Rebirth of England

If we look at the rate of return, it is obvious that Morgan Stanley's performance has been somewhat lagging since the subprime mortgage crisis until now.

From March 2009 to date, the increase in the share prices of Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs has lagged far behind those of banks including Wells Fargo, Citigroup and Bank of America - commercial banks have performed much better than investment banks.

In contrast, during the five-year bull market from September 2002 to September 2007, the S\u0026P 500 index rose by 87%, of which the financial sector as a whole rose by 66%. During this period, Goldman Sachs rose by 228% and Morgan Stanley rose by 124%, both significantly outperforming the market.

In the next year, these banks and investment banks generally have at least 10% more growth...

The reason why Barron said that now is "not the right time" is not mainly because the stocks held by the BFT Fund still have room for growth, but also because of the exchange rate of the pound to the US dollar.

Initially, when the Bank of England injected 25 billion pounds into the BFT Fund, the exchange rate of the pound to the US dollar was around 2.1.

When the BFT Fund first repaid the principal and corresponding interest of 13.5 billion pounds, which accounted for 25% of the total debt to the British government, the exchange rate of the pound to the US dollar was 1.45, so the 13.5 billion pounds was equivalent to less than 19.6 billion US dollars.

Now, the exchange rate of the pound to the US dollar is around 1.67. Compared with the last time when the British government repaid 25% of its debt and related interest, the exchange rate of the pound to the US dollar has risen. Then the funds required to repay this debt and related interest, which also accounted for 25%, are close to 14 billion pounds (the extra part compared to the last time is the accumulated interest during the period), which is equivalent to nearly 23.4 billion US dollars.

After all, the assets currently held by the BFT Fund are all denominated in US dollars, so that the additional benefits of the lower exchange rate of the pound to the US dollar can be obtained.

However, this problem is not a big deal, just like the last time the BFT Fund repaid part of the British government's debt, it was not raised by the fund selling its own shares, but was "moved" from other places.

After all, the interest rate given by the BFT Fund for the British government's 50 billion pounds investment was not low - at that time, there had not been these rounds of quantitative easing policies, and there had not been rounds of interest rate cuts - so for example, if the BFT Fund needs to return 13.5 billion pounds to the British government, they can raise this money from other places at the same interest rate...

Just like the Friendship Insurance Group controlled by Barron, there is a considerable amount of pound funds deposited in the British business, which is used to purchase the relatively high-interest "debt" of the BFT Fund, which is enough to cover the funds that the BFT Fund needs to return to the British government.

This time, it can still be operated in this way. The longer the time is delayed, as the exchange rate of the pound to the US dollar decreases, the more cost-effective it will be to convert their US dollar assets back to pounds for remittance.

...

As for Barron's proposal to Cameron to repay part of the British government's debt, it is related to Britain's national security.

"Although we are close allies with the United States, our country's nuclear deterrence capability still needs to be in our own hands, rather than being controlled by the United States as it is now..."

"What do you mean?"

"We need to have our own strategic missiles for precision delivery!"

Why do you say that? Because the button of Britain's strategic nuclear deterrence is not in its own hands now, but needs the consent of the United States.

Speaking of which, Britain originally wanted to reduce financial pressure, but ended up being the "sucker" who spent money...

In 1952, Britain exploded its own atomic bomb with the assistance of the United States, and then successfully exploded a hydrogen bomb in 1957.

So Britain became the third country to have a hydrogen bomb after the Soviet Union (1953) and the United States (1954), and before China (1967) and France (1968).

The reason why Britain was so active in developing atomic and hydrogen bombs at that time was because it was worried about the invasion of the Soviet Union - after all, the Soviet Union's steel torrent was close to Western Europe at that time, and the Soviet Union already had atomic and hydrogen bombs.

Britain's nuclear strategy at that time was "minimum nuclear deterrence" - maintaining a limited and effective strategic nuclear force, and claiming to attack important cities of the enemy country as the goal, making the enemy country bear unacceptable losses, so as to deter potential enemies from launching nuclear attacks easily.

To put it bluntly, the Soviet Union can "nuclearize" the British Isles, but at least I can drag your Moscow to take the blame...

It's just that due to funding issues, Britain finally gave up the research and development of nuclear weapons delivery vehicles, and instead signed an agreement with the United States, giving up the "three-in-one" nuclear strike capability, retaining only sea-based strategic nuclear submarines as nuclear strike capabilities, and carrying their nuclear warheads by purchasing and using American strategic missiles - and according to the agreement, Britain can continue to develop nuclear weapons, but its experiments need to be carried out within the United States...

So in the end, Britain manufactured its own nuclear warheads and nuclear submarines, but needed to use the American Trident to deliver them.

Theoretically, the British Prime Minister can issue an order to launch the "Trident" strategic missile without prior approval from the White House...

But this is only theoretical. After all, the manufacturing and maintenance of the "Trident" strategic missiles all depend on the United States. If the United States refuses, then even if the British launch the "Trident", will they be able to achieve their designated purpose? Land is also a problem...

This is why in the classic British drama "Yes, Prime Minister", it is said bluntly that "Britain is the missile base of the United States."

The error-free version is being read! 6=9+Book_Bar debuts this novel.

"You mean we will no longer use the American Trident and develop our own strategic missiles?"

After hearing Barron's words, Cameron's eyes widened and he asked.

This is not something that can be decided casually. In addition to the reaction of the United States, a large amount of money will definitely be invested in the research and development of this kind of strategic missile. When the time comes, let alone the opposition party, it will be within the Conservative Party. , I'm afraid there will be many doubts - is this necessary?

"Of course we don't need to do research and development independently. I also understand that this is very difficult, but what if we cooperate with other countries to develop research and development? For example, France and Italy..."

Seeing that Cameron remained silent, Barron continued:

"You even just need to put forward this idea first and make it an option..."

When he said this, Cameron finally reacted:

"But over there in America..."

"We cannot follow the footsteps of the United States like we did during the Blair period. Only by maintaining a certain degree of autonomy can we be more valuable to win over, Mr. Prime Minister."