiped out in the bombing . Also cash was wiped out during the Weimar republic. So any asset can be wiped out during incredible periods, there is always good reasons for not investing, in many cases more convincing than the case for investing.


----------



## Fella (28 Jun 2016)

If there is no risk there is no return. I am just buying as normal will buy on 1st of July as that is when I am next due to buy. Ignore everything and save yourself years of thinking.


----------



## elacsaplau (28 Jun 2016)

I get the idea that it's a questionable pursuit trying to time the market and that markets are a random walk and all that. What I don't get is someone selling a market commentary service restricting such commentary to saying that important current events are unlikely to have significant long-term implications. If this is true and possibly it is, then why the heck do you provide a market commentary service in the first place?


----------



## aristotle (28 Jun 2016)

elacsaplau said:


> I get the idea that it's a questionable pursuit trying to time the market and that markets are a random walk and all that. What I don't get is someone selling a market commentary service restricting such commentary to saying that important current events are unlikely to have significant long-term implications. If this is true and possibly it is, then why the heck do you provide a market commentary service in the first place?



As a subscriber to Gillen Markets newsletter\website there is more than just general market commentary. There is analysis of various stocks, investment trusts, ETFs etc and various investment approaches, suggestions on buys\sells etc.

The overall Gillen Markets approach is to assess and find value in stocks\funds. It isn't a market commentary newsletter service.


----------



## elacsaplau (28 Jun 2016)

Aristocle,

From the Gillen website - the first service listed is the weekly update which is described as:

_Each week we review what the market is saying about the latest news and events. Insights are rarely gained from reading newspapers as their job is to sell you the news. Read GillenMarkets weekly comment where you'll find out what the market is saying and what investors should do about it._ 

I think there is some validity in what I said, no?!


----------



## aristotle (28 Jun 2016)

I suppose Gillen Markets can answer for themselves but seems they are saying long term these events don't matter much. Short term they do, so I suppose that's why they comment on the market on their weekly newsletter.


----------



## Brendan Burgess (28 Jun 2016)

joe sod said:


> Regarding Russian revolution , yes shareholdings may have been wiped out but so too were property and cash ,



Hi Joe

A very good point which, despite being obvious,  I had not heard made before.


----------



## elacsaplau (28 Jun 2016)

aristotle said:


> I suppose Gillen Markets can answer for themselves but seems they are saying long term these events don't matter much. Short term they do, so I suppose that's why they comment on the market on their weekly newsletter.



That's exactly my point. If their view is that investing is about the long term and this stuff doesn't matter in the long-term, why invest energy in activities (the weekly market commentary) than simply distract from (and possibly hinder) the core message?


----------



## aristotle (28 Jun 2016)

It makes them money I suppose.


----------



## Gordon Gekko (28 Jun 2016)

cremeegg said:


> While comparing brexit to the russian revolution is certainly over the top, things indeed do happen.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



They would not be well diversified portfolios because of their geographical concentration.

A well diversified portfolio has always done fine in the medium to long term.


----------



## cremeegg (28 Jun 2016)

Gordon Gekko said:


> They would not be well diversified portfolios because of their geographical concentration.
> 
> A well diversified portfolio has always done fine in the medium to long term.



The effects of Brexit may be felt well beyond Britain. And if Trump is elected the effects will be felt around the world.


----------



## Gordon Gekko (28 Jun 2016)

cremeegg said:


> The effects of Brexit may be felt well beyond Britain. And if Trump is elected the effects will be felt around the world.



In the short term!

But in the medium to long term, it's less relevant.

9/11, the Cuban Missile Crisis, etc...


----------



## Rory Gillen (28 Jun 2016)

Brendan Burgess said:


> So it is a good article?
> 
> I am very confused now.
> 
> Brendan



Brendan, the article I put out aimed to make a simple point. We all make investment decisions in different ways. Buffett never takes politics or the economic variables into account. Given his record, few will argue with that and his approach works for us (not that we are Buffett, far from it, in fact). Rather, everyone needs a framework for making decisions if just to assist in keeping emotions out of it. Our way is to understand the specific risks that we can control in stocks and funds we research and recommend. And I provided three examples of that thinking in the article so that it was useful in a practical way. Some may not agree with our investment process, and that's fine. We are all different. But the key point is whether we offer a sensible way to making decisions and whether we are independent in our views. If a reader thinks so, we may end up with a new subscriber to our website (and we are always looking for new subscribers) or an investment client. My Featured Articles are a way for us to promote ourselves. After all, we have Ireland's only (fully regulated) investment newsletter.

