90 seconds at 9 am: Turbulence and uncertainty

Brexit changes London's financial status; NZ Govt reaches out directly to the EU; NZ to increase focus on Pacific; UST 10yr yield up to 1.59%; oil lower, gold jumps; NZ$1 = 71.3 US¢, TWI-5 = 74.7

27th Jun 16, 7:18am by David Chaston

Here's my summary of the key events over the weekend that affect New Zealand, with news of swirling turbulence and uncertainties (and opportunities) on a global scale.

On Saturday (Friday in the US and Europe), we have had a whole day of market reaction to the British vote, so we start Monday with a basic, crude indication of where markets see the implications to Brexit.

The consequences for the UK are not that good following the vote. But despite this, the implications for New Zealand are likely to be quite limited. I think you need to see this latest change as part of a long term historical decline of the British. We are lucky to be almost completely separated economically from them. Britain will no longer be our channel to the EU, so they will become politically less important for us. In fact, the NZ government reached out to the EU directly over the weekend.

The financial world is also wondering how the new status will change London's place. By being part of the EU, banks registered there had automatic access to Europe. But that will end. UK registration for global banks will no longer give that benefit. A full decamp to Frankfurt is entirely possible. Paris is already making its pitch as an alternative. Another possibility is Edinburgh. If the Scots hold a second referendum and choose to stay in the EU - something the Scottish Government has publicly aired - some banks may decamp to Edinburgh.

In the wider commercial world, the Brexit vote surprised most managers and they are now playing catchup to the new reality. Similar registration realities face them; being in Britain will no longer give access to Europe. Ireland may be an early beneficiary, and more decamping is on the cards. For industrial companies, moves to Germany are more likely.

It seems clear that for New Zealand, the EU will get a shot in the arm over the next few years, all at the expense of Britain. And that is where our pivot in that region will follow.

But none of this really changes our focus on opportunities in the Pacific. Many managers may see the destabilisation as 'too hard' and too uncertain and lessen their interest in a UK or EU focus.

New Zealand and Australia may even get a 'safe haven' bonus from Brexit. There will be talk of rate cuts in both countries, but it is hard to see the point. Little we do will counteract the swirling uncertainties on a global level, and rate cuts will just exacerbate our asset price bubbles.

In New York, the benchmark UST 10yr yield climbed to 1.73% on Thursday but sunk to just 1.59% on Friday in a major Brexit reaction. We also saw similar wholesale swap rate falls in New Zealand and you can see where we start today in our swap rate chart page. Rates are at record lows for terms 4 to ten years, but still above those levels for term 1 to 3 years.

The US benchmark oil price is a little lower, down US$2 and now just under US$48/barrel and the Brent benchmark is just over US$48/barrel.

The gold price jumped sharply over the weekend. It starts today up +US$55 at US$1,315/oz ~~US$1,215/oz~~, but actually it is not much above its range since February. In New Zealand dollars, it is actually still lower than just two weeks ago.

The price of iron ore and other base metals edged lower over the weekend. All markets will be on tenterhooks until US markets open tomorrow.

And finally, the NZ dollar starts the week very little different from this time on Friday, now at 71.3 US¢ which is bit lower, at 95.3 AU¢, and at 64.2 euro cents which is a bit higher. The TWI-5 index is at 74.7. It is only against the British pound where we gained a lot, but that is now a very small part of the TWI.

If you want to catch up with all the local changes on Friday, we have an update here. And for the changes on Saturday, we have an update here.

The easiest place to stay up with event risk today is by following our Economic Calendar here ».

Daily exchange rates

Select chart tabs

Source: RBNZ

Source: CoinDesk

We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment

Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current comment policy is here.

43 Comments

by economist | 27th Jun 16, 9:01am 1466974915

I haven't been following it, but from my understanding, no one campaigning to leave the EU didn't want a free trade agreement with the EU (and other countries). They have 2 years to negotiate a relatively easy deal, as it's what they already have now. The Brits just didn't want a political union with the EU superstate (and who can blame them, slow motion train wreck it's becoming) and stand as guarantor for others financial liabilities, which they have little say over.

