gummigut Posted March 16, 2003 Report Share Posted March 16, 2003 hehe. When I read your posts, you are parroting other peoples thoughts and not thinking (but really, who does these days) for your own. Maybe the books might be helpful? It is very clear that you stated the "imminent" collapse will not be as large as 97, but you are stating a major FX swing, which would indeed be accompanied (before or after) by a rating change. Ummm, rating changes don't just happen when a currency loses half it's value. 1/4 would do, don't you think? "stated clearly you contend there is no problem because the rating agencies ?are [not] going to fall asleep again so easily so soon after 1997.?" This is an argument about timing. You initially said this year. The soverign debt (which I see you haven't just dismissed in this last post as you did in your previous post) is on positive credit watch. Assuming they have more solid info than you or I implies there are more stops to be pulled before the economy downturns. Thus my reasoning that if something happens, it won't be this year. NOT that there isn't a problem. Please don't put words in my mouth. If you've been following the agencies, Thailand has been put on positive credit watch for awhile. They could have been upgraded last month (or was it the month before) but they weren't. This stems from their concerns about the economy and government spending. If they thought the short term outlook is as bleak as you say, then they would have downgraded it to stable. RE: your mortgages blah blah You made a very narrow reading of my point and selectively argued the points. Sophistry. Yes, some of the ideas the governemnt wants to be used as collateral seems very shaky to me, but converting the land ownership titles (I keep forgetting the names) to ones that can be transferred so they can be used as collateral is something that should be done long ago and that would add "money" into the system. If there was infrastracture and leases with regards to street stalls, that would work too, but that's peanuts to me. But yah know, maybe your right. Maybe I am confused. Really I don't know nothing. Ask anyone, I tell them that all the time "In the U.S., the U.K. and Australia, for example, you can mortgage accounts receivables,... Nothing remotely similar is possible in Thailand" Oh by the way, some Thai companies do securitize their receivables already. Wait, I forgot, I'm confused. lol. That can't be true!!! Even for companies with a majority of their revenues derived from overseas!!! Even for companies these receivable are from blue chip companies. Well, I know these guys DE ratios is something like .60x, but that revolving credit line based on those receivables can't absolutely be true. Course, that's not the only company, but wait, I'm confused. lol. It can't possibly be true. As for CP group, they really aren't a happy bunch now. Their segment outlook indeed colors their views. In contrast, talk to some of the property developers. I've talked to folks from CP and property developers. Wildly different outlooks. As for economists... "simply dismissing Thai economists as interested parties is not persuasive. Do you know anything about them? The Thai economists mentioned in the Wall Street Journal article, Khun Supavud, wrote an article warning about the 97? crisis before it happened. Another economist, Paul Krugman, was making similar warnings in 1994 " There are some good ones around. Like analysts. On the whole are Thai economists/analysts worth anything (course same could be said of the west, but on the whole, they are not as thorough). I'm repeating this AGAIN. Your words don't refute this contention at all, so what was the point of them. Oh yah, Paul Krugman. Now HE'S a FAMOUS Thai economist. "I am more impressed with verifiable facts and persuasive arguments than a poster?s claim of purported expertise." I don't use many facts in my arguments as generally, you don't need many to argue. You were the one implying that the "imminent" collapse is coming this year. I put forth a few arguments against that. You narrowed my points and selective argued them. That ain't quite fair now is it? All I'm saying is to do some thinking for yourself. If you don't want to, try the Economist, their pretty darn good at it. Then if you've got some opinions, it'd be cool to debate them. Throwing up an open question like this is pretty far flung. <<burp>> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redbaron Posted March 16, 2003 Report Share Posted March 16, 2003 G & G.. so in less than 2000 words.. Am I gonna get more baht for my dolar in May or what?/? :: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gummigut Posted March 16, 2003 Report Share Posted March 16, 2003 Unequivicol maybe That's because I know May. She also knows Dolar, but baht me upside the head if I know what she's going to charge short time then. <<burp>> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jp1 Posted March 16, 2003 Report Share Posted March 16, 2003 Says Redbaron: G & G.. so in less than 2000 words.. Am I gonna get more baht for my dolar in May or what?/? :: This depends on the exchange rate in May. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 16, 2003 Report Share Posted March 16, 2003 so in less than 2000 words.. Am I gonna get more baht for my dolar in May or what?/? By May probably not. As for this year, you'll need to compare the reasoning in Gummingut's post to mine and draw your own conclusions. Read our posts, ignore all the pretensions about purported financial expertise (you don't know either one of us so disclaim anyone's claim of expertise in finance), ignore or (better yet) take away points for diversionary insults (e.g., look for words like: "parroting others") and then you decide for yourself which post is supported by facts and reasonable arguments. In a nutshell, and hopefully in less than 2000 words, here is the problem facing Thailand: Growth over the last year was based on government spending and cheap consumer credit. Now, the government has run out of money and announced that the deficit spending will stop. Further, consumer defaults are up and consumer spending has fallen sharply. No one disputes these facts. This is why many people - not just me - are asking this one very fundamental question: where will the growth in Thailand come from this year? To put it simply, if you think someone here has answered that fundamental question with a plausible answer, then the Thai economy is fine; in other words, you are out luck and your dollar will get as much Baht as it did before. If you don't think a good answer was supplied by Gummingut or anyone else to that fundamental question, then there is a good chance your dollar will go further. Where will the growth in Thailand come from this year? It really is that simple. Was that less than 2,000 words? