met on November 3, the same day at the Fed’s QE announcement. I’m not
sure who the “presenting member” is who made the following comments.
They are all fat cat bankers and big hedge fund types. Here’s the list:
I thought the minutes of the meeting had some interesting thoughts on
the Fed’s move. The most significant observation is that QE just
shortens the average life of the public debt:
The
member noted that from an economic perspective, the Fed's purchase of
longer-dated coupons via increasing reserves was economically equivalent to Treasury reducing longer-dated coupons and issuing more bills.
Okay, let’s put this issue to bed. Whatever benefits (if any) QE may
bring us could have been accomplished without the Fed. Treasury could
have just changed the mix of its debt issuance and substantially
eliminated sales of 10+ year coupons for a year or so. Changing the mix
would have had the impact of starving the long end of supply and
therefore have kept long-term rates low. The problem:
The Fed and the Treasury are independent institutions, with two different mandates that might sometimes appear to be in conflict.
Yeah, Fed and Treasury are different. But this is a case where we need
to elevate the debate to a level above both of those organizations. This
is not going to end up being bad for the Fed or bad for Treasury.
It is going to end badly for the country as a whole and for all its
citizens. So there is no conflict between Treasury and the Fed. The
conflict is with the Fed and the people.
I was struck by this comment:
Members noted that the Fed was essentially a "large investor" in Treasuries.
The Fed is an investor? That’s a funny use of the word. The Fed
electronically creates money and then uses it to buy bonds. But this is
equivalent to buying something with 100% leverage. When you buy
something with 100% debt you don’t really own it and you are not an
investor. You are just a short-term player. The conclusion:
The Fed's behavior was probably transitory.
I doubt there is anything “transitory” about the Fed’s move. What they
are doing will end up being a permanent increase in their holdings.
There will be nothing transitory about it. But the advisory committee
sees it different and thinks they should not alter their debt issuance
as a result of Fed POMO:
Treasury should not modify its regular and predictable issuance paradigm to accommodate a single large investor.
A “Big Investor” sounds like a good thing. But really it is a
pain in the ass. The big players have a seat at the table and often
dictate policy. Ask Carl Icahn. Or better yet, ask the Chinese. They
were big investors in Agency Bonds. So big, they forced Treasury to
functionally guaranty $6T of paper. The Fed being a big investor is a
significant disadvantage to the country as a whole. That will especially
be true when the bonds come due and they have their hands out and
saying “Sorry Charlie, no roll over”. Don’t expect the Fed
to be benevolent when inflation comes roaring back. When the Fed is
forced to tighten, it is Treasury (AKA the taxpayer) who will pay the
biggest price.
The
presenting member thought that over the medium term (one to two years),
QE2 would force Treasury yields lower and would likely lead the curve to
flatten in the five- to ten-year sector. Meanwhile, the risk
premium in 30-year bonds would likely increase given concerns about
inflation and the value of the U.S. dollar.
The risk premium on the 30-year has been widening ever since QE was
announced. As the program unfolds there will be more weakness. The
30-year is, and will be, the ultimate measure of the success of QE, not
the S&P. I think it is headed into the crapper.
The presenter further noted that rate volatility will decline as market rates approach zero, with realized volatility in the long-end remaining higher as uncertainty and re-inflation fears increase.
Traders only trade things that are volatile. If they don’t move you
can’t make money. So future market angst will be taken out on the
long-bond. A consequence of QE is going to be some wild price action in
the long end. Good for traders, bad for confidence. Speaking of
confidence how about this warning of things to come.
The member noted that there was the potential for an extreme market reaction associated with the Fed's exit from potential purchases.
Extreme market reaction? It will be a blowout that will take 30% off the
equity indexes in a short period of time. Rates will back-up so quick
the economy will tank. It’s likely that when this happens we will suck
down a good portion of the rest of the world too. The foreign CB’s
already hate QE-2. Wait till Bernanke tries to reverse direction. There
will be a hell of a howl.
