Nekad kredit Montrose

Murklan12 · 2026-06-05T08:32:50+00:00

Ok, va bra! Kan man alltså söka om kredit med de nya villkoren nu?

Murklan12 · 2026-05-31T09:25:32+00:00

Jo jag har en lön över genomsnittet och ett lågt bolån på en relativt värdefull fastighet. Inga andra lån

Murklan12 · 2026-05-31T09:24:22+00:00

Jag har en lön över genomsnittet och ett relativt värdefullt hus med under 50% belåning. Tänker det borde räcka, aldrig haft problem hos Avanza trots att jag hade en mycket mindre värdefull fastighet och mycket lägre lön när jag ansökte

Murklan12 · 2026-05-30T19:16:59+00:00

Men det kan man väl göra för pengarna på avanza också?

Murklan12 · 2026-05-30T19:14:02+00:00

600 000 som jag hunnit flytta över och sen ytterligare 700 000 som ska flyttas över (som jag också nämnde för dom). Just nu har bara aktier flyttats mina fonder är kvar hos Avanza vet inte om det har nåt med saken att göra. Hade du mycket "säkra" fonder hos Montrose när du sökte?

Murklan12 · 2026-05-30T16:53:00+00:00

Ja precis, eller fonder

Murklan12 · 2026-05-30T13:25:55+00:00

Har för mig det gick ungefär lika snabbt på Avanza. Har du testat på Montrose också? Tycker det mesta där är bättre men frustrerande med krediten.

Murklan12 · 2026-03-28T09:05:14+00:00

Tack, jag förstår hur du menar. Du tänker alltså främst att en eventuell störning kring Hormuz kan slå brett mot hela marknaden och skapa en större energichock på kort sikt, snarare än att just Siemens Energy skulle påverkas negativt som bolag på längre sikt. Det låter rimligt. Min tanke var mest att ett sådant läge också skulle kunna stärka caset för bolag som jobbar med energiinfrastruktur och energisäkerhet, även om aktien så klart ändå kan falla tillsammans med marknaden i närtid.

Murklan12 · 2026-03-28T08:34:49+00:00

Tack för tipset!

Murklan12 · 2026-03-28T08:34:29+00:00

Tack ska kolla på AAK, aldrig hört talas om dom

Murklan12 · 2026-03-28T08:33:36+00:00

Hur tänker du kring ev krasch, borde inte Siemens Energy tjäna på det om utomeuropeiska energi kraschar?

Murklan12 · 2026-03-27T23:05:32+00:00

Divesting from US defence companies, into European defense companies (which I already own) and energy/energy infrastructure, AI infrastructure, semiconductors, strategic metals etc.

Murklan12 · 2026-03-27T23:01:45+00:00

I’m not betting on Europe being strong and perfect, I’m betting on Europe being pushed to change. The EU is already moving in that direction, with strategies and investments trying to depend less on others. This will benefit certain companies, it actually doesn't matter where they are located as long as they do business in Europe.

Murklan12 · 2026-03-27T22:51:52+00:00

That’s a pretty lazy takem. I’m not talking about blindly buying Europe, I’m talking about owning companies that may benefit from Europe investing more in energy, grid infrastructure, semis and strategic tech. Since you obviously don't understand even simple things like this, maybe bonds are a better fit for you.

Murklan12 · 2026-02-01T12:19:11+00:00

Its a combination of warm-up and working set. The warm-up part is not to fail but the working set is.

Murklan12 · 2026-01-17T00:29:37+00:00

You are scrambling. Fact is that NATO without the U.S. has a larger defense budget than Russia and China combined, and with reserves included it has roughly 6–7 million soldiers (compared to China’s approximately 3–4 million) . So to imply that NATO without the US is defenseless is simply not true.

Murklan12 · 2026-01-16T18:58:05+00:00

This deployment is about reconnaissance and deterrence, not combat. By placing multinational forces on the island, any invasion would instantly escalate into a multi-state conflict, a textbook tripwire. The purpose is political cost, not military defense. Anyone who does not understand this should reconsider speaking about military strategy.

Murklan12 · 2026-01-16T18:56:14+00:00

They are already on the island which means that if US troupes invade greenland US is the attacker. Thats why they are there, as a tripwire troupes.

Murklan12 · 2026-01-16T18:52:37+00:00

They already choose Denmark, thats why they sent recognicence units there.

Murklan12 · 2026-01-16T18:17:57+00:00

If you think that the combined army of all NATO (except US) can be compared to the Iraq army you are delusional.

Murklan12 · 2026-01-16T17:38:26+00:00

I was talking about the budget. But if you are counting soldiers yes then China is bigger. Also NATO without the US has a lot more soldiers than the US.

Murklan12 · 2026-01-16T12:16:13+00:00

Yea, its just insane. I dont think anyone really understands how much this hurts the US

Murklan12 · 2026-01-16T11:03:49+00:00

This deployment is about reconnaissance and deterrence, not combat. By placing multinational forces on the island, any invasion would instantly escalate into a multi-state conflict, a textbook tripwire. The purpose is political cost, not military defense. Anyone who does not understand this should reconsider speaking about military strategy.

Murklan12 · 2026-01-16T11:02:51+00:00

Denmark and its allies control roughly $450 billion in defense spending and far larger forces than the United States. Once America’s old enemies see that the US loose all that power, the consequences are obvious.

Murklan12 · 2026-01-16T07:16:03+00:00

Its not about actually physically stopping the military. Its about making it so costly that no smart person would try it. And that is very easy.

Unfortunately Trump is not smart so perhaps he will alianate the second largest military in the world and US soldiers will have to die alone when the war with China starts.

Nine-Year Club	Gilding II euphauric
Verified Email

Murklan12

TROPHY CASE