A Return To Rate Normalcy Will Cost The Fed Hundreds Of Billions; The Fed Will Go "Negative Carry" In 2015: D-Day For America

Tyler Durden's picture

Today, Chris Whalen's Institutional Risk Analytics carries a fantastic piece by Alan Boyce, in which the author picks up where we left off some time ago in deconstructing the DV01 of the Federal Reserve's SOMA. As a reminder, using Jefferies data, we observed that the Fed's DV01 on its balance sheet is about $1 billion (the potential unrealized profit/loss for every basis point move in interest rates, and with ZIRP here, rates can only go up, so make that just loss without the profit) . Alan Boyce, a former Fed member, CFC executive, and Soros portfolio manager, provides a more granular analysis of the Fed's holdings and comes up with an even scarier DV01: one that is 50% higher, or a $1,509 million/bp. This means that the Fed faces a "$75 billion loss for the first 50 bps move in the markets." As before, it is obvious why the Fed will do everything in its power to keep rates as low as possible for as long as possible, as the vicious cycle that will begin with increasing rates will make all future press releases of how much money the US taxpayer has "made" on the US' bailout of the mortgage industry far more problematic. Boyce also discusses how precisely it is that the Fed has managed to maintain rates at current record low levels for so long, what the cost of an appropriate hedging portfolio would be, and, critically, the implications of what will happen when markets realize that we are caught in a state of artificial suspended and Fed-endorsed animation. The primary conclusion: look for interest rate volatility to surge by 50% even as the Fed scrambles to cover hundreds of billions in losses in its portfolio sooner or later. Boyce's summary is basically that the countdown to the end of the Fed QE regime is now on: "If you look at forward fed funds (Eurodollar curve less basis swap),
the FRB will go negative carry in March 2015, where 3 month financing
rates are forecast to be over 5% (just gets worse and worse from
there). The point here is that mark-to-market accounting is an
iron law. You cannot escape the losses just because you do not report
them.
If the FRB loses $200 billion on mark to market,
there will be $200 billion LESS that they remit to the Treasury
Department every year. That will require legislation to either raise
taxes or lower spending by $200 billion (or run up bigger Federal debt
to be paid back by another generation)."
Must read analysis.

First, a summary of the Fed's actions from the perspective of an MBS trader:

Over the last year the administration and the Fed have undertaken several measures, in the form of FPP, that are yielding short term positive benefits. Specifically:

1. Duration - the FRB/Treasury's programs have taken more duration out of the bond market than could be created in 2-3 years. This has kept long term interest rates much lower than they would otherwise have been. The yield curve has been artificially depressed, by at least 75 basis points, due to this reduction in the aggregate duration (price risk of the whole US bond market). This directly impacted credit and increased the price of all credit instruments.

2. Reduced Volatility - The result of the FPP removing a sizable chunk of mortgages out of private market hands is a reduction in the amount of convexity hedging in the near term. This drives down actual volatility in the fixed income markets. The FPP also forced many bond fund managers to replicate mortgages, in part by selling volatility, thereby compressing implied volatility. This became self-reinforcing as lower volatility allows for increased risk in portfolios which in turn reduces volatility as liquidity returns to markets. Volatility compressed across asset classes. And, reduced volatility directly impacted credit spreads, equity valuations, and commodity prices.

As we know, the FRB recently ended its purchase program. And this is where the mortgage trader's perspective may prove useful. A clear and consistent focus on mortgage duration risk shows us that we may face a series of large and as yet underappreciated challenges. The sooner we collectively understand these issues, the better we can address them. The rest of this article will describe my efforts to calculate the duration of the FRB/Treasury purchase programs and give my perspective on what will happen when the purchase programs end and underlying dynamics of mortgage duration assert themselves.

How does one calculate the specific DV01 of the Fed and how much will a hedge cost?

Annex 1 shows the MBS position of the FRB as of 12/30/09, which includes 'reported' settled positions and forward purchases (reported weekly). Essentially, this is the risk position of the Federal Reserve. An MBS trader (or investor) would calculate their risk using such a position sheet, in combination with various estimates of the duration of each underlying security. All of the analysis is done using 12/30/09 prices and durations.