It’s a interesting news,i like it.Additionally,wellcome to my website prettyboots.org ,here are so many UGGS On Sale such as:UGG Elsey wedge|UGG Elsey wedge black|UGG Elsey wedge chestnut|UGG Elsey wedge espresso|UGG Langley|UGG Langley black|UGG Langley chestnut|UGG Lo Pro Button|UGG Lo Pro Button black|UGG Lo Pro Button blue|UGG Lo Pro Button cream|UGG Mayfaire|UGG Mayfaire black|UGG Mayfaire chestnut|UGG Mayfaire chocolate|UGG Mayfaire sand|UGG Mayfaire red|UGG Nightfall|UGG Nightfall black|UGG Nightfall chestnut|UGG Nightfall chocolate|UGG Nightfall sand|UGG Sundance II|UGG Sundance II black|UGG Sundance II chestnut|UGG Sundance II chocolate|UGG Sundance II sand|UGG Ultimate Bind|UGG Ultimate Bind black|UGG Ultimate Bind chestnut|UGG Ultimate Bind chocolate|UGG Ultimate Bind sand|UGG Ultra Short|UGG Ultra Short chocolate|UGG Ultra Short sand|UGG Ultra Short black|UGG Ultra Tall|UGG Ultra Tall chestnut|UGG Ultra Tall sand|UGG Ultra Tall balck|UGG Ultra Tall chocolate|UGG Suede|UGG Suede black|UGG Suede chestnut|UGG Suede sand|UGG upside|UGG upside black|UGG upside chestnut|UGG upside mocha|UGG Roxy Tall|UGG Roxy Tall black|UGG Roxy Tall chestnut|UGG Roxy Tall chocolate|UGG Roxy Tall sand|UGG seline|UGG seline black|UGG seline chestnut|UGG Corinth Boots|UGG Liberty|UGG Liberty black|UGG Liberty cigar|UGG Highkoo|UGG Highkoo amber brown|UGG Highkoo espresso|UGG Highkoo grey|UGG Highkoo black|UGG Knightsbridge|UGG Knightsbridge black|UGG Knightsbridge chestnut|UGG Knightsbridge grey|UGG Knightsbridge sand|UGG Knightsbridge chocolate|UGG Adirondack|UGG Adirondack brown|UGG Adirondack chocolate|UGG Suburb Crochet|UGG Suburb Crochet black|UGG Suburb Crochet chestnut|UGG Suburb Crochet chocolate|UGG Suburb Crochet grey|UGG Suburb Crochet white|UGG Kensington|UGG Kensington black|UGG Kensington chestnut|UGG Roseberry|UGG Roseberry black|UGG Roseberry sand|UGG Gaviota|UGG Gaviota black|UGG Gaviota chestnut|UGG Gaviota chocolate|UGG Desoto|UGG Desoto black|UGG Desoto chestnut|UGG Desoto chocolate|UGG Brookfield Tall|UGG Brookfield Tall black|UGG Brookfield Tall chocolate|UGG Gissella|UGG Gissella black|UGG Gissella chestnut|UGG Gissella espresso|UGG Payton|UGG Payton black|UGG Payton chestnut|UGG Payton red|UGG Bailey Button Triplet|UGG Bailey Button Triplet black|UGG Bailey Button Triplet chestnut|UGG Bailey Button Triplet chocolate|UGG Bailey Button Triplet grey|UGG Bailey Button Triplet sand|There are so much style of cheap uggs for sale ,so once you go to my website you will be very surprise.
Let's cut to the chase. There is no divide between the Fed and Treasury. It's hand and glove, I call it the Fedury.
As I see it, the truly open US bond auction died of unnatural causes many years ago. What remains is just a parody designed to fool as many suckers to participate as possible.
The Fed is the only buyer that matters now, and it will remain the only buyer that matters for the foreseeable future. Eventually the entire world will lose faith and no longer participate. Any indirect action will just be central bank back-scratching (I'll buy yours if you buy mine). Maybe yields will go to the moon, maybe they won't (I'm betting on the latter), the point is, it won't fucking matter because the Fed will be there to buy 100%.
Will it be inflationary like everyone fears? Not necessarily. Everything will be floated and snapped up by the Fedury on the short end meaning any inflationary effect can be rapidly sterilized by reducing the roll and pulling money back in through taxation.
Welcome to the future. A treasury that floats as much paper as it wants, guaranteed to be bought 100% by the Fed no matter what. Hell, it wouldn't surprise me at all if they cut the primary dealers out of the loop or just got rid of open auctions altogether.
If the Fed is the buyer then the govt doesn't give a shit about yields because, by law, the Treasury is not obligated to service them. (The Fed pays the Treasury all money it makes on bonds minus some small amount for operational expenses). Fedury = interest free borrowing.
