So on origin, it’s getting a bit hard to keep up with all the rumours so here is where I think we are with this (correct me if I missed something)

/1 https://t.co/N5dDcbH7u7

Many bearish sentiments across the mortgage sector because they believe companies won't succeed as much when rate finally go back up (3 maybe 4 years from now). Which makes sense except for $GHIV and here's why. In 2016 Brexit came & rates went down which lead to huge success...

in mortgages. Business was great for many companies but then in ‘17 and ‘18, rates went up. What happened you might ask? A lot of people got compressed, margins got compressed, rates went down, & people struggled in the mortgage market...

Well UWM ( $GHIV ) compound annual growth rate, from ‘16 to ’18, was 28%. Companies that focused on refi struggled, so obviously a very successful company like Rocket or Quicken, they went down 14% in compound annual growth rate in those years...

$GHIV actually grew, and so did their profits, so the opportunity to continue to grow in all cycles is a big differentiator for UWM, and the broker channel versus a lot of our competitors. When rates rise, it's actually even better for $GHIV (UWM)..

If rates stay low, great UWM will continue to crush but when the rates rise, they will continue to steal even more market share because of how they operate in the mortgage sector. People also talk about the speed in closing a loan & that other competitors are faster...

🇬🇧🇪🇺 Who caused Hard Brexit? Some thoughts from the perspective of a social scientist. In the last few days we have seen an interminable debate on whether Remainers, Soft Brexiters, or Hard Brexiters are responsible for Hard Brexit. And it’s a false debate. Why? 1/n

People are confusing 'causes of effects' with 'effects of causes'. What this means is that we are all interested in - the former - why Hard Brexit happened - but using arguments about how one actor did something - the latter - as our explanation. These are different! 2/n

It is completely possible that Remainers not accepting a customs union increased the probability of Hard Brexit - that's an effect of a cause. But that does not imply responsibility. Because there are lots of other causes producing the same effect. 3/n

When most of us think about 'responsibility' we have clear lines of cause and effect. This one person did this one thing thus they are responsible. But with Brexit we have lots and lots of actors doing lots of things and we have ended up at this one historical moment. 4/n

So Boris choosing one of his letters; May wanting to end free movement; SNP/Lib Dems/ChangeUK (remember them?) not voting for customs union; they all contributed to a higher probability of Hard Brexit. But it's all so fantastically contingent that we can't pick out one. 5/n

Bloody hell some ones built a hall of shame for the SNP.

https://t.co/qxyMnUS4iX

1. Derek Mackay sending text messages to a sixteen-year-old boy telling him he was really cute.

2. Mhairi Black bringing a drag queen called Flowjob to a primary school

3. Derek Mackay spending £230 million on ferries that were not built

4. John Swinney overseeing an exam fiasco leading to marks being inflated

5. John Swinney being responsible for teaching primary school children about anal sex, rimming and pornography.

6. Natalie McGarry resigned the SNP whip because of fraud offences relating to the Women for Independence group. She pleaded guilty was convicted and jailed, but later had the conviction quashed. She still faces trial for embezzlement.

7. SNP coverup over the Covid outbreak connected with Nike in Edinburgh

8. SNP Government involved in clinical waste storage scandal

9. SNP MPs Chris Law, Ian Blackford and Brendan O’Hara had expenses claims totally £760,000 from the UK Parliament. They were the three with the

Been a lot of discussion recently around services trade in the deal between the UK and EU. Having read through the agreement over the past couple of days, my impressions👇

First off, services is definitely included. Question for service providers, is will it be enough?

1/N

My overall impression is that the EU has offered among the best in class for its FTAs similar to Canada and Japan.

But this access is a far cry from access to the Single Market and how is constructed as part of a trade agreement for the EU reflects that.

2/n

Unlike for goods trade, once you've got a product through all the customs and regulatory procedures into the EU, it can be sold anywhere in the EU, or its "entered circulation".

For services trade, that isn't the case. Its still done on a member state by member state level.

3/n

This is even true in the trade agreement itself where although the provisions set out in the Services and Investment chapter sounds awfully good - lots of principles about the freedom to establish and allowing the cross-border trade in services.

It's only when...

4/n

You get to the annexes and you realise both the EU and individual member states have put entry conditions across huge areas of different services sectors both now (existing measures) & in the future. Don't worry too much about the future reservations, it's the existing ones.

5/n

1. This beautiful and thought provoking piece of 21st century art was shared widely in anti-EU Facebook groups, Twitter replies to journalists and elsewhere online, in 2016.

Is it an untrackable, untraceable, Cambridge Analytica-style, fake?

2. The design is obviously substandard, to be charitable .

But look a bit closer, it appears intentionally bad.

3. A lightning strike blended through a Union Jack is not the work of a beginner, in Photoshop.

4. Is it believable that a designer capable of creating that effect in Photoshop, would also be virtually illiterate?

Literate enough to spell “Sovereignty” correctly.

5. But not literate enough to spell “corrupt”.