EU workers living in the UK could just be automatically issued a 5 year work visa and vice versa within the next 2 years. 99% of which could probably get it renewed after 5 years anyway. The Brits will then just be able to control who enters and leaves their country. I think its a bit premature and opportunistic for Paris, Frankfurt or Edinburgh to be pitching for the City of London banking market. The markets may throw a tantrum but at the end of the day it may only mean Brussels doesn't decide what the UK can and can not do, leaving them free to negotiate their own trade deals with faster growing economies than the EU zone anyway (such as the US, Asia, Australia, NZ)? The idea that they can't have a free trade agreement because they are not part of the EU is just silly (even with the EU itself - which will satisfy many vested interests). Nor is the idea because the US and EU are trying to negotiate there own trade deal that the UK and US cant negotiate their own. Many much smaller countries (like NZ) have negotiations going with multiple countries at the same time.

It's far too early to tell much at all, nor to pre-judge negotiations that haven't even happened yet... predictions of the end of the world are just ridiculous in the extreme...

by dmitri | 27th Jun 16, 9:04am 1466975057

The rest may want to punish them as an example..

by economist | 27th Jun 16, 9:16am 1466975779

Yes, 'may'.

Except it's not in their interests to do that. If they do it just typifies the whole vindictive bitter attitude of the EU - do as we want and say or we will make life miserable for you! If that's the case it proves the EU is not trying to work together for a better freer world, prosperity for all (or even its own citizens), but one where an elite power group, who care nothing about the 'cannon fodder' they are supposed to serve, are on a power trip and their agenda is only to strengthen and entrench their own power base. In that case the UK was 100% right to leave.

by head_down_bum_up | 27th Jun 16, 10:16am 1466979374

It is far too early to tell...in any case, there is good reason for those other cities to be pitching for the banking market. Without 'passporting' these banks which service europe through london would not be able to do so and that opens a pretty big door.
A free trade agreement could certainly happen, but a principle of the EU is free movement of people, if there is an FTA, that generally comes with it.

either way, it is all way to early to tell. this stuff is years away now. And as time goes on all the small details will need to be worked out on thousands of issues.

Question is, who will be the one in power to do it...Boris?

by economist | 27th Jun 16, 10:39am 1466980781

Yes its far to early to tell, agreed. Apart from uncertainty (that's markets hate), I'm still waiting to hear one factual valid significant argument why the UK should should have remained.... but as I say, I haven't been following it.

'A free trade agreement could certainly happen, but a principle of the EU is free movement of people, if there is an FTA, that generally comes with it.'

I can almost guarantee you that any free trade agreements the EU enter into as the EU will not include the free movement of people.

by mfd | 27th Jun 16, 12:42pm 1466988164

If the UK wants to continue to trade with Europe the way it has done, there will almost certainly be free movement of people as there is now. Countries like Switzerland and Norway which are not in the EU have had to implement this as a condition of accessing the EEA, and they have had to sign up for a significant amount of EU law which they had no part in drafting.

Now the UK has voted out, they essentially have to choose between leaving the EEA which will have a significantly effect on trade and particularly the City, or essentially the status quo but without any representation and giving up the wide range of vetos they had. The UK was in a sweet spot and I find it hard to see how either option would be an improvement.

by economist | 27th Jun 16, 2:20pm 1466994025

I doubt the same free flow of movement of people requirement will apply to any US free trade deal (or most countries). Also German car manufactures in the UK will be lobbing not to introduce tariffs and keep things as the status quo. It's an unknown where this will go, yes, but I don't believe its in either interests to start introducing tariffs and you can basically be sure tariffs will not start from the UK Leave campaigners side. So the EU wants to increase its costs to its consumers on all goods produced in the UK - for what reason? To retaliate for the Leave vote? Therefore the UK would respond and seek free trade deals with others such as the US that combined will put it in an even bigger trade zone that the EU. So who looses here - the EU does. There is too many vested interests in the City for it not to have access. Are rich Arabs, Russians, etc going to sell property in London to buy in Frankfurt and learn German? I highly doubt it. It wouldn't surprise me if the City will be given special EU access. Anyway they have 2 years to figure it out. The City doesn't need to figure out a deal where they get more, just where they get to keep doing what they currently are anyway. It's far too early to reach any conclusions.

by mfd | 27th Jun 16, 2:33pm 1466994817

I largely agree, it's in the EU and UK's best interests to keep the trading arrangements as they are now. This will come with the baggage of the UK needing to agree to free movement of people in the European Economic Area and to sign up to a portion of EU rules. This directly contradicts two of the biggest draws for the 'leave' campaign, immigration will not be affected unless the economy is damaged enough to discourage it, and the UK will become less democratic as it will no longer be able to vote in MEPs to play a part in writing EU law, or veto decisions it disagrees with.