The only risk comes from *current* foreign bond holders deciding to dump in serious volume but I'll bet the Fedury has some dirty tricks to deal with the resulting dollar death, for example, letting a couple of foreign shadow banks go down the crapper.
p.s. Welcome to the fucking USSA
Sincerely,
Comrade Ben
When you have them by the balls, their hearts and minds will follow - Charles Colson
Otherwise known as a dollar trap where pretense continues to be stripped away.
I want to also add that I don't believe that the goosed stock market is mostly caused by the primary dealers. Seriously, how could it be?
My theory here is that the major cause is the government itself.
1. Treasury floats paper
2. Fed buys via primary dealers
3. Primary dealers take commission and do whatever the fuck they want with it (which might include *some* equity purchasing.
4. Treasury gets the cash which takes time to divvy up and pass around between departments.
5. It takes time for departments to dream up ways to spend the cash, meanwhile the cash has to be parked,
6. Treasury sec's at all levels of government aren't particularly imaginative and invest in equities or push the cash out with commission to agents who also aren't particularly imaginative and invest in equities.
7. Tradebots go wild front-running the government backed dinosaur perma-bid.
8. Stock market rises.
The only way to confirm or deny this would be to keep track of institutional ownership of stocks over time and backtrace, or to watch departmental CAFR's over time. But this is what I think is actually going on. It's the least conspiratorial answer, it's logical and it fits perfectly with the general level of incompetence we see all around us.
If I'm right then it means that the goosing of markets should decline as govt departments at all levels slowly figure out how to spend all the cash that's being pushed towards them at record rates by the Fedury.
It also means that if the govt announces massive spend programs (that can be rolled out quickly, such as consumer credits), and this is not immediately supported by an equal or larger bond float, then we can expect to see the S&P take a swan dive, exacerbated by tradebots front-running the dinosaur govt perma-ask. That could get real nasty, real fast.
The only way to confirm or deny this would be to keep track of institutional ownership of stocks over time and backtrace, or to watch departmental CAFR's over time.
Come on, the DTCC not provide necessary assistance to the government & federal reserve to support national security imperatives...? Doesn't the fed have a direct interest in the DTCC?
1st question: I don't see how national security comes into this, can you elaborate? 2nd question: I see it more like the DTCC having a direct interest in the Fed rather than the other way around. Semantics; they sleep together.
It looks like we can watch a live webcast of these Fed jokers in just a few short hours. Should be depressing.
http://www.frbatlanta.org/news/conferences/10jekyll_webcast.cfm
Hollywood manipulates bits to entertain people. The Fed manipulates bits to try to get people to be productive , honest citizens.
I think the Fed's success should be measured in this way. Analyzing the Fed like an accountant is .. kinda like measuring the success of a movie in terms of how many gigabytes it occupies and other such sober, quatitative metrics. Its silly.
Which is why the ECB and the hard - money types are all wet. They want to impose harships on their people so the chief's Yap stone is accurately measured and not increased to unsustainable "moon" like proportions.
But the ECB has no money either. They are also in the business of manipulating bits to effect social change.
Worrying about the Fed's balance sheet is kinda silly methinks. Its like Yap stones - the chieftain has the biggest yap stone - its as big as the moon but no one can see it - he stores it at the bottom of the ocean. So if the population is upset, depressed etc the chief can say his Yap stone is actually even bigger than the moon. If it makes people feel beter, less depressed, willing to take business risks etc - you might say it was a successful strategy.
The Fed has no money , it has computer entries that it manipulates to get society moving in one direction or another - its pure show-biz.
It's borrowing short and lending long (OK, it's actually reducing your long borrowing, but that has the same effect as lending or putting money into the system, right?). Borrowing short and lending long always ends badly, and the taxpayers will be on the hook.
That last picture of Ben Baranke,... isn't that a Nazi salute he's giving in that pic? Hmmmm,... I thought so....
I may be mistaken but I think there is a precedent for the author's scenario (spike in long rates) in the Depression. A number of weeks ago I became concerned about the technicals of the 30 year and because I was also growing downright disgusted with the pseudo inflation through the miracle of Federal Reserve promotion of equities and commodities theme I sold my position out. I still don't believe this is real inflation without an increase in jobs and wages and would be a buyer again in the event of a significant price decline. I'm watching the action in TBT which seems very constructive. I think a strengthening Dollar in the near term could also slam the 30 pretty hard. Could be a nice game of chicken developing between the Fed and the bond market.