By using OAD calculations from standard prepay models (which are too fast), the FRB had $460 million of price risk per basis point or "mm/bp" as of year-end. If you scale this up for the remaining purchases and the purchases by the Treasury Department, you get $776 mm/bp. This is using Option Adjusted Durations implied by pre-payment models that were conditioned on the housing market from 2002 to 2008. Those prepayment estimates are significantly faster than what has been experienced in the last two years.

If you use durations implied by coupon spreads (a pretty accurate measure of how the bond market views the current price risk on MBS) then your duration value of a basis point move in the markets or "DV01" jumps to $643mm. Scaled up for the whole program, you get $1,071mm/bp. If rates go up by 50bp, the FRB and Treasury would expect to lose $54 billion. If rates go up even more, assume durations extend and the losses on the next 50bp increase would be $75-90 billion.

If the FRB and Treasury were to hedge their negative convexity risk (bonds fall more than they rise for a given move in interest rates) they would need to buy interest rate options. The most likely option would be a 3yr into 7yr swaption, which currently trades at 5 points. If you hedged to coupon spread implied durations, you would be buying 3yr into 10yr swaptions, which currently trade at 6.5 points. There would be significant reflexivity if that amount of swaptions were bought (prices would be higher if there were more buyers). I estimate the average price paid would be at least 50% higher and have confirmed this with some of the best option traders in the world.

Bottom line: it would cost $142 billion for the FRB and Treasury to hedge the short optionality of their current MBS position.

The Risk of Other Bonds Purchased: Treasuries, Agencies, TIPs and Maiden Lane

These calculations are again based upon year-end positions. The durations are estimated by breaking each category of debt instrument into several buckets, estimating a duration for the bucket and then calculating a simple weighted average.

 

Asset

Position
$B)

Duration

DV01
($M)

Treasuries

707

5yr

353

TIPs

47

6yr

28

GSE debt

160

2yr

32

Other (Maiden Lane
etc)

50

5yr

25

Total

964

4.55yr

438

The weighted average duration is 4.55 years with a DVO1 of $438mm per basis point. I will assume that since December, the remaining purchases have been in MBS instead of the other debt categories. Together with the scaled up to final size purchases of MBS, that would be $1,509 mm/bp or a $75 billion loss for the first 50bp move in the markets.

So what is the real duration of the market, or in other words how much duration has the Fed taken out of the market?

Accounting for the Net Duration Add to the US bond market

Mortgage market duration is estimated to have been roughly the same during the period of the FPP. There was no large scale refinancing, a sure-fire method to increase duration. The duration embedded in the existing mortgages increased slightly due to lower housing turnover and labor mobility. The recent GSE buybacks of >120 Day delinquent loans acts to reduce the duration of mortgages, as loans that were completely unable to voluntarily prepay are removed from the system.

Municipal market shrank in 2009. This was aided by help from the Federal government in the form of Build America taxable bond issuance and significant grants to State HFAs. Corporate bond market is small and did not grow in 2009.

Net Treasury issuance as $1.4 trillion, with a 4 year maturity and a 3 year duration. This is a net add of duration of which is $420mm/basis point -- the net result. The FPP took out $1.509 billion of duration per basis point. The mortgage market, municipal market and corporate bond market are estimated to have added zero net duration to the aggregate. The funding of a very large budget deficit required a significant duration add, $420mm/bp, by the Treasury Department.

Conclusion: the FPP reduced aggregate duration in the financial markets by almost 3.6x the duration that was added to the system during the period! This has kept long term interest rates much lower than they would otherwise have been. Without this, interest rates would have been higher, the yield curve would have been significantly steeper, and options would have been more expensive.

Think the Fed's departure from the capital markets on March 31 is priced in? Think again. Market are simply once again demonstrating that EMT is totally flawed.

What are the Implications of Ending the FPP?

1) Duration: MBS widening out will result in lower prices for agency pass - thus, this will lead to an immediate increase in the calculated OAD of the aggregate mortgage index and drive the curve steeper. A steepening of another 50bp will cost the FRB another $84 billion. Agency MBS spreads are 90bp tight to their historical average spread of 120 basis points to US10yr. If spreads widen out to the average (ceteris paribus) the FRB will lose $147 billion.

Prepayment models used for convexity hedging are slow to adjust. Like historical models that failed during the crises of 2008, prepayment models will ultimately be seen as failing to recognize the enormity of the duration problem. Moving forward, refinance activity will surprise to the downside. Mortgage rates are coming off record lows. And, the creditworthiness of the delinquent homeowners still working through the system will impede refinance activity.