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Straycat Posted March 16, 2003 Report Share Posted March 16, 2003 Not counting the quote that was 223 words or 1281 characters Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gummigut Posted March 16, 2003 Report Share Posted March 16, 2003 lol. Can't spell my name correctly. Wait wait, that's a huge loss of face or something, I should be insulted no? Then again, I'm not asian and can never really understand the concept of face. Wait wait, people tell me I'm asian, so that must be some innate ability, right? But no, folks tell me again that I'm not asian. Man I am really confused! lol. I was running this by a chum or two and it actually is quite interesting. This doom and gloom stuff, lol. You really want an answer to your question? Find out what % of the GDP that gov't spending accounts for. Find the % that is due to deficit spending. Find the % due to off balance sheet accounts. Ranges on both of these numbers are out there somewhere. Subtract that from last year's GDP and see what you get. Compare this to last year's world GDP. You may just be surprised. Course, instead of thinking or doing leg work, you could just post questions on an anonymous board and deride others of their purported financial expertise. Yuppers, me ain't got no financial expertise. <<burp>> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 18, 2003 Report Share Posted March 18, 2003 deride others of their purported financial expertise I thought I was relatively constrained. I did not, for example, point out that you confused "security" with "securitization." But having read your last post, I decided maybe I was too easy. Your words: "In the U.S., the U.K. and Australia, for example, you can mortgage accounts receivables,... Nothing remotely similar is possible in Thailand" Oh by the way, some Thai companies do securitize their receivables already. Wait, I forgot, I'm confused. lol. That can't be true!!! In context, you were trying to make the point that that there is a system in Thailand to use receivables as security; you state: "some Thai companies do securitize their receivables already." That statement may be true, but "security" is entirely different than "securitization." The word "securitization" might appear to have something to do with mortgages because it sounds like the word "security" (basically collateral), but these are entirely different things. Remember, you were responding to my point about the absence of an effective personal property security law in Thailand. For the benefit of the many English teachers on this board, this is like confusing "disinterested" with "uninterested." The words sound alike, but mean completely different things, making it forgivable with a layperson, but highly unlikely from a competent English teacher. Now confusing "security" with "securitization" simply because the words sound similar is not unlikely from someone with only a passing knowledge of business and finance, but it would be a major and very embarassing loss of face for financial expert. Revealing too. :: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 18, 2003 Report Share Posted March 18, 2003 >>>simply because the words sound similar is not unlikely from someone with only a passing knowledge of business and finance, but it would be a major and very embarassing loss of face for financial expert. Revealing too.<<< same old problem with you: you make very condescending comments (comments i would classifie as a flame even though packed in nice words) about posters personally known to many on the board here, also well known is those posters profession etc. you though claim all expertise in the world on any subject, yet no one i know has ever met you. remember how we first got into trouble? similarly insulting comments by you towards me. i have offered to deliver proof in a personal meeting, which you have evaded, stating "that you have better things to do". well, up to you. but then, why do you aggrevate any discussion here when someone has a different opinion than you by being appalingly condescending? do you actually enjoy those kind of childish arguments? i have been away for a while from the boards, and one of the first things i have had to see was another snide remark or two against me in my absence, out of the blue. i don't know, but the only thing which is revealing here is is revealed by your attitude towards other posters. think about that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gummigut Posted March 18, 2003 Report Share Posted March 18, 2003 OMG. Is that the best you can do? lol. You can't attack my logic, so you are going into semantics? You state you can't mortgage account receivables. What is that really? You get money for your acct. recs. That's exactly what happens when you use your accts rec. for a revolving fund. True there is no place you can do your precious UCC filing and let other folks know what's being used as collateral (least I don't think so) and you can call your financing by that precious word of yours "mortgage". But it ends up being the same. Yooz getz da money! Because there's no centralized filing system, only the big guys can do it. As for the definition of securitization, the homogenizing and packaging of instruments into a new one. Pooling the receivables into a revolving fund. Sounds pretty good to me. Open your eyes a bit and look at the way I'm using it rather than making it equal with your "personal property security law" blah blah blah lol. Okay, you like the word "appears". So it appears that you look smart. You make a sweeping statement with which I come up with one example to negate. You nitpick semantics of wording (which is basically bunk) on my one example but not the intent. So what this tells me is that rather than actually think on your own, come up with something interesting, you like to nitpick and get lost in the weeds. As for the face thing? Like your friend said, I'm asian and you're not, you'll never get it. lol. As for your continued attempts to deride my financial expertise.... I've said it before and I'll say it again. Finance? What's finance? Can't even agree on how to say it! Some people say "f-igh-nance" and others say "fin-ance". What are you? Some corp fin guy or some'n? lol! Revealing? Crap, thanks. I didn't know my fly was open! <<burp>> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.