Just Share Discussion Threads

[robsy2] 17/9/2018 08:31

Topvest
This i can understand, it’s accrued deferred income,so they need to be careful with the actuarial side and ensure that they recognise revenue and adjust provisions etc prudently. I back the idea that they have been.
R2

[topvest] 14/9/2018 21:07

I think you might be over complicating things. From an accounting perspective, we are just talking about increasing a receivable for interest accruing at the rate agreed (say 5% agreed with a customer). That's all JUST are doing. If they don't forecast a NNEG issue in 20 years or so on a particular lifetime mortgage there is no adjustment to make on the interest accrued. If they do then they book a provision against the interest accruing.

[eumaeus] 14/9/2018 20:57

It really isn’t that esoteric, and is basic valuation theory. As has been frequently explained on the eumaeus site, if I pay for deferred possession of an income producing asset, then I pay now, but get the asset later. This means I lose the income for the waiting period, so I will pay less. Property growth is irrelevant, because I get the growth whether I get possession now, or get it later. This is not esoteric, and involves no maths. If you think it through, it’s obvious. One person told me he thought about it for three days, then said ‘its obvious’. Or take a practical real world example: a 99 year lease costs 95% of the value of vacant possession. The freehold is 5% of the value. This does NOT mean property is going to fall to 1/20 of its value.

[topvest] 14/9/2018 18:12

Yes, some good debate both ways. It will be interesting to see how this plays out.

[robsy2] 14/9/2018 17:29

On the subject of posters and posters, this thread has been excellent to date so give yourselves a collective pat on the back.

I am thankful for eumaeus's views in particular. Apart from anything else he has spent a lot of time sharing his views and I'm grateful that he has done. It has helped me understand what is going on, even if some of it was a bit esoteric.

I think the threads work best if they don't get too personalised. Um that's it really .
Nice weekend all .
Best
R2

[dasv] 14/9/2018 17:27

eumaeous - I looked at the reply to Guy Thomas' points.

You don't address most of them and the one point you do address is a strange bootstrapped argument where you claim that it is irrelevant to point out your approach is not realistic because in a non-realistic world it is valid.

BTW - an edge case I know but in Hong Kong, property price inflation is currently at > 16% whilst rental yields are 2.5% and borrowing costs are 3%.

In such a market (assuming these trends continue), an ERM of any LTV < 100 could never reach 100% and the chance of NNEG triggering would be zero.

Also if deferment costs should encapsulate costs (e.g. hypothetical rental yield), then shouldn't stamp duty, dilapidation be factored in? And if so, aren't we getting into true applied maths here, which means house price inflation is relevant?

[beagler] 14/9/2018 16:49

The short answer to "Is equity release a second Equitable Life?" has to be no. Absolutely not.

It is highly irresponsible for people to draw comparison between the two. Doing so implies that mortgage holders are at risk in some way; the NNEG risk is with the provider. Holders borrowed money against their property, their loan value is guaranteed to not exceed the value of their property, simple as that, end of.

In the case of Equitable Life, policyholders actually lost out financially. Not sure why anyone would compare the two unless they have an underlying agenda (e.g. sensationalism to sell papers or talks)

[bolador] 14/9/2018 16:46

Whilst the writer of 497 may consider that it maybe too difficult for some to read some of the articles on the eumaeus site it is quite clear that it is too difficult for contributors to that site to consider the real world and how it works. The self assured scribblings fail to take account for example of the effect of the falling value of money, the possible moves in an exchange rate and the effects of government policy changes.By way of example a house I know of has changed valuation from £35000 to one and a half million pounds and the pound to swiss franc rate was 13.1 as against one and a bit today all in one short working life time but surely not calculable in advance.In trying to harvest the future a little time ago before the 2008 crash a hedge fund in the USA caused the Fed great anxiety by blowing spectacularly and threatening it was thought the financial system. The fund was run by very brainy guys who modelled options and created webs of mathematical elegance that could not be beat. The market indulged itself in one of its corrections and blew up the oh so mathematical fund.So much for arrogance.It's all there on the web for those interested in reality and finance.

[topvest] 14/9/2018 16:43

There seems to be a number of posters here with an axe to grind. Buy-to-let mortgage banks are in real trouble with a 30% property crash, but JUST isn't. Why is that not relevant to the debate as I do not think anyone has answered the questions without getting into technical mumbo jumbo?