2) Options Volatility: The end of FPP shorting options will drive interest rate volatility up by 50%, making the cost of covering the short options position rise to $213 billion. Options traders tend to be agnostic as to what options markets they play in. When fixed income implied volatility increases, option sellers will be more likely to short options to the bond market and less likely to short options to the commodity, equity and foreign exchange markets. These options markets are all linked by investors. Expect implied volatility in all other markets to rise when the world's biggest sell program of long dated options ends.

3) Fiscal Policy: If the FRB were to just explicitly short payer swaptions, they would generate significant option premium which they would book as income. That income would revert to the Treasury department and the FRB would be wishing, hoping and praying that interest rates never move. Instead they are implicitly shorting the options through the unhedged purchase of MBS, generating cash income, which they report and remit to Treasury. If interest rates were to rise, the yield curve to steepen and/or interest rate volatility to rise, the FRB would suffer a huge mark-to-market loss. This would not be reported on their cash basis income statement. They would continue to book cash income, as long as the book yield of their MBS purchases exceeds their financing rate (paying interest on excess reserves). The Federal Reserve does not mark to market, instead runs a "cash income statement".

If you look at forward fed funds (Eurodollar curve less basis swap), the FRB will go negative carry in March 2015, where 3 month financing rates are forecast to be over 5% (just gets worse and worse from there). The point here is that mark-to-market accounting is an iron law. You cannot escape the losses just because you do not report them. If the FRB loses $200 billion on mark to market, there will be $200 billion LESS that they remit to the Treasury Department every year. That will require legislation to either raise taxes or lower spending by $200 billion (or run up bigger Federal debt to be paid back by another generation).

4) Excess Reserves: The end to the FPP will not change excess reserves, but who cares since they are being lent back to the FRB at federal funds target rate of 25bp. The Federal Reserve has plans to remove the excess reserves via reverse repo agreements (used to be called matched sales back in the non-borrowed reserve targeting regime). If the Federal Reserve wished to sell all of the bonds purchased, the expectation is that they would receive lower prices than they paid. The FRB would then need to issue "FRB bills" to soak up the remaining excess reserves, equal to the dollar loss on the round-trip bond trade.

And the one question everyone is asking: "when?"

When Will This All Unfold?

Using efficient markets hypothesis, this information is freely available so the effects of the end of the purchase program should be fully priced into the financial markets. So why didn't bonds fall dramatically in anticipation? There are a couple of potential explanations. First, financial markets are not efficient. They are not the best prediction of what will happen in the future. As recent events confirm, financial markets are quite myopic, able to see at most three months ahead.

And markets can be distorted when participants are incentivized by factors other than profit. The Fed's participation in the bond markets was not driven by a desire to profit from their purchases. They systematically purchased mortgages (and Treasuries) without regard to price. This can have a distorting effect that is not recognized until their influence on the markets is removed.

Second, their involvement in markets not only influences the prices of assets but they influence the behavior of other market participants. As discussed above, many real money buyers synthetically created mortgages because of the lack of supply due to FPP.

Finally, the Fed removed a huge stock of mortgages from the pool of available mortgages in the secondary market. The impact will be felt for some time until the flow of new mortgages begins to trickle into the secondary market providing additional liquidity. In the meantime, there is a real danger of a buyer's strike as participants sit back and wait to see what happens now that the program is finished. This is happening at a time that the economic data is coming in strong adding to pressure in fixed income markets.

If markets were to become unglued, the Fed may purchase more mortgages and Treasury debt. The question is how other central bankers and market participants would react to this. Foreign central bankers will likely snap and become sellers if the Fed decides to monetize more debt. Also, domestic and foreign market participants would likely take it as a sign that the Fed is politically unable to exit the mortgage market and unable to exit quantitative easing. As FPP ends, there is the real potential for unintended consequences in domestic and foreign markets.