Ironically, one of the threats the leave campaign made was about Turkey joining the EU meaning millions more immigrants. When in the EU, the UK could easily have vetoed this. In the future, the UK might not be able to prevent it without committing economic suicide.

One bright side for leavers wanting to reduce net immigration, if my friends are anything to go by a significant number of young, educated Brits are now seriously looking at leaving the country (>70% of under 25 year olds voted to remain). If enough of them go through with it that could make the numbers look a little better. Hurrah.

by economist | 27th Jun 16, 2:56pm 1466996200

The UK will not agree to an open border with the EU, neither will most other nations the EU want a free trade agreement with, other free trade agreements don't require this, so the EU will ultimately have to decide if it wants free trade agreements or not. If Turkeys joins with about 80 million people there surely will be other nations that will just leave the EU and prefer a free trade of goods and services zone, then the EU political masters will be finished. Will young Brits really learn German or French or Italian and move to better opportunities than they can get in London? I seriously doubt it, especially as the UK may well end up within a bigger free trade zone than the EU or ends up with the EU AND North America AND Asia. The opportunities in London will be too huge for them. For legal and finance London is the capital of the world.

by mfd | 27th Jun 16, 4:14pm 1467000888

The UK is very likely to keep the open border. The UK can either maintain access to the single market which will require free movement as there is now, or go through the long, painful process of negotiating a fresh trade agreement. Looking at the TTIP/TPPA progress, that would take more than 2 years, which is a hard deadline from the UK formally deciding to leave, to being kicked out.

The majority of MPs who, despite the referendum, have the final say on what happens, want to remain a part of the single market. http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36457120

Some of the leave campaign have already publicly admitted that free movement of labour is likely to stay http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jun/25/leave-campaign-rows-bac… (worth watching the video)

Technically the UK doesn't have an open border to the EU at the moment, as it's not part of the Schengen zone. However, any EU citizen has the right to work there without acquiring a visa. That is unlikely to change.

Most people I know are thinking more of moving to Canada, Australia, NZ, US, but sure, some will move to countries that remain in the EU (Ireland, Scotland perhaps if they split), and in fact my sister and her British husband do live and work in France. There are over a million Brits currently living in the EU (some working, some retired).

London is currently the finance capital, but if the UK leaves the single market it will no longer be a useful European base for international banks, somewhere like Paris or Frankfurt could become more of a draw and I'm sure will cater to English speakers to attract talent from London.

My point is the UK now has to choose between destroying the economy, or maintaining more or less what they have now with less representation. Leaving seems to be a mistake.

by economist | 28th Jun 16, 8:02am 1467057759

Yes mfd, those are good points. Time will tell where things end up.
It may be from an economic stand point Brits get about the same thing they have now (with the free flow of labour - those that have job offers, but not 'open borders') are even those who proposed Leave were for free trade - but reject the more political union with the EU. You don't think 'destroying the economy' is overstating slightly?

by Andrewj | 28th Jun 16, 8:05am 1467057913

The Eurodollar is the disaster zone.
http://www.alhambrapartners.com/2013/11/15/understanding-eurodollars-pa…

by scarfie | 27th Jun 16, 9:09am 1466975384

I posted this yesterday, but it points out risks from Brexit that most have missed: http://www.truthdig.com/report/page2/2008_all_over_again_20160624

by economist | 27th Jun 16, 9:37am 1466977048

Thanks scarfie, but this article is pure speculation and no actual facts.