How does a strengthening dollar weaken the 30? Not getting on you--just want to understand
Thanks for your inquiry. I am not an expert on this so I will defer explanation (somewhat dated but, I think, still relevant) to one who is more eminently qualified:
http://www.gold-eagle.com/editorials_03/milhouse072503.html
Folks:
I think I finally got it!
The Fed buys $600billion of Treasuries.
Our deficit this year is expected to be $1.4 trillion.
So, there is $600 billion less for the public to finance.
If correct, does our total debt rise by $1.4 trillion?
If so, how does the $600 billion get factored in, as Debt held by the public or intragovernmental holdings?
Don Levit
Just like the 800 billion Hank gave to his buddies. It's a percentage of how much less your dollar is not worth.
dollar makes a very good point - the unspoken point of QE2 may be to attempt to crowd China out of the Treasuries market, and thus pressure China to stop accumulating dollar assets. With net issuance around $120b a month, and the Fed already buying around $25b a month to replace maturing agencies, this $75b a month of QE2 leaves only about $20b a month of Treasuries net issuance to the market. China's average monthly purchases are more than that.
Plus many other central banks will be eager to buy dollar assets to contain appreciation of their currencies driven by the influx of QE2 dollars. Despite Treasury's massive borrowing, there won't be enough new Treasuries issued to the market to satisfy foreign central bank demand. They will have to pay higher premiums to buy private holders of Treasuries out of their positions, or buy some other dollar assets, or give up buying dollar assets. There aren't really any other dollar assets that most foreign central banks feel comfortable holding (remember that agencies are only federally guaranteed through 2012).
Don't forget there is an alternative way to fight QE2-driven appreciation: more capital controls. I'm sure we'll be seeing a lot more of those across EMs. It could become very dangerous not to have them.
"thus pressure China to stop accumulating dollar assets..."
Have them spend it all on gold and copper, etc., then crash commodities with sudden dollar strength. Oops. Broken China.
You know the rest of the story...
they are patient, the chinese.
the only thing we can do to keep them from buying our "real-stuff", is to keep the "real-stuff" prices high, right?
and while we prop it all up, we actively reduce the effective value of the cash they have to spend (via QE1/QE2)...
i'd hate to be in their shoes watching this unfold. but from this perspective unca Ben's actions make some sense on this one.
the russian roulette game is whether or not they'll hold out 'till the market crashes before they use what's left of their USD's to buy P&G, Dupont, CAT, etc.
the moral problem is that we bought real TVs under one agreement, and are paying them back under another. same with buying oil from the ME... same with the folks who put dollars with value in their SS accounts.
a few someones are gonna be pissed when they actually understand what's happening - and can actually act upon that anger (via forex, etc.)
they are patient, the chinese.
on a completely unrelated note, gold pushing $1397.0000.......
+1
From "hopium" to the real deal. Glad to see you all are "seeing the light." Again, "it will blind you once it hits you." I think a serious discussion on the psychology of the "rogue trader" is in order. The fact that it's "legal" (and I think that can be debated, actually--since Ben Bernanke did lie before Congress) doesn't make it right. Sure "BB can make hundreds of billions" for the Treasury. Clearly these profits are being transferred directly to the banks. These insitutions are hoarding this money, aren't they? That strikes me as very ominious indeed. But before we can do anything we need Bernanke to admit "he has a problem." If that doesn't happen...well, V is for Vendetta indeed.
Duude:
Are you saying that the Fed is merely a debtor?
It has liabilities with no corresponding assets?
And, that its effect on the federal government's current budget, as well as its balance sheet is only indirect, in that hyperinflation may be the result?
Don Levit
Bruce,
Good stuff as always. I simply cannot shake the thought that QE2 has more to do with disrupting the status quo of current account surplus countries vis a vis the biggest debtor and hence reserve currency, the US.
If you invoked Tariffs, those tariffs would be challenged in the WTO and would go against years of official rhetoric on free markets. The FED however w/ its dual mandate of employment and price stability can
1) Buy out the Chinese majority of holdings thereby lessening threat of a firesale
2) Lower the USD and export inflation to EMs, thereby disrupting the surplus / recycling model.