To all those who say buy the market - good luck. All we are doing at this point is literally shuffling the deck chairs as the Fed has managed to plug the leak for at best 5 years. Those who have access to the discount window and to the steep yield curve have at most 5 years in which to transfer as much future assets to the present discounted at the ridiculous zero interest rate which the Fed has so far successfully managed to defend. Forget the Fed selling assets: the Fed now realizes, as we have long claimed, that the conviction move by the market to an increasing rate exposure is all that will take to destroy the balance sheet of the biggest bank in the world, that of the Federal Reserve. Various tests by the 10 Year of the 4% resistance have so far been driven primarily by risk reallocation with equities. As Boyce points out, this is untenable and is a function of the ongoing delusion between stocks and bonds that without the Fed cutting duration as much as it has (not to mention that the average UST maturity profile is still woefully short), we would now be starting at an S&P level far lower than the infamous 666 lows. Yet the inevitability of this happening sooner or later is guaranteed: unless the CNY manages to become the reserve currency in the next 5 years, and the Fed somehow succeeds to convince the world that devaluing the dollar is what the Fed is all about, all we are doing is waiting for the hull of the USS America to fill with ice cold water and slowly sink.

Full Alan Boyce piece can be read here.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
mikla's picture

Makes me wonder why Bernanke (or anyone) would want to be Fed Chair.

"Hey, look at the size of my ... stimulus!"

Shameful's picture

I think there is some appeal to being Fed Chairman.

Banking Syndicate: "Hey Shameful, would you like an infinite amount of money and power at your disposal with no oversight?"

Shameful: "Is the Pope Catholic? And making the world safe for pedophiles?"

Banking Syndicate: "Okay you can be Fed Chairman.  But you can't give yourself money directly.  But you can dole out money to anyone you want.  Oh and you have to listen to us and give us free money"

Shameful: "So I give you want you want, and in return I can give all my friends billions in loans collateralized by garbage?  And my friends are free to give me bribes and kickbacks when I retire?"

Banking Syndicate: "That's right.  Oh and you might have to take some public blame, but don't worry you are immune to any prosecution and can enjoy your later years in absolute luxury after reducing your host nation to abject poverty"

Yeah I can see how that deal would appeal to a few people.

Inspector Asset's picture

Tim Geithner announces the new and improved monetary policy for U.S. that was hammered out over the weekend with Lawerence Summers and received a two-thumbs up from the Obama administration. The new policy comes as a result of the new tough reforms coming out of DC against Wall Street due to the crisis in 2008. Tim Geithner, speaks excitedly about the new policy and states "unlike the past, this new reform package, and new monetary has plenty of transparency and oversight."

In fact the new policy is so simple that oversight may not be needed at all, as pointed out by Congress member Maxine Walters. It is better known on the hill as "The 3 rule system."

Rule # 1. If the investment is worthless (toxic) the Treasury shall buy it and pay full price. If a price is not known, then we shall make up a price.

Rule # 2. If the investment has any value at all, or has the potential to show value in the future than the Federal Reserve shall buy it.

Rule #3. If you not sure, call Goldman Sachs and let them decide. Give them a little time so they can make their investments, as needed, before the herds stampede in looking for a deal.

Geithner admits the plan may seem to simple, but argues "that sometimes complex problems require simple solutions, and oversight." "This plan being so simple, allows for that oversight that was lacking before."

When asked what happens when the FED balance sheet gets so big, would it pose a risk of being "To Big To Fail?" Geithner sniped back,

"Don't you worry about the FED, they will take care of themselves." "Long after America is bankrupted, just an example of course, the FED will still be here standing. Get it? They are a separate entity! "

Geithner closed out the interview saying "we should be more concerned about the actions of our own government, than snooping around the FEDS business."

When asked, by Congress Maxine Walters, "which government, do you work for?: Geithner lit up like an alien, seemed confused, and then left the room. He was unable to answer the question.

 

www.WallstOnion.blogspot.com

exportbank's picture

But Jim Grant was just on Bloomberg with a Be Happy report

No More Bubbles's picture

Grant has jumped the shark.  Everyone is a genius until they are revealed a fool......