I don't think the UK (or others) leaving the EU is going to mean Trump will or will not win in the USA. I think its far to early to say that the banking industry will leave (they may even want to stay and be at arms length to the financial disaster the EU is becoming). Nor does it mean that Russia will invade Europe as the UK isn't even considering of leaving Nato. Yes, nations in the EU probably will default on debt - with or without the UK in or out of it. Now of course the UK may not have to stand as guarantor (to endlessly prop them up), which from the UK side must be a good thing?

by scarfie | 27th Jun 16, 10:13am 1466979207

It is all speculation at this stage mate.

by economist | 27th Jun 16, 10:48am 1466981338

Yes, its complete speculation. Its speculation to even say the UK will be worse or better off. As I say I still haven't heard one significant fact that says the UK will be worse off. But I cant believe the tantrum as the vote didn't go the way certain powers wanted it to.

by Stephen Hulme | 27th Jun 16, 11:12am 1466982720

Certain realities are not in dispute.

“Henry Kissinger’s famous question about ‘Who do I call in Europe?’ has now been settled. The answer is that we call the German chancellor’s office. That means we have to invest in the relationship with Germany,” said Nicholas Burns, a former senior State Department official in the George W Bush administration, who is now advising Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign. Read more

by economist | 27th Jun 16, 11:27am 1466983677

Unless of course Germany aren't as friendly to US interests, in which case the US may want to call the UK.
Even so calling Germany doesn't exclude calling the UK. That's not a significant enough reason for the UK to stay. Give it a few years and they probably may call Brussels, not Germany.

by MikeM | 27th Jun 16, 11:47am 1466984836

What I find amusing is that prior to Brexit most pundits agreed that the EU was a general failure and now those very same people are claiming what a mistake an exit will be. Hypocrisy at its finest.

by economist | 27th Jun 16, 12:13pm 1466986396

Agree, but I dont understand why and why the media are so compliant?

The EU free trade zone wasn't a failure. The Euro one currency is a failure (it was doomed from the start and at the time dire predictions from the same sources predicted doom for the UK, the end of their banking centre which would move to Frankfurt etc but the opposite happened - Frankfurt became even less and the City of London even more and to add the UK are glad they stayed out of the euro in hindsight). The political union is more or less a failure. The UK want to keep the free trade zone and throw the rest. Personally I agree with them. On what basis would anyone think differently? NZ (and AU) I would think stand a much better deal getting a free trade agreement with the UK than they ever would with the EU, and they are now free to pursue such...

by JetLiner | 27th Jun 16, 9:17am 1466975855

Hi David

A small correction: Gold was US$1,315/oz, not US$1,215/oz.

by David Chaston | 27th Jun 16, 9:20am 1466976013

yikes, you are right. Typo. Fixed now.

by Stephen Hulme | 27th Jun 16, 9:26am 1466976402

BIS adds gravitas to your assertion.

"The Global Economy Can No Longer Rely On Debt" - BIS Warns Central Bank Actions "Have Started To Backfire" Read more

Those in receipt of USD funding stand to make a fortune trading EUR-USD cross currency basis swaps after the basis moved decidedly more negative. View graphic evidence

Descriptive explanations can be sought here

by Stephen L | 27th Jun 16, 10:14am 1466979267

Stephen,
Always good links. The BIS article summarises my views well, although it steps short of prescriptively describing the solution.
The article points out that since the global financial crisis most western governments and central banks have managed monetary policy with the prime purpose of saving and enriching their banks. They have done this with ultra low interest rates which have made bank debts manageable, and allowed and encouraged banks to lend trillions more on asset based securities- hence the asset bubbles we see.
There has been very little fiscal or monetary policy to grow consumption, other than through the circuitous means of the wealthy becoming even wealthier spending a bit more.
The article more than alludes to the thought that if monetary policy worked with fiscal policy to directly encourage consumption, either with expansionary fiscal infrastructure policy, or tax cuts, then consumption would have been directly encouraged from the bottom up. Net wages would not have been suppressed, Debt problems would gradually have eased as net incomes grew to allow them to be paid, or businesses sold a bit more and made profits.
Brexit may be the catalyst for some turnaround in these policies. George Osborne (the UK Chancellor) ridiculously proposed pre Brexit that it would force him into a deep austerity budget. That just proves how much current orthodox paradigms have infected people who you would otherwise think should have been capable of passing economics 101. Osborne clearly will have to go, and very quickly, unless he has a remarkable transformation over the weekend. Him going will be a good thing, and just maybe sensible policies will emanate out from Britain.

by workingman | 27th Jun 16, 9:56am 1466978216

The situation in the UK, and between the UK and the EU, is merely representative of a broken system. The referendum, being a vehicle for public outrage, has merely shone a torch on rotting foundations. And the same foundations underpin the global economy - ours as much as anyone's.