*Rory Gillen
Founder, GillenMarkets*


----------



## Brendan Burgess (28 Jun 2016)

Hi Rory 

I was asking another poster that question as it appeared to me that he said it was a poor article, yet seemed to agree with its content. 

I think it's a very good article.

I often put up links to your articles as they are often thought provoking. 

Brendan


----------



## cremeegg (28 Jun 2016)

The article suggests that Brexit is comparable in effect to a months employment figures.

That is simply ludicrous.

For an alternative view I suggest Martin Wolf, hardly an alarmist.

http://www.irishtimes.com/business/...e-uk-economy-and-not-for-the-better-1.2698415

"The UK , Europe, the west and the world are damaged. The UK is diminished and will, quite possibly, end up divided. Europe has lost its second-biggest and most outward-looking power.

The hinge between the EU and the English-speaking powers has been snapped. This is quite probably the most significant event in British history since the second world war. It could mark an important moment in the West’s retreat from globalisation."


----------



## odyssey06 (29 Jun 2016)

Not sure about Wolf's article... he seems to have a mindset that the only 'actor' in the drama is Britain without even considering why Britain got to this point.
He did not want Britain to join the Euro, yet realistically, sooner or later the Euro would split the UK from EU... the 'hinge' can only take so much strain.
If it was so important for all concerned for Britain to remain in the EU, why no real recognition during Cameron's re-negotiations? Why no criticism of EU for not doing more to accomodate Britain?

Is it really more significant than Suez, Britain calling in the IMF and devaluing sterling, the election of Margaret Thatcher, Britain being forced out of ERM?

I think David McWilliams makes a lot more sense here given that he seems to be able to consider the reactions of various British factions and various EU factions.
http://www.independent.ie/opinion/c...t-is-not-a-21stcentury-sarajevo-34842130.html


----------



## Gordon Gekko (29 Jun 2016)

Is it bigger than 9/11 for a true globally diversified investor?

Or bigger than the credit crisis?

Of course not.

If you're trying to make a few bob for your summer holidays punting Bank of Ireland, then it's huge, but in such circumstances, you are a speculator rather than an investor.


----------



## triggs (29 Jun 2016)

It is true that Stocks profit over time.I would argue that the assumpions made to assess company risk for FTSE companies have changed .Portfolios concentrated on the FTSE now face a more uncertain future and their risk profile should be revisited and adjustments made accordingly.In answer to your Question-no.


----------



## shtyage2 (1 Jul 2016)

Issues identified as important by voters who said they were likely to vote leave were headed by the number of immigrants coming into Britain (49%), Britain's ability to make its own laws (30%), the impact on Britain's economy (25%), the cost of EU immigration on Britain's welfare system (16%), impact on public services/housing (11%), the number of refugees coming to Britain to claim asylum (10%), Britain's ability to trade with countries in the European Union (9%), cost of EU membership fees (9%), regulations by the European Union on British businesses (8%), the impact on British jobs (7%)


----------



## Marc (1 Jul 2016)

So, let me get this straight... the leader of the opposition campaigned to stay but secretly wanted to leave, so his party held a non-binding vote to shame him into resigning so someone else could lead the campaign to ignore the result of the non-binding referendum which many people now think was just angry people trying to shame politicians into seeing they'd all done nothing to help them. 

Meanwhile, the man who campaigned to leave because he hoped losing would help him win the leadership of his party, accidentally won and ruined any chance of leading because the man who thought he couldn't lose, did - but resigned before actually doing the thing the vote had been about. The man who'd always thought he'd lead next, campaigned so badly that everyone thought he was lying when he said the economy would crash - and he was, but it did, but he's not resigned, but, like the man who lost and the man who won, also now can't become leader. Which means the woman who quietly campaigned to stay but always said she wanted to leave is likely to become leader instead. 

Which means she holds the same view as the leader of the opposition but for opposite reasons, but her party's view of this view is the opposite of the opposition's. And the opposition aren't yet opposing anything because the leader isn't listening to his party, who aren't listening to the country, who aren't listening to experts or possibly paying that much attention at all. However, none of their opponents actually want to be the one to do the thing that the vote was about, so there's not yet anything actually on the table to oppose anyway. And if no one ever does do the thing that most people asked them to do, it will be undemocratic and if any one ever does do it, it will be awful.  

Clear?


----------



## Sophrosyne (1 Jul 2016)

Marc said:


> Clear?



Yes, that just about sums it up, Sir Humphrey!