Cheeky Bastard's picture

Whoever thinks this is a natural occurrence is sadly mistaken. It was all planned, managed and executed by the people whos names we will never know. It was an artificial system built upon mathematical concepts and ridiculous equations, false sociological, geopolitical and economic paradigms. The collapse will be swift, painful and catastrophic for we have far to long relied on abstract complexities to solve millennium long, albeit unsolvable problems. And the more abstract we became in our solutions the bigger were the problems which those same solutions put fort. It is an inescapable fact of certainty that exponential growth for the sake of exponential growth via proxy usage of FIAT currency and reliance on the apparatus that exploits the inefficiencies of a FIAT currency to provide as with stability and reasonable living comfort for a period of time longer than 200 years, will bring back civilization just a notch above paleolithic gathering societies once the 500 year long trend [which started with merchant bankers in Northern Italy] ends. The ridiculous philosophical solutions bring forth in theories such as postmodernism and global political unification will not cure the prevalent illness which is deeply rooted, if not the heart, in this system.

B9K9's picture

As the picture becomes clearer, it's easy to view these proceedings from the perspective of a banker. Once you place yourself in their shoes, one can see the various obstacles & challenges that had previously been blocking their objective(s).

First and foremost, the most important task was to institute broad based enfranchisement. That's because the only effective bulwark against the type of coordinated criminal enterprise we see today were statesmen. Once statesman were reduced to pandering politicians buying votes with taxpayer funds, it was child's play to manipulate and trick representatives to act against their constituents' best interests.

The other obvious goals were to own the media and control/shape educational processes and standards. After the republic had been reduced to a democracy, subject to mass propaganda and institutionalized 'education' (tell me again why the principle behind exponential math & compounding principle+interest isn't taught from 5th grade on), it was astoundingly easy for the money-lenders to pull off exactly what we now see occurring on a daily basis.

The money-elite never, ever lost sight of the ancient lessons taught about usury; they are iron clad laws that cannot be refuted. Just like civilizations from thousands of years ago, we are once again discovering the truth about the credit-money system.

Cheeky Bastard's picture


 

source: http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2009/08/physicists-untangle-complicated-webs-to.html

 

Inside Science - a news service supported by the American Institute of Physics - is breaking an important story:

A recent analysis of the 2007 financial markets of 48 countries has revealed that the world's finances are in the hands of just a few mutual funds, banks, and corporations. This is the first clear picture of the global concentration of financial power, and point out the worldwide financial system's vulnerability as it stood on the brink of the current economic crisis.

A pair of physicists at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Zurich did a physics-based analysis of the world economy as it looked in early 2007. Stefano Battiston and James Glattfelder extracted the information from the tangled yarn that links 24,877 stocks and 106,141 shareholding entities in 48 countries, revealing what they called the "backbone" of each country's financial market. These backbones represented the owners of 80 percent of a country's market capital, yet consisted of remarkably few shareholders.

"You start off with these huge national networks that are really big, quite dense," Glattfelder said. “From that you're able to ... unveil the important structure in this original big network. You then realize most of the network isn't at all important."

The most pared-down backbones exist in Anglo-Saxon countries, including the U.S., Australia, and the U.K. ... But while each American company may link to many owners, Glattfelder and Battiston's analysis found that the owners varied little from stock to stock, meaning that comparatively few hands are holding the reins of the entire market.

“If you would look at this locally, it's always distributed,” Glattfelder said. “If you then look at who is at the end of these links, you find that it's the same guys, [which] is not something you'd expect from the local view.”

Matthew Jackson, an economist from Stanford University in Calif. who studies social and economic networks, said that Glattfelder and Battiston's approach could be used to answer more pointed questions about corporate control and how companies interact.

"It's clear, looking at financial contagion and recent crises, that understanding interrelations between companies and holdings is very important in the future,” he said. "Certainly people have some understanding of how large some of these financial institutions in the world are, there's some feeling of how intertwined they are, but there's a big difference between having an impression and actually having ... more explicit numbers to put behind it"...

The results will be published in an upcoming issue of the journal Physical Review E.

The physicists name names. As Inside Science notes:

Based on their analysis, Glattfelder and Battiston identified the ten investment entities who are “big fish” in the most countries. The biggest fish was the Capital Group Companies, with major stakes in 36 of the 48 countries studied.

While it is true that the paper in the Physical Review E has not yet been published, I have found a draft version of their article from February which shows that the top 10 list of most powerful financial institutions (from most to least powerful) is as follows:

1. The Capital Group of Companies

2. Fidelity Management & Research

3. Barclays PLC

4. Franklin Resources

5. AXA

6. JP Morgan Chase

7. Dimensional Fund Advisors

8. Merrill Lynch

9. Wellington Management Company

10. UBS

Other tidbits:

  • Non-American players Deutsche Bank, Brandes Investment Partners, Societe Generale, Credit Suisse, Schroders PLC and Allianz are also in the top 21 positions.
  • The government of Singapore is number 25.
  • The world's largest banking group - HSBC Holdings PLC - only chimes in at number 26.