The system in which we live has three main, overlapping, uses for people: as workers/producers, customers/consumers and debtors. The viability and value of all three positions depends on continued economic growth. In recent decades the expansion of the third group has kept the other two alive. Any position outside these groups is markedly vulnerable. Indeed the system has very little use for you.

The first of these groups is being fast replaced, for all the good reasons of increased efficiency and profitability – valued as factors of growth - by various technologies of automation, and by the lower paid. The accelerating redundancy and wage pressure within workers/producers is, however, a severe constraint on their ability to play the role of customers/consumers (remember, all roles are overlapping). Thus growth drops another notch, and vulnerability - at the top and bottom - increases.

Immigration and asset trading together provide a semblance of growth, but – without even touching on environmental issues - the system is broken. The EU has no answer to the problem. Nor has any other political or financial body. All have sought merely to prop up the financiers. There can be no pretence that life in the UK will be a bed of roses, but together the vote and the difficulties it throws up do show in sharp relief (as in the Trump candidacy and every other EU political protest representative of human anger) the failures of the system with regard to the mass of dependent people.

I am no Bolshevik, but I see these events, in the UK, EU, US and elsewhere, as a democratic revolt, and maybe, just maybe, public outrage will force a closer look at the system.

by ham n eggs | 27th Jun 16, 1:41pm 1466991704

Agree - I would add that continued economic growth requires continued CHEAP energy, which is where the system is broken and cant be fixed - you cant legislate round physical laws. You cant run an economic system and infrastructure which needs ever greater amounts of cheap energy on energy which is increasingly not viable to produce. Debt and cheap China coal has papered the gap for the last eight years .... but we are reaching an impasse.
The UK is severely energy deficient, so there will be no great empire ahead.

by profile | 27th Jun 16, 2:31pm 1466994661

Severely energy deficient - yeah right. "the British Geological Survey (BGS) published a survey of shale gas in northern England. A formation called the Bowland-Hodder contains some 37.7 trillion cubic metres of gas, enough to supply the UK’s gas needs for at least 40 years.

Fraser has taken samples further east in a continuation of the same formation, and they corroborate the BGS study. He found layers of fuel-bearing rock between 200 and 300 metres thick, with an organic content of 3 to 7 per cent. They could yield up to 20 kilograms of gas or oil per tonne of rock. “This is comparable to yields from similar rock formations under the North Sea that have yielded oil and gas for decades,” Fraser says.

Fraser has also found organic-rich shales further south, in the south-western county of Dorset, and in the Weald in West Sussex."...
https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn25180-massive-stores-of-uk-shale…

by ham n eggs | 27th Jun 16, 5:03pm 1467003790

LOL ... sounds very cheap and viable. But yes, if you add in the uranium they can take from passing meteorites they should be fine.
http://www.euanmearns.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/UK_primary_20121.p…

by profile | 27th Jun 16, 2:28pm 1466994531

"Scientists have discovered vast deposits of coal lying under the North Sea, which could provide enough energy to power Britain for centuries.

Experts believe there is between three trillion and 23 trillion tonnes of coal buried in the seabed starting from the northeast coast and stretching far out under the sea.

Data from seismic tests and boreholes shows that the seabed holds up to 20 layers of coal - much of which could be reached with the technology already used to extract oil and gas."

by bender | 27th Jun 16, 3:08pm 1466996912

Quick, drill it, mine it, burn it. Bring on the fatal 5 degree C above baseline ASAP.

by bender | 27th Jun 16, 3:08pm 1466996925

Quick, drill it, mine it, burn it. Bring on the fatal 5 degree C above baseline ASAP.

by Stephen Hulme | 27th Jun 16, 9:57am 1466978243

France’s Prime Minister Manuel Valls has dismissed the possibility of an agreement on the US-EU transatlantic trade deal, since it goes against the interests of the European Union.

“No free trade agreement should be concluded if it does not respect EU interests. Europe should be firm. France will be vigilant about this,” Valls said addressing members of the governing Socialist Party on Sunday, AFP reported.

