There are two things which are a mystery to me: the gold market and the ECB (in which I include the euro).

I am baffled by people’s desire for gold – it serves very few useful purposes in the world. It only has value because people crave it – a useless inert metal, no matter how rare it is, is useless. It cannot act as a basis for anything, least of all a currency, because it cannot “stand in the stead” of something. It has no ability to represent productive value, and its limited availability is a problem rather than a benefit for its use as a base currency.

As for the ECB (your topic Fisy) I admire the sentiments of the ECB but in watchmaker-mode I cannot see how the euro can operate in such a diversity of fiscal environments. Please be careful with what I say. I am not criticising the ECB or the euro project – it’s just that I see unresolved technical tensions. My hope is that those tensions can be resolved, but as for how it all operates: well, it’s a blank page for my limited mind. (That’s one of the reasons I’m neutral about Iceland and the EU. Membership or not? It matters little right now, membership aint going to help Iceland in the short term. The issue that the ISK is a completely dead currency is a separate issue in my mind. And that really is a big big problem for Iceland. Think ISK denominated bonds.)

And as for the comparison thing – if you read what I posted I did say that comparisons have a role to play: to repeat there are choices to be made and opportunity costs to be considered. The point is that these come later in the analysis – they are secondary. If you are into comparisons big time then the danger is that you compare two cr*p investments and chose the better of the two – but it’s still a cr*p investment. The correct methodology is to identify the “good” investments and if you end up with more than one then you can make a comparison.

Finally, I really would take issue about the individuality issue. I found Icelanders incredibly homogeneous in their thought patterns and behaviour. Young, old, rich, poor, IP or eco-warrior, man, woman – all you needed to do was scratch the surface and there was a very strong sense of self-identification and collectiveness. Even the nature of the squabbles/political-arguments are carried on within the confines of a narrow set of shared assumptions. (The most obvious is the widely held view that Iceland is somehow unique or special.)

As for being miserable – of course we Brits are miserable. Always have been, always will. It’s the phlegmatic approach to life we have. Read the poem “If” by Kipling to understand the British mentality. It is a bit sentimental, and you can quibble about Kipling’s Imperial views (oh no! British Empire again) but the poem remains a powerful statement about how we behave. (It also explains some of the gulf between Icelanders and Brits. Icelanders haven’t exactly displayed all the characteristics described in the poem.)

Here’s the poem:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/If%E2%80%94

Oh! I hear the strains of Rule Britannia! Let me get down the pub and grab a pint of Pride (that’s London Pride – an ale brewed by Fullers).

This is a very familiar line of argument from you Fisy. I assume that I’m meant to think, “Wait, this is that ECB thing that Fisy has been talking about!” But, as with your orginial ECB point, you fail to join the dots.

If you have something to say, say it. It’ll be interesting to see how you reconcile your ECB with your Treasury conspiracies.

” KSF has used its liquidity position to fund circa £500m of margin calls of its parent ”

What margin calls were these ? To who were they for ?

Actually not. The review decision did in fact bring to light more facts that did confirm it.

But that is for when I have time to give detailed reply in that post because need to pull together few facts from annual report etc as Mike did recommend before then I will post for you here :
http://www.icenews.is/index.php/2009/10/21/kaupthing-loses-claim-against-british-government/

A good philosophy of generalness. But incompleted one.

In all analyst reports for example we do see sector by sector comparison which does place a specific company for example against norms in its sector.

Of course must look at the inherent values of some thing that you would buy into. But to reach that decision you must also compare it against other in the sector and the norms of those same sector — as it is part of the assessment of risk.

Most Analyst do sell they advice to brokers and this is standard part of that business in those reports.

>Conversely, one of the causes of “bubbles” is the constant and driving desire to compare – if someone is doing something maybe I should do it, if only because I can see someone else doing it.

No disagreement to be made there. It is as much about fear of losing out what others might be gaining. A simple human weakness.

>In Iceland fashion, prejudice, and conformance – each of which is concerned with comparison – are valued more highly than consistency, openness and individuality.

I would agree that interest in fashion is indeed some thing that is Icelandic trait.

Perhaps consistency and openness but I would disagree on individuality. Like UK people of old, Icelander are in fact some of most individualist people culturaly that you can find on earth.

Despite what Jóhanna would tell us,

>When faced with criticism Icelanders always adopted the tactic of deflection through comparison – it became a bit of a joke amongst ourselves.

I think that you are very skilled in rhetorical arguing here Mike. You do come up with a clever way to try and disdirect from the qurstion I was asking.

Of course if I do not agree with you — it must be that I am being that ” deflecting ” Icelander.

I could also of course say that a UK Nordic analyst trait is to deflect also away from actual question I do ask about ECB.

Because based on your patterns of posting here, it does show. It is in frankly — not first time it has been done by you Mike on this ECB issue.

But of course — you do not have to answer any thing at all. I know it does take time to make these posts away from other things that you are doing in your life and main job of representing interest of you clients here that did have the investments in Iceland.

But if you do take time to give an answer it would be appreciate by me at least to comment on specific issue at hand.

I of course do enjoy the rest of posts you make.

What a laughable article. It quotes Ambrose Evans-Pritchard, who is quite simply an idiot.

looks like Uk is more miserable than Iceland acording to the misery index, USA is almost as miserable.

http://ftalphaville.ft.com/blog/2009/12/15/112331/moodys-sees-sovereign-states-a-suffering/

Really good article in the Huffington post
it does have Vikings in it though.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ellen-brown/eu-imf-revolt-greece-icel_b_389409.html

>I disagree completely! I guess you’ve never worked in a management consultancy, for example, and been involved in the staff assessment process (including peer review, laddering, and forced-percentage banding). The comparison with others reveals strengths and weaknesses, appropriateness of role scope for level, etc as well as defining performance rating and determining salaries, bonuses and promotions. Everything is relative in a competitive meritocracy…”

Fisy disagrees by slinging multiple links – a process of attrition. You throw a lexicon of jargon!

As for the first section of Mikes post – I found it interesting, in that some fundamental principles of valid decent and honest and honourable business behaviour are part of the equation.

More importantly for me – Mike offered a view of the Icelandic psyche. I have found this helpful – especially the reference to the Icelandic tendency to ‘deflect by comparison’ – I fell for that one in a recent response to Fisy.

Above all Mike spoke of assessing long term qualities, which are – “inherently good.”

Although you speak about –

“staff assessment process (including peer review, laddering, and forced-percentage banding). The comparison with others reveals strengths and weaknesses, appropriateness of role scope for level, etc” – Whatever that means!

And although the factors you raise may be relevant – I would be disappointed if such a narrow view prevailed.

:-)