 

The data analyzed in the study is from 2007, and the playing field may have changed substantially since then.

Further analysis using this new methodology may yield important information.For example, given the massive government intervention in the markets, it is important to ask who controls stock now

 

 

Now you tell me; if this isn't the ultimate proof who, how and when has the power, the resources and the capital to swing the markets in their own favor trough cooperation with other parties in this purely conspiratorial cartel of financial institutions then i really don't know what is and what further proof do the regulatory agencies demand. If this does not [and it didn't] in breaking ALL those players into smaller players with smaller market shares and ban on further consolidation via mergers and acquisitions [thats what happened with Deutsche Bank after WWII when it was broken into 3 smaller pieces but within 30 years via mergers and acquisitions it once again became Deutsche Bank we all know and hate today] like it was done to Standard Oil and AT&T. If for nothing else than for purely idealistic purposes the end of this monopoly/cartel on financial services would serve us tremendously if with nothing else than with the feeling of satisfaction and short-term inner peace. I have no illusion that this will actually happen since not only is the USA an oligarchy dressed in the cloth of free democracy but the world as a whole is increasingly becoming more and more oligarchical trough shear force and influence of covert reasons which lay beneath Americas foreign policy and structuralization of international financial domain. Add to that the paradigm of globalization and PC bullshit about equality of everyone and everything and the lack of self-control in the Individual itself you start to recognize that for those of us, who are putting a large amount of their time and energy in actually thinking about this day in day out from a sound and educated position, this world is faster and faster becoming the epitome of Hell itself.

Rainman's picture

Outfuckingstanding rant, CB !!

merehuman's picture

prison planet of infinite illusion

hayleecomet's picture

Well this pretty much sums it all up for me.  As each day passes it becomes clearer that the only route to survival is through individual self preservation.  Everyone I know thinks I'm a wacko because I'm preparing for the worst case scenario.

Thanks for this link, CB.

 

Thurifer's picture

Its like an old priest told me "Son, always remember what the Good Book says: we're going to f*ck things up so bad it will take God Himself to come down and straighten it out. "

Temporalist's picture

In my opinion a Yurt is better choice.  They are more durable, can be elevated, have windows, and will hold up through bitter winters and feet of snow.

tip e. canoe's picture

warping minds with schizophrenic confusion

Tethys's picture

Almost seems like a reflection of nature's law of evolution and survival of the fittest.  As the remaining entities become larger and fewer, the battles become more epic.  The recent crisis was just the latest round in which weaker, less connected banks such as Lehman, Bear Stearns, Wachovia, etc. were defeated and devoured by their competitors.  And weaker companies such as GM were assimilated into the government.  

Makes one wonder if the final battle will be between bloated govt. and borg-like GS - who now collaborate to eliminate competition, but will eventually have to face off. Or if the two are just different faces of the same multi-headed hydra, now finalizing its consumption of the remnants on a global scale.

As the old Kenyan proverb goes, when elephants fight, it is the grass that suffers.

 

Shameful's picture

Well if there is an ultimate showdown of ultimate destiny then it would be GS with it's tag team partner the Treasury vs JPM and it's tag partner the Federal Reserve.  In this throw down I got to go with JPM and the Fed.  Hard to bet against the Fed.

Granted they would be fighting over a husk of a USA and maybe world at that point, desperate to suck the last bit of juice out of the last producer.

Though I happen to think it's all same team.  They might bicker over who gets the finest choice of taxpayer meat but any real fight will happen far after a full meltdown/breakdown so it's totally academic at this point

dnarby's picture

You give them too much credit.

The central banks had a sweet deal going.  With the help of goverments, they could have remained a huge tick in the neck of the global economy, sucking, and sucking, and sucking the lifeblood of the host...  As long as the commercial and investment banks had stayed content to suck along with them.

But the commercial and investment banks got way too greedy, and bit the host in too many places, subsequently resulting in hemorrhaging all over and threatening the life of the host, which will be forced to ingest a purgative.  This purgative, while causing temporary discomfort, will eliminate the parasites for generations.