----------



## odyssey06 (1 Jul 2016)

Marc said:


> So, let me get this straight... the leader of the opposition campaigned to stay but secretly wanted to leave, so his party held a non-binding vote to shame him into resigning so someone else could lead the campaign to ignore the result of the non-binding referendum which many people now think was just angry people trying to shame politicians into seeing they'd all done nothing to help them.
> Meanwhile, the man who campaigned to leave because he hoped losing would help him win the leadership of his party, accidentally won and ruined any chance of leading because the man who thought he couldn't lose, did - but resigned before actually doing the thing the vote had been about. The man who'd always thought he'd lead next, campaigned so badly that everyone thought he was lying when he said the economy would crash - and he was, but it did, but he's not resigned, but, like the man who lost and the man who won, also now can't become leader. Which means the woman who quietly campaigned to stay but always said she wanted to leave is likely to become leader instead.
> Which means she holds the same view as the leader of the opposition but for opposite reasons, but her party's view of this view is the opposite of the opposition's. And the opposition aren't yet opposing anything because the leader isn't listening to his party, who aren't listening to the country, who aren't listening to experts or possibly paying that much attention at all. However, none of their opponents actually want to be the one to do the thing that the vote was about, so there's not yet anything actually on the table to oppose anyway. And if no one ever does do the thing that most people asked them to do, it will be undemocratic and if any one ever does do it, it will be awful.
> Clear?



Only Nixon could go to China.


----------



## Rory Gillen (2 Jul 2016)

elacsaplau said:


> That's exactly my point. If their view is that investing is about the long term and this stuff doesn't matter in the long-term, why invest energy in activities (the weekly market commentary) than simply distract from (and possibly hinder) the core message?



We simply make the point that as we can't predict or control economics or politics, we assess investments on the basis of their specific merits. If, for example, I choose to invest in Berkshire Hathaway, I do so on the basis of whether its run by competent people, has a good business, is not financially strained and offers decent value at the time of purchase. If we were to try and take economic and politics into account - which clearly influence the general direction of the US stock market in the near-term - we'd probably never make a decision.

In that regard, GillenMarkets Investment Newsletter service simply aims to add value to would-be investors where it can - at the stock or fund specific level. The Investment Newsletter industry is a huge one in the US; we are the only one in Ireland. It's my firm belief that most do-it-yourself private investors are better off with a source of independent and reputable investment advice (we hope we are that). If you are more confident in your ability to make an investment decision by using a service such as ours then you are better placed to make considerable savings by using a low-cost, online stockbrokers account rather than the higher cost advisory accounts. We offer a 14-day free trial so that one can check if the service is for them before having to pay.

Recall that despite all the economic and political turmoil in the US over the past five decades since the late 1960s, US corporate earnings have climbed at 6.4% compound _per annum_. That growth in earnings drove similar growth in US stock markets. Add in the annual dividend income from the US stock market over that same timeline of _circa_ 3.0% and you get to the 9% odd annual return from the markets one so often hears quoted. Along the way, it paid to keep it simple and assess the merits or otherwise of individual stocks and funds rather than complicating it with politics and economics.

Our Featured Article titled [broken link removed]aimed to make that point. And the point remains valid. Brexit may have an impact on the stocks and funds I listed in that article, but it's unlikely to have any lasting impact, in my view.

The GillenMarkets newsletter and website offering simply aims to assist investors in getting the returns available.

Many contributors to AAM (i.e. this website) seem to think that everyone is better off doing the investing for themselves. Maybe some can, but I'd argue that many cannot. I can see nothing but positives in a service aimed at assisting those that would prefer some assistance along the way!

I'm not hear to promote our offering, but uninformed opinions which seem to dominate this AAM site call for a fair response.

*Rory Gillen, Founder, GillenMarkets*


----------



## Sophrosyne (3 Jul 2016)

Rory Gillen said:


> I'm not hear to promote our offering, but uninformed opinions which seem to dominate this AAM site call for a fair response.



Which "uniformed" opinions?


----------



## joe sod (9 Jul 2016)

There has been alot of talk on other threads here about overvalued stock markets. Therefore there is a justification for not investing and staying in cash. When we see the multiple corrections over the last year with China crisis and now Brexit this seems to be sensible. However when you look at european stock markets many are still lower than they were a decade ago, can you really say that european stock markets are overvalued!. Yes it has been painful to be invested in europe over the last decade especially if buying in US dollars. But does anyone really believe that some of the most advanced economies on the planet are going to go down the toilet because of Brexit or EU turmoil. Also we have the emerging economies of eastern europe where there is going to be alot of growth. In many cases you could argue that it is more diverse than the US and when the political problems are sorted, it could really surprise on the upside. We all know that markets love to fall in love with a notion for a long time until they realise that it is no longer true and then quickly forget that notion. Does anyone have any informed opinions on investing in european markets today


----------



## cremeegg (9 Jul 2016)

Gordon Gekko said:


> Is it bigger than 9/11 for a true globally diversified investor?
> 
> Or bigger than the credit crisis?
> 
> ...