The Malaysians have allowed the Ringitt to rise while China has not. It is not only fear of South China Sea claims which is driving the resurgence of the Asian periphery seeking more US involvement. The Chinese are not playing "fair". Unfortunately for the Chinese, they have accomodated western industry while developing larger and larger internal imbalances and are locked into full employment versus the fear of pitchforks and angry peasants. The FED is following a path of breaking the model which no longer works, whereby the US is the Consumer of First and Last Resort. The Chinese are in a corner. The Germans think they may be next. Witness the headlines today.
Unless you break mercantilist behaviour driven to the point of extremes where it is today, you will never see jobs come back to the US. Tariffs still remain taboo since the whole goal of opening up China was to tap cheap labor but also create an export market (Ah yes, but there's the rub. Where are Japan's imports?)
I'm not condoning the Deer Hunteresque logic behind this and I would not even say this amounts to defined policy, but it becomes clearer as we go along that this is de facto the case. Since the transmission mechanism is and has always been housing, the FED can stomp on the peddle until the myriad problems in banks / housing are overcome. And rather than rewriting global policy, individual countries will simply be forced away from an overdependance on the USD in any manner they choose to adopt because if they do not, they will be annihilated by inflation.
Spin the revolver. They're not real bullets, right?
DBH, that is a great post. Can you recommend some links that examine these issues in greater detail?
Gordon,
I think by far the most interesting on global trade imbalances and China is by Michael Pettis. Spend a couple of hours backtracking through his posts at :
www.mpettis.com
Macro Econ and global imbalances in general, search Martin Wolf at the Financial Times.
More on China, Google : Andy Xie. Also, the Dragonomics columns in the FT.
That should work for starters.
It seems to me the Fed has 2 major policy objectives with QEII.
The first as you state is to confront the mercantilist Chinese etc and "re-balance" the world economy. The fact is that the world cannot withstand the trade imbalances that exist today, we cannot send billions to China when our U6 is at 17%. The politicians know this and sent Bennie to fix it.
The second policy objective is to keep interest rates low given that the Federal government cannot control spending and borrowing. So the Fed becomes the lender of last resort.
Not sure why they didn't seem to think that commodities would react unforvarably to their efforts, hence we are looking at $100 oil. I also do not think that the Brazilians, Europeans and Chinese will not try and react in some way, they certainly do not intend to watch the US inflate their economies for them.
Ending the mercantilist hold on the job markets will prove to be very painful for all. Let's hope it does not end up in a war....
sschu
If you look at heating oil along w/ the price of oil, the FED's policies are going to be distinctly unpopular this winter, especially when Ron Paul begins his own media campaign as Chair of the Monetary Policy sub committee and broadcasts the Ron and Ben show on a regular basis.
However, don't rising oil prices induce more energy conservation and lend a hand to development of alternative energies? The Eurodollar market and current account deficits were grown hand in hand w/ the importation of ME oil. Higher oil prices push consumers to choose the Ford Eco Boost engine over older technologies. Personally, I think this would be a good thing. Higher import prices also would serve as a possible catalyst to onshore more production. I believe that the US really CAN still make furniture, underwear and shovels etc.
I'm not sure how this plays out with Republicans because if the past is any guide, they should be holding out a warm welcome to Big Oil and free trade remains a multinational's best friend. I hope that they can look forward rather than only looking back. Maybe local anger manifested by the Tea Party will give them a little push.
You're already seeing the backlash. China says that the spillover effects of QE2 are bad. Germany says the same. Their position basically says that the US should increase fiscal spending and therefore take on even more imports, accept more global overcapacity and run a higher deficit again. What else are surplus countries going to say? I'm afraid that Brazil is one of those places that will be seen as collateral damage, since they are running a small deficit and do not have the same kind of juice to play with forex. Caught in the middle.
As the stakes run higher, it may be possible that something is worked out in Seoul. Proabably not, but maybe ...
This may be the reason why Bennie implemented QE 2.0 at this point in time. Instead of getting together at the G20 meeting and being huggy huggy, the first shot was fired. We mean business if we do not get certain concessions.
Is it a game of chess, fencing, or Russian roulette ?
The opening move is brushed aside?
