This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
30 Year Auction A Dud
- Yields 4.303% vs. Exp. 4.292%
- Bid to cover 2.36 vs. Avg. 2.54 (Prev. 2.68)
- Indirects 50.2% vs. Avg. 47.73% (Prev. 49.09%), and who the hell knows if the fudged definition includes any interest from the Red Queen and other denizens of the Land of the Looking Glass.
- Allotted at high 67.88%
- Bid to cover 2.36 vs. Avg. 2.54 (Prev. 2.68)
- Indirects 50.2% vs. Avg. 47.73% (Prev. 49.09%), and who the hell knows if the fudged definition includes any interest from the Red Queen and other denizens of the Land of the Looking Glass.
- Allotted at high 67.88%
»
- 2458 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -
NOTE TO Zero Hedge
PLEASE CHANGE:
The GRAY background.
It is hard to see.
my eyes hurt on the new website too.
I actually go to blogspot to read stuff
Probably saw this on Markit -
Six Flags CDS auction @ 14%
Agree, old site is better.
Indirect bid means very little anymore..
Old site was better, more info on home page. Offer a choice???
What gray background?
TD: isn't the "dud" moniker a little strong? Bid-to-cover was down, but only enough to bring the yield in a whopping 1 basis point above expectation.
The secondary market jumped today, though, sending yield on 30s up 15 basis points, which may be worthy of the dud moniker. I'm watching the TBT for sure...
agree. hardly a dud. not that this day won't come without a change in policy.
OMG, you're arguing about whether the auction was or was not a 'dud' and nobody's bothering to define what they mean by 'dud', a term which usually means 'unexploded ordnance'.
I'm losing respect for what was a remarkable financial blog (due to its objective take on the economy) as i see hyperbole on a daily basis that not even CNBC can surpass.
Tyler , put some perspective back into your reporting and all will not be lost.
-a reader and contributor since January
glad the auction was a dud, hope for more and bigger duds to get the 'big spenders' back in line in DC
"[Germany] struck another blow at the insensible, many-times-overkilled national creditor, from the War Loan lender to the mortgage granter, from the life insurance policy owner to the cooperative society member, from the savings bank depositor to the debenture holder, all of whose chances of justice now finally crumbled to dust"
The German Mark but 85 years ago upon announcement of a new transcendant currency issued parallel to the former.
When finally the ubertraders (the only ones "making money" at present) wake up and realize that paper, digital bits, graphs and models do not a market make, then they will also come to the realization that eventually the paper IOUs must be backed with harvests, mined metals, production, or human manufacture in order to have meaning.
We are in that small hiatus where all actors still grant the reserve paper legal tender (without any real recourse to any tangible) a fixed value with future expectations banded by deflation/inflation of a few percentages at most. When they come to realize the full blowup of the debt and the currency and the corrupt hollowness of the institutions in which they trust, there will be no common denominator, no means of exchange which will not be meaningless in a night's sleep.
Unless they hold gold.
In that day those with large bank accounts, deposited paper promissories, treasuries, munis, warrants, debentures, transfer payments, etc. will KNOW hunger and impoverishment. Farmers' barns will be bursting, but the system will have failed you as it is failing in exquisite slow motion.
The problem is with the American consumer. If Americans lived within their means, we wouldn't be in this mess.
There is nothing wrong with fractional reserve banking as long as the credit standards are strictly enforced. Personally I don't prefer this system because of the abuse it permits, but the problem is not with fiat currency or digital currency (these only increase the ultimate efficiency of trade). Even anti-fractional reservists understand that the government has to increase the money supply to provide growth.
WRONG!! COMPLETELY WRONG!! Anti-fracional reservists, namely Austrians, are precisely against that system because we believe the government CANNOT "provide growth" by increasing money supply. Currency is just a means of exchange; add more of that commodity and all you get is inflation, not growth. The financial system adjusts relatively quickly to cheap money, and responds by generating higher prices and by malinvesting in unproductive projects that eat away at long-term productivity growth.
If I believed fractional reserve banking was condusive to long-term growth I would be all for it. But it is not. That is preciselly where BB trips. Monetary alchemy cannot generate growth out of thin air. If you believe this, then you are Keynesian, not an Austrian.
Of course the absolute value of the expansion in money supply is what we call inflation, but because the expansion enables peoples with ideas and without capital to provide real goods and services with a value that is greater than the capital they borrow, this represents real growth. If you cut off the flow of this capital, you cut real growth. There is no debate about that. It also tends to keep societies polarized between rich and poor because the rich control and absolute supply of money.