I dont understand where you are coming from here. The short term impact of Brexit on Sterling and shares is not what all the fuss is about. If that was all there was to it then you would be right.

However Brexit means that the Uk is now going to set about dismantling its existing trading infrastructure, all the legal, economic, and cultural supports that underpin its existing trade and replace all that which who knows what.

It may all work out for the best, they may develop new better trading arrangements, but that is in the realm of hope. What is reality is that they are going to dismantle the existing arrangements.

And the uncertainty will drag on for at least two years.

The US was in recovery mode a week after 9/11. Brexit will not even happen for two years. It will be an incomparably bigger deal in terms of trade.


----------



## cremeegg (9 Jul 2016)

Gordon Gekko said:


> Is it bigger than 9/11 for a true globally diversified investor?
> 
> Or bigger than the credit crisis?
> 
> ...



I dont understand where you are coming from here. The short term impact of Brexit on Sterling and shares is not what all the fuss is about. If that was all there was to it then you would be right.

However Brexit means that the Uk is now going to set about dismantling its existing trading infrastructure, all the legal, economic, and cultural supports that underpin its existing trade and replace all that which who knows what.

It may all work out for the best, they may develop new better trading arrangements, but that is in the realm of hope. What is reality is that they are going to dismantle the existing arrangements.

And the uncertainty will drag on for at least two years.

The US was in recovery mode a week after 9/11. Brexit will not even happen for two years. It will be an incomparably bigger deal in terms of trade.


----------



## cremeegg (9 Jul 2016)

Rory Gillen said:


> Our Featured Article titled [broken link removed]aimed to make that point. And the point remains valid. Brexit may have an impact on the stocks and funds I listed in that article, but it's unlikely to have any lasting impact, in my view.



You may well be right, but to compare it to a months employment figures is in my opinion ludicrous, and you would do more for your own credibility by admitting as much,



Rory Gillen said:


> I'm not hear to promote our offering, but uninformed opinions which seem to dominate this AAM site call for a fair response.



rather than making smart remarks about uninformed opinions.


----------



## Gordon Gekko (9 Jul 2016)

cremeegg said:


> I dont understand where you are coming from here. The short term impact of Brexit on Sterling and shares is not what all the fuss is about. If that was all there was to it then you would be right.
> 
> However Brexit means that the Uk is now going to set about dismantling its existing trading infrastructure, all the legal, economic, and cultural supports that underpin its existing trade and replace all that which who knows what.
> 
> ...



Where I'm coming from is that seismic events happen reasonably regularly, and a globally diversified investor with a medium to long term time horizon has nothing to worry about in respect of Brexit.


----------



## cremeegg (9 Jul 2016)

Gordon Gekko said:


> Where I'm coming from is that seismic events happen reasonably regularly, and a globally diversified investor with a medium to long term time horizon has nothing to worry about in respect of Brexit.



I see Brexit not so much as a seismic event as a change in direction.

Since the 1950s the world has moved in the direction of greater openness and increased trade. There have been many interruptions in this progress, oil price spikes and crashes, debt crises in Latin America, the Far East, Russia and others. Wars, terrorist attacks etc. All of these things damaged trade, but the broad thrust of the economic story was more trade and increasing wealth.

Brexit is the first conscious move away in the other direction. If it does not spread, indeed if Britain thinks better of it and negotiates its way into the EEA or even reverses the decision, then Brexit may come to be seen as a blip on the road toward greater prosperity.

It seems to me that forces have been unleashed that don't care about trade and will happily wreck prosperity for greater "control".

If this attitude infects other EU countries or takes power in the US, I believe it probably has majority public support there already, then far from being a blip, Brexit is a harbinger of disaster.


----------



## joe sod (9 Jul 2016)

The brexiteers claimed that they were breaking from the eu to allow them to trade freely with the world outside the constraints of the eu. Therefore Europe in their opinion was a deteriorating old world system holding Britain back. Clearly the markets and the world do not agree with this viewpoint.  Maybe brexit is the shock to wake Europe out of its slumber for the last 40 years.


----------