[eumaeus] 14/9/2018 15:01

On which subject Kevin has been invited to speak at the LSE. hxxp://www.lse.ac.uk/fmg/events/london-financial-regulation-seminars ‘Is Equity Release a Second Equitable Life?’, Monday 1st October 2018, 17.45 - 19.00, OLD 3.21, 3rd floor, Old Building, LSE. I will probably be contributing. All welcome (as far as I know). Analysts have been invited.

[beagler] 14/9/2018 14:26

The point is, and thank you for confirming, that it is just a valuation method. Different, less onerious, method on bank mortgages. But apparently that's all ok. Right.

[eumaeus] 14/9/2018 14:13

Different valuation methodology applies to banks. Try reading some of the articles on the Eumaeus site on 'valuation'. This should not be too difficult, although clearly it is.

[beagler] 14/9/2018 13:14

JUST is capitalised for a 30% PERMANENT property crash. Should the PRA erode value of companies on a "just in case". I wonder how well the banks look under such a scenario. Shouldn't traditional mortagage providers be on the same boat EUMAEUS? Why the silence on the banks?

[bramcych] 14/9/2018 10:51

Check out the FT article today (Neil Collins). In summary it says that the risk that the property will be worth less in 20 years time than it is today does not seem remotely likely and that at this price Just shares are valued for a housing Armageddon.

[bolador] 14/9/2018 09:05

Over the years I have seen bears claiming only to be doing good work their way on this site. They usually have a point which they then over do by a long long way so that in the end they are wrong most of the time. The bears in the case of Just are ignoring policy response and so they are at 75p wrong.

[scrapheap] 13/9/2018 19:33

maybe it's worries like this which are causing the angst too for the PRA!

Times exclusive

Mark Carney told cabinet today that house prices would plunge 35% in 3 years in a "no deal" scenario, reveals @elliotttimes

[eumaeus] 13/9/2018 14:21

Kevin Dowd studied the balance sheets of all the ERM firms, and concluded that JUST has the largest concentration relative to balance sheet. That's answering the first question. On your second question, the post clearly shows that it was JUST's own reaction to the PRA CP that caused the panic in the first place. 'Asleep at the Wheel' seems to have comparatively little affect. The subsequent falls were caused by analyst reports. It's possible that the analysts were reacting to our report, but hard to say. Our motives are simply to bring the misvaluation to public attention, nothing more than that.

[dasv] 13/9/2018 09:33

eumaeus - I'm not shooting the messenger. I'm questioning the messenger. After reading your "answers", I stand by my questions.

I don't know about the relative concentrations of ERM's of other competitor firms. Even if JUST does have more exposure, why the bias on the site to JUST? You even have a blog post about why you are seemingly dissatisfied with the market efficiency on the share price in light of news flow you have helped create. I.e. you expected the share price to fall even faster than it has! And now you are telling me to stop questioning your motives?

[nav_mike] 12/9/2018 15:35

Whether you call it 'noise' or not, the SETS book is being flooded with sell orders again...we wont start to rally until this stops or at least reduces in volume

I would like to see some large delayed trades to hopefully signal they have finished....alternatively we have to watch the shorts list, however incomplete it may be.

[eumaeus] 12/9/2018 12:35

On the ‘agenda’, eumaeus is working with organisations that support shareholders’ rights, and the right to transparent reporting and standard valuation. Totally on shareholders side, please keep shooting the messenger. Re the dynamic hedging argument, the argument for fair value in no way depends on dynamic hedging or gbm or anything like that. I have a post up today ‘reply to guy’ about that. Again, stop shooting the messenger. On Just, this firm has the most concentrated exposure to ERMs of any in the market. Correct me if I am wrong.

[dasv] 12/9/2018 11:39

BTW I think Guy Thomas' points are very strong.

E.g. Just one of his points: The Black Scholes methodology sought to model a market were dynamic hedging is possible and were arbitrage is eliminated by market participants. Applying this methodology to the residential property market is invalid: no dynamic hedging is possible, there are no market participants hedging there risk, there is no deep liquid market in the traded assets.

Of course the PRA have recommended Black 1976 and also the life co's are using "option pricing" techniques. So it's hard for them at this stage(in my view) to about-face and claim NNEG's are not options at all(as Numis argues).

In my view the NNEG's should be modeled stochastically just as other cash flows are modeled.

[cantrememberthis2] 12/9/2018 11:24

EUMAEUS = Shorters ammo IMO