These guys are greedy AND stupid.

Thus the shock of Greenspan when he realized that financial institutions failed to act in their own best interest.  He couldn't believe these guys were stupid enough to fark up a BJ.

cougar_w's picture

Xactly. The key here was Greenspan; I think he was actually shocked and dismayed. He really thought the "smartest guys in the room" had any smarts.

I have heard said elsewhere that the "captains of finance" are infants. Meaning indulgent, selfish, bored and in serious need of adult supervision. The evidence to support this observation is all around you.

If anything, it makes me more worried. I would like to think someone out there knows what the hell is happening.

Actually I doubt seriously that anyone out there has the first clue to what is happening.

All they can do is break you. Kiss your ass good-bye.

Ripped Chunk's picture

Many thanks Cheeky.

Needs to be said.

 

velobabe's picture

which started with merchant bankers in Northern Italy

cheeky your going to love this story.

i was engaged to george giannini.

only grandson of A.P. Giannini, founder,  Bank of America, Bank of Italy.

Amadeo Pietro Giannini.

what a loser, made me produce my baptism papers.

thought he had money but he really wanted mine.

lost dynasty. the mafia is still in charge plus the 5 burroughs are still in charge. from main to wall.

sexually he was a broke dick, just saying.

 

merehuman's picture

Velobabe, thats a good funny. Much thanks! LOL

Cheeky Bastard's picture

Yeah Italians are known to be overzealous when it comes to denomination and access to money. Also, some part of Italy resemble medieval Albania with all the customs they have and shit. If you wanna re-live the Middle Ages just go into Neapolitan suburbs. Its like Gaul in mid 5th century. Also i think the insanity might be gene-encoded and does not diminish as the centuries go by.

velobabe's picture

you turn me on†

did you hear a thing i said?

it's a dagger lennon.

i am so stoned.

i just don't know sorry

Cheeky Bastard's picture

you crazy bitch

 

i like you

velobabe's picture

fuck you every one of you

fuck you

just fuck you

sexually cheeky

Cheeky Bastard's picture

cocaine is one helluva drug eh

try mescaline with whiskey and chlorophyll next time

 

velobabe's picture

NO cheeky, i don't do drugs

it just comes naturally.

Hillbillyfreak's picture

So, what are you thinking.... Lakers or Cleveland?

Rainman's picture

The Fed drinks a river of MBS poison and continues to live. The absence of that pesky mark to market confusion sure has its rewards.

But sooner or later King Kash Flow will catch up to Ben too. Even the printer has limitations.

john_connor's picture

I think I have said this before, but the Fed is in the process of killing itself.  When the Fed becomes a net drain on Treasury (aside from the gangster interest we pay them just to issue cash), then politicians will panic.  It will be either 1) shut down the Fed or 2) get voted out of office.  And yes, it will probably be too late.  Just in time for the Boomers to retire and need their Social Security and Medicare checks in masse.

Cognitive Dissonance's picture

From the IRA article itself.

"But for us, the bottom line is that hedge funds often times are merely extensions of the dealers with which they interact. It is often difficult if not impossible to tell where the dealer's interests end and those of the hedge fund begin, especially when the dealer and the fund seem to be working in concert to create securities that are being sold to third parties."

Sounds like a crime family to me, with branches and spin offs and carve outs to "expand" their influence.

Ripped Chunk's picture

Hedge funds unregulated, that is where the criminal element will focus influence.

anonnn's picture

When confronting apparent conflicting, crazy or "stupid" data, one can posit how such data could actually align, quite sensibly, to those involved in creating the schemes.

The RichAndPowerful do share at least one certain intention. Namely, each is driven to maintain his kingly status by unending butressing and defense.

They worry, fear  and obsess over stability of their status and priviliges.

They are already rich, by definition, so do not seek more money beyond its utility for defense of their status.

There are other game-plans that may account for the data. E.g. Sacrificing the world's Reserve Currency to undermine opposition forms of government to create a more controllable tyranny, like OneWorldGov. [Standard Oil was known to sell gasoline at a loss to drive competitors out of business, then adjust prices accordingly.]

Note this is not necessarily true for the RichOrPowerful, such as Bill Gates or your Chief of Police.

 

anonnn's picture

The above does not ignore a Black Swan.