From the FT :
Cui Tiankai, a deputy foreign minister and one of China’s lead negotiators at the G20, said on Friday that the US plan for limiting current account surpluses and deficits to 4 per cent of gross domestic product harked back “to the days of planned economies”.
“We believe a discussion about a current account target misses the whole point,” he added, in the first official comment by a senior Chinese official on the subject. “If you look at the global economy, there are many issues that merit more attention – for example, the question of quantitative easing.”
Whatever game it is, it is most certainly on.
Rates will back-up so quick the economy will tank.
Which is why the Fed will be forced to, at minimum, roll over its UST holdings ad infinitum.
Bruce:
The Fed and the Treasury are 2 distinct entities.
But, they are both subsets of the bigger set, the Federal Government, right?
So, when the Fed buys Treasuries, I assume the Treasury creates an asset, and the Fed creates a liability, netting out to a wash, neither an asset nor a liability, right?
Does the Fed pay interest to the Treasury, in the form of cash?
Does this transaction affect intragovernmental holdings debt, which along with debt held by the public, is part of our total debt?
Or, does it merely increase the debt of the Fed, which although part of the Federal government, has no accounting ramifications for the federal government.
Or is the Fed an entity separate from the federal government?
Is the Fed like a separate country, which has no accountability in that its debts are unlimited, and it doesn't have to worry about paying principal or interest?
Don Levit
The Fed is no more a part of government than is Citibank. In fact, Citibank is one of just 5 founding shareholders in the Fed.
This should explain to you, in just a few minutes, how the relationship works: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Txi8sXO16VU
let's see if i understand this, UST issues the paper and the Fed acts as a middleman, holding the paper, without any collateral. In exchange for paying the interest on the note, the charter banks are able to boost their reserves, aka new credit is added to the system. Because the Fed holds Treasury paper, without collateral, the two are synonymous in that respect. Money is created out of thin air, is a misnomer, unless the money is loaned out, the debt isn't really monetized. The Fed chief is appointed by the President, blah blah, serves at his pleasure, blah blah, and answers to the Congress once a year, blah blah.
The Fed is technically a privately owned bank, which in point of fact only offers a banking service to the UST. The relationship is similar to the GSE, which for years, the politicians promised, were not really backed by the US government, which in truth they were backed by taxpayers, and you probably should assume that the Fed would simply transfer its debt off onto Treasury should the need arise. (Unless of course some Tea Party activists block the move)
The Fed has several policy objectives, many of which are self-conflicting. At times the Fed shifts its emphasis around, yesterday Bernanke addressed the employment problem is strictly a fiscal problem, but no matter, he is the all powerful OZ because the President is playing a weak hand. Its like the ships purser is now at the wheel of the Titanic.
UST also exerts it influence through it various regulatory agencies over margin and trading rules at the various exchanges. This is done for political reasons, to keep prices low, you simply rig these markets to a limited degree, but all in legal fashion Who likes a short seller, a speculator? bad people, we need to regulate them, as long as their activity conflicts with our desire to keep prices low. (We routinely cheat the Arabs out of millions of petrodollars through illegal manipulation of the market - but they would do the same to us, and did at one time - but as the public are you mad that you are paying less for gasoline, even if you had to cheat someone?)
the question of ethics always comes back to the citizenry, but let's leave that alone. RIght now we are punished savers, and rewarding borrowers, because there are more borrowers. the Constitution only goes so far. UST/Fed isn't too worried about gold because we have one of the largest reserves. Or pretend to have one of the largest reserves.
The financial crisis occurred because the private sector was monetizing debt faster than the Federal Reserve. The point about the no recovery recovery, is that there is no way they want that to happen again.
+9 The only factor missing from this discussion is the impact of demise of financial regulation and acceptance of widespread fraud in the banking system by the congress. We had the California S&L situation, the LTCM bailout of the Chase and the repeal of Glass - Steagall.
The current FED chairman and Treasury Secretary just responded to and within the situation and system that they were handed.
How many of the loquacious worthies pontificating on this board said or wrote anything to their congressmen (or women) about the demise of Glass-Steagall?
I didn't do anything about Glass-Steagall either. I was totally absorbed in "Find and Fix" failure modes in the big engine company. But since I am in full control of my own time now, my elected representatives have been hearing from me.
So as to be politic, I am trying to frame comments to compliment positive activity and suggest support of "restoriation of ethics" in administrative activity .
For now, the Congress we have is the only one we have. I intend to be in touch.