“I can tell you frankly, there cannot be a transatlantic treaty agreement. This agreement is not on track,” Valls added. Read more

by economist | 27th Jun 16, 11:04am 1466982250

Except now one can be done between the UK and the US..... So what were the reasons for the UK to remain in the EU?

Out of all the nations to have a free trade agreement with the EU the UK would be the easiest, as they already have this in essence. So it would business as usual from a trading perspective, or else they will have to set tariffs up - IF the UK and EU start up tariffs - that's a whole new question and would come from the EU side as the leave leaders have already stated they wanted a free trade deal....

by Stephen Hulme | 27th Jun 16, 11:20am 1466983237

Except now one can be done between the UK and the US...

Hardly the main prize for Obama.

I hope the French declaration rings alarm bells in NZ given this claim:

The TPPA could add an extra $2.7 billion to GDP by 2030 (that's a rise of 0.9%). Read more

by economist | 27th Jun 16, 1:36pm 1466991417

What is the bet the UK will have a free trade agreement with the US (and NZ and Australia and... and... and...) before the EU does? Given the French comments I doubt Obama will have a deal in his presidency...

Wow - 'maybe' a rise of 0.9% in 14 years! - that's an average of 0.06% a year for NZ!

by Zachary Smith | 27th Jun 16, 10:11am 1466979075

You would think that the burgeoning costs of the refugee crisis with its ongoing costs in welfare for largely unproductive people and probably unproductive for many years to come would make Britain's exit a more attractive proposition for the finance markets. Germany will likely have to find 400 billion over the next three or four years and studies show that even migrants that arrived long ago still fail to integrate.

80% OF TURKISH MUSLIM SETTLERS IN GERMANY LIVE OFF WELFARE

by economist | 27th Jun 16, 11:15am 1466982941

Personally, I'm trying to think of a valid fact the UK should have remained, but everything I can think of ends up as yet another reason to LEAVE.

by antonymouse | 27th Jun 16, 12:28pm 1466987326

Here's another reason to leave:

The European Union always was a CIA project, as Brexiteers discover

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/04/27/the-european-union-alway…

by economist | 27th Jun 16, 12:44pm 1466988298

Maybe, but what I am asking is can anyone give me one concrete reason the UK should remain in the EU? (there are lots of reasons to leave).

by DFTBA | 27th Jun 16, 4:50pm 1467003056

Click bait head line, never mind that the article is more than 3 years old, as well.
.
I couldn't find any references in the piece for the source of the figures. It links to an article published in a US reght wing magazine - also with no references to facts or figures.
Just umber plucked out of thin air.
.
There are probably some good reasons for some of these numbers:
1) Lots of Turkish were indeed invited over to come and work in Germany, as low wage earners.
2) This happened in the 70s and 80's,and I dare say a lot of these workers are now retired. Pension isa form of welfare, and this can easily skew the numbers
3) Lots of Turkish women came over with their husbands, but did not work outside the home. In the 70s, lots of western women didn't wrk outside the home either. These Turkish women are probably dependent on their husband's pension, or if their husband has died in the meantime (not inconceivable), they would be surviving on a widow's pension = also counted as welfare.
4) Conservative muslims: there are a few articles out there (if you'd care to look beyond this right wing drivel), which examine the Turks and their religion in Germany. They found that for a lot of them their islam was more a representation of a cultural identity and their mosque a culutural hub, rather than the spawning ground of fundamentalism.

.
The population of Germany is rapidly aging. This is one of the reasons why Germany has been happy enough with large influx if immigrants, Syrians lately, who are largely young and well educated.

To tar all muslims with the same brush - which you and this article seem to be doing - is xenophobic, and frankly, very racist.
It's arrogantly blind attitudes like this which foster the rise of fundamentalism, rather than the actual belief in a certain deity.

by tim12 | 27th Jun 16, 1:03pm 1466989416

alot of media paints brexit as a disaster, but they are largely owned by the establishment. It's big win for common sense.

by ngakonui gold | 27th Jun 16, 1:35pm 1466991301

Goldman Sachs predicting a recession in 2017.
Honestly how would they be able to predict that this eary given that they couldn't predict the GFC in 2008,and they were involved up to their balls in it

by economist | 27th Jun 16, 1:46pm 1466991994

If someone took the opposite of Goldman Sachs advice they probably will make more money.