Re SEC v GS: One agency's Public Relations stunt might be the tiny breech for legal-eagles   to cheaply slip through expensive walls of obfuscation.

Such could very well birth a Black Swan.

RockyRacoon's picture

A crime family, eh?  Well, cougar_w says:

I have heard said elsewhere that the "captains of finance" are infants.

Does that make them the "Bambino Family"?

Gordon_Gekko's picture

The point here is that mark-to-market accounting is an iron law. You cannot escape the losses just because you do not report them. 

It might be a problem for you and me, or even large companies, but I doubt an entity with the power to create money out of thin air using ledger entries AND engage in all sorts of fake "accounting" gives a shit about mark-to-market. The ONE and ONLY limitation on the Federal Reserve is the willingness of the populace at large to accept the bits of paper emanated by it as "money". The same goes for the TBTF banks ala JPMorgan - who are basically mini-Feds by themselves, what with practically ZERO reserve requirements and fake "accounting".

If the FRB loses $200 billion on mark to market, there will be $200 billion LESS that they remit to the Treasury Department every year.

"Lost" $200B? No problemo! Here comes a friendly "hedge fund"/"foreign entity"/"household" (cough, cough....Fed...cough). Need $200B? Here's $300B. Have fun! Just another ledger entry in the hidden books - just another day in the Fed-land.

Do you see what a TOTAL JOKE our "monetary system" is?

IBelieveInMagic's picture

The joke is really on foreign partners who continue to deliver real goods and services for bits of digits and paper that the Fed and US banks put out. The dollars do not represent any real production/assets that foreigners can claim in the future. The USG pays endless entitlements and concentrates in building it's defence while the sucker foreign suppliers deliver goods and services. This is a great arrangement for us!!!

Gordon_Gekko's picture

I hope you're enjoying the 20%+ unemployment rate, unaffordable "health care", underwater real-estate and stock market "investments" and cost of living that NEVER goes down. Indeed, things are fucking GREAT in the United States!

Oh, and what was that again? "Concentrate on defense"...right...you mean somebody actually needs to defend this? 

 

Yeah, we MUST "concentrate on defense" while 20% of the population is unemployed and/or homeless living in tent cities.

IBelieveInMagic's picture

Now imagine how things are in the rest of the world!

We have been consuming way beyond our needs/means and we have come to assume that is the normal. We have behaved like a bunch of greedy kids in front of a basket of chips just grabbing and stuffing ourselves before others get any.

All this ill gotten consumption has been enabled only with a strong army and a reserve currency. Say thanks for it!

Shameful's picture

Good point GG.  What people fail to realize is that the productive capacity is gone.  Sure they may be getting worthless pieces of paper but ultimately they will still have real things, and the ability to make real things.  All we will be left with is a bunch of broken toys, a shattered currency, an empty husk of an economy, and a reputation as the worlds villain.

No one can tell me how the jobs will come back. The legal and regulatory structure will keep them away if nothing else.  And look around you.  Would you rather hire a kid educated in our school system or roll the dice in another country, where even if the worker doesn't work out you have lower costs and legal/regulatory liability.

tip e. canoe's picture

psssst, shameful, the jobs aren't coming back...pass it on.

Shameful's picture

Well as long as we have the dollar we don't need jobs.  We just ship paper and and get assets in..and that will work until it doesn't and then the "fun" begins.  Will be a swell place when all the imports turn off...I'm sure that the American people will greet such changes with poise and decorum and our government will act responsibly.

/sarcasm

IBelieveInMagic's picture

The fix is easy -- abandon the reserve currency status. We can then join the rest of the world in the real world.

I want to see which politician would support that move?

chindit13's picture

For Sale:  Fixer-upper in the middle of America's Cultural Heartland, this modified two story walk-up has a light and airy feel about it.  The possibilities are endless.  Lots of extras come with this property;  too many to mention!  Post modern landscape design, while not everyone's cup of tea, blends seamlessly with the natural environment.  Truly this property represents the new American Dream.  Attractive financing terms to fit your no income budget.  Call 1-800-H-WANGER!  This home will not last!  Hurry before it's gone forever!  Be part of America's housing recovery!

Hulk's picture

You forgot the price Chindit13.Its a million three! 

merehuman's picture

And its surrounded on all sides by mile long foreclosures, empty houses all.