And "Thanks again to BK". He is making his share of contribution in helping to "Make" this board.
"(Is) the Fed is like a separate (country) world, which has no accountability in that its debts are unlimited, and it doesn't have to worry about paying principal or interest. (?)"
There, that's better.
Thanks for the post- it's a great analysis.
Extreme market reaction? It will be a blowout that will take 30% off the equity indexes in a short period of time. Rates will back-up so quick the economy will tank.
Would you take a shot at predicting what this period of time might be?
I said the other day that it could be a very interesting "Sell in May". Half way through QE 2 is March 7th.Down hill from ther on.
Of of course I can't really predict these things. I am just looking at the calendar and making a guess.
If we get a CPI print of .5% (6% annualized)in January and the price of gas is $4 and oil is at 110 there is going to be a broad base that rises up against this policy. The new Congress comes in 1/11. Expect the subpoenas and hearing to start by end February.
So End of January to May is my guess for a hiccup.
QE3,4,5,6,7...
QE2 will cause margin contraction, which will lead to more unemployment which will kill the labor market, which will drive labor inflation down, which will give the impetus and rationale for QE3,4,5,6...
A loop driver for sure.
Thanks Bruce I was waiting for your take on this - always find them enlightening. Fiat money is "radioactive" and the half-life of $600 billion is 4 months.
Your scenario sounds very plausible to me. I don't think the Fed ever plans to "exit" - they are forced to let them run off and I believe the driver behind QE2 is to allow the Fed to "earn profits" for nothing to cover up the losses on the rest of their portfolio of garbage (i.e., MBS .....).
Around the same time oil is back at 100-110 a barrel. Spring time...just in time for all those new home buyers...whatever that looks like now a days.
I remember when interest rates were around 18%, it was facinating watching people fall over trying to figure out how to pay off the interest on the home loans. My first business, my loan was around 14% and that was under a youth business vanture project. you bet your ass I paid the loan back in around four months...I didn't eat anything but ramen and pasta, but the debt was paid.
Excellent.... My thoughts exactly, GS said oil would go up. That will surely bust the what's left of the economy.
Oil at 100?; ok by me, I've got some UCO I need to unload.
I remember 18%, too. The late 1970's, Jimmy Carter and his peanut gallery. One and done. Let's do it again in 2012.
Borrowing money and paying it back as soon as you can- what a concept. Good for you.
"Jimmy Carter and his peanut gallery"
Hey don't forget about the Billy Beer!
Who are these fools?
We have names and addresses. Let the harrassment and assault commence!
CHAIRMAN
Matthew E. Zames
Managing Director
JP Morgan Chase
383 Madison Avenue
New York, NY 10179
VICE CHAIRMAN
Ashok Varadhan
Managing Director
Goldman, Sachs & Co.
200 West Street
New York, NY 10282
Keith T. Anderson
Chief Investment Officer
Soros Fund Management, LLC
888 Seventh Avenue
New York, NY 10106
Richard A. Axilrod
Managing Director
Moore Capital Management, Inc.
1251 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10020
Ian G. Banwell
CEO & CIO
Round Table IMC
214 North Tryon Street
Charlotte, NC 28202
Dana Emery
Executive Vice President
Dodge & Cox
555 California Street
San Francisco, CA 94104
Paul Tudor Jones II
Co-Chairman & CIO
Tudor
1275 King Street
Greenwich, CT 06831
Paul McCulley
Managing Director
PIMCO
840 Newport Centre Drive
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Walter J. Muller III
Chief Investment Officer
Bank of America
600 Peachtree Street
Atlanta, GA 30308
Jeffrey S. Phlegar
President
Alliance Bernstein
1345 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10105
Ruth Porat
Executive VP, CFO
Morgan Stanley
1585 Broadway
New York, NY 10036
Richard Tang
Head of Fixed Income Sales, Americas
RBS
600 Washington Boulevard
Stamford, CT 06901
Irene Tse
Managing Director
Duquesne Capital Mgmt.
40 West 57th Street
New York, NY 10019
Fairly eclectic list - what was the filter you used to assemble it as such? Wheres Blackrock?
This is the "Frontrunner Pack Leadership Club" no?
Every privately owned corporation has a duty of loyalty to its shareholders.
QED
"Now stop bothering me!"
-"Helicopter Ben"