Investors get real-time view of UK bond market activity for the first time

Post by [deleted] » Mon, Jun 22, 2026, 4:35 PM UTC

inigyou wrote: post #40

dv_dt wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Seems like a bit of a false dichotomy- other alternatives are regulatory requirements or taxes that force or allow the api to be provisioned

You can force markets to make an open API funded by participants, but you can't make it fully open (open API and open participation) if you don't want tax funding because then there's no funding source left. Maybe you decide a fully open market is worth being tax funded, though it's still mostly going to benefit very rich people.

Post by arethuza » Mon, Jun 22, 2026, 4:39 PM UTC

abecedarius wrote: post #32

jalev wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The UK's financial system made it out battered but bruised in the 70s which were a magnitude worse than what we have right now (double digit unemployment, inflation double digit, interest rates at like 15%, an IMF bailout...). Any talk of the British financial system collapsing is as realistic as the S&P500 dropping 50% in the near future: sure it can happen but the chances are so statistically small you have a bette…

National debt to GDP was much lower in the 70s. You might be right that near-term disaster is unlikely, but comparing to a lottery win is ridiculous. Orders of magnitude off.

Post by Closi » Mon, Jun 22, 2026, 4:48 PM UTC

inigyou wrote: post #55

Closi wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't see why you can't do that? There's plenty of things that cost money that legislation forces companies to do anyway, regardless of if there is a 'funding source' or not. Although this particular one is from the FCA so presumably is taxpayer funded anyway.

Well if you mandate they spend money and also mandate they don't get money, they'll shut down.

Post by matt-p » Mon, Jun 22, 2026, 4:52 PM UTC

arethuza wrote: post #60

matt-p wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As someone who has lived in a 'mixed block' in zone 1, I think it's delusional to characterise social housing tenants as 'teachers and nurses'. I suspect most teachers and nurses are already in private sector housing in London. I think it could be OK to sell all social hosing in Zone 1/2 and use that money to pay higher wages for teachers and nurses plus state built replacement social housing in zone 4-6. There's pro…

A lot of social housing in the UK (about 45%) isn't owned by councils so can't really be sold off by the state?

Post by pjc50 » Mon, Jun 22, 2026, 5:21 PM UTC

matt-p wrote: post #57

pjc50 wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There really isn't a lot of slack in the welfare system unless you're prepared to be very short sighted and go back to "tent city" levels of homelessness. Which is partly why all previous attempts to cut it have failed. Maybe declaring certain areas of high rent off-limits for housing benefit, but then you have to raise the salaries of NHS staff and teachers living in London so they can afford to work there. Maybe if…

As someone who has lived in a 'mixed block' in zone 1, I think it's delusional to characterise social housing tenants as 'teachers and nurses'. I suspect most teachers and nurses are already in private sector housing in London. I think it could be OK to sell all social hosing in Zone 1/2 and use that money to pay higher wages for teachers and nurses plus state built replacement social housing in zone 4-6. There's pro…