Ahrenl
join:2004-10-26
North Andover, MA
 ·Verizon FIOS
| reply to amigo_boy
Re: Sweet!
Discount money is overnight. There's no way to disprove that as it's the state of reality.
Please name an investment bank that still exists. (I should note that Morgan Stanley and Goldman are now chartered banks, if those you were the ones you were thinking of.)
The TAF isn't anonymous to the FED, and the only thing they've been playing loose with is in redefining rules. You can be guaranteed that whatever rules they are setting they are sticking too. But if you want to call "voodoo" then, as always, there's no way to dispute suppositions based on no fact. |
|
amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
 ·Cox HSI
 ·magicjack.com
| reply to Ahrenl
said by Ahrenl  :I'm aware they opened the window to investment banks, just before they all disappeared. None of them were leveraging up at that point. In fact the parts that are left in different forms are all still frantically deleveraging. I think you're overstating things. Not all investment banks have disappeared. And, I'm sure you have no proof that they weren't leveraging. They have been de-leveraging. But, that's a relative term. If they can make some swing trades shorting their own financial sector (using cheap and renewable Fed Discount money) it can actually improve their balance sheet (overall quality of assets), making the process of de-leveraging appear to be further along than it really is.
said by Ahrenl :The TAF requires the counterparty to post collateral for cash, with haircuts based on collateral type. It's more of a repo with the fed. Again, not something you could do any term investing with. We both know the Fed has been playing fast and loose with the rules (and transparency), valuing assets, etc. The Term Auction Facility is anonymous. The whole goal is to get cash into their hands, not just ignoring that they're seriously over-leveraged (with toxic assets) -- but *because* of it.
It's difficult to imagine that the Fed would impose anything more than procedural (and creative) collateral requirements when every action of the Fed has been to get money into the hands of these institutions.
said by Ahrenl :Nowhere in the WSJ article did it state or imply that "banks were borrowing this Discount money and trading things like Credit Default Swaps." I wasn't proving that point. Just disproving your point that Discount money is overnight, and therefore couldn't create a "carry trade" (where the bank invests the money in higher-yielding instruments, and by definition, higher risk, pocketing the difference).
Mark |
|
Ahrenl
join:2004-10-26
North Andover, MA
·Verizon FIOS
| reply to amigo_boy
I'm aware they opened the window to investment banks, just before they all disappeared. None of them were leveraging up at that point. In fact the parts that are left in different forms are all still frantically deleveraging.
The TAF requires the counterparty to post collateral for cash, with haircuts based on collateral type. It's more of a repo with the fed. Again, not something you could do any term investing with.
Nowhere in the WSJ article did it state or imply that "banks were borrowing this Discount money and trading things like Credit Default Swaps." Typically this overnight cash is used to meet regulatory liquidity ratios, or in extreme cases, customer cash demands. The tradingmarkets.com article also does not make your assertion. |
|
jc100
join:2002-04-10
| reply to tiger72
So you like SOME americans live in a populated area served by MANY CHOICES. However, MANY Americans live in Suburbs or outside large cities that have one option or none at all. You don't have to be in the boondocks to still have few options. So while Deregulation gave SOME competition in VERY VERY competitive areas, for the most of the U.S., it HAS lead to higher prices. Where one company has a foothold, which is in MUCH of the U.S., prices go up up and away. |
|
jc100
join:2002-04-10
| reply to lesopp
Actually, the REPUBLICANS controlled the HOUSE and Senate from 1998 onward, until 2006. Congress, my friend, MAKES the laws. Not only that, from 2001 to 2006, Bush had a 100 percent rubber stamp congress with full approval. If they wanted to change anything, they very well could have. Don't feed me B.S. and call it chocolate. |
|
amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
·Cox HSI
·magicjack.com
3 edits | reply to Ahrenl
said by Ahrenl :it's an overnight borrowing available only to highly regulated institutions; most of which have permanent FED offices located within their headquarters. That's normally true. But, the Fed opened up its discount window to investment banks about 9 months ago. It was part of an unprecedented (if I recall correctly) move to treat these lessor-regulated banks as banks that had been under the control of the Fed.
I'm not saying it was a bad idea. Maybe it was the lessor of two evils -- making Discount money available to them, or bail them out when they failed (sooner). But, good intentions are always abused.
Edit: A couple links to stories about what I mentioned above:
»online.wsj.com/article/SB1205711···coverage
»www.tradingmarkets.com/.site/new···1891556/
And, an article about the Term Auction Facility being 28 and 84 days. This is a form of Discount Window cash offered by the Fed after banks were reluctant to use the Discount Window (after rates were slashed to encourage them) because it might signal to shareholders they were in trouble.
»www.federalreserve.gov/newsevent···730a.htm
The auctions were implemented Dec. 21, 2007:
»en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Term_auction_facility
Mark |
|
Ahrenl
join:2004-10-26
North Andover, MA
·Verizon FIOS
| reply to amigo_boy
The Discount rate and the fed funds rate are tied together. They typically cut or raise both together. I'd be interested in these stories; however I still find them dubious as it's an overnight borrowing available only to highly regulated institutions; most of which have permanent FED offices located within their headquarters. BANKS certainly weren't doing this as they'd lose their charter, and the ability to do business. There's a lot of FUD about banks going around now a-days. It was the unregulated mortgage originators, and largely unregulated broker-dealers (no longer in existance) which created the credit issues. |
|
jayjay5
join:2008-06-09
| reply to dnoyeB
You really think the authorities know how to bring broadband to the masses? Do you want your information so easily filtered and controlled by the authorities? Do you want broadband delivered not by market demand but by politicians and the extremely slow and noisy political processes?
This is predictable but very undesirable. The Internet should be free from government control or influence for several very good reasons.
Now companies delivering broadband will firstly look for the government handout as their profit motive and not look so much to what customers are asking.
This is yet more corporatism in our communications industry. We have had enough government backed monopolies and government incentives to screw things up. Now you want more because it sounds so easy to wave magic pixie dust in the form of borrowed dollars that someone else will be forced to pay.
Get ready to regularly kiss the ring of whatever dictator is in office for more broadband and have the FBI monitor your traffic to enforce the DMCA and support RIAA and the like. Oh you think you'll have a free broadband ride, don't you?
Please understand that the government has reasons and a lot of incentive to control your Internet doings. Don't let them! Keep the Internet free. Don't put the fox in control of the hens. Your impatience for broadband can easily be used against you. |
|
NoMoreGubmint
@fuse.net | reply to tiger72
Agree. Name me ONE thing the gubmint runs efficiently.
Barry |
|
Zen6
@rr.com | reply to tiger72
If you voted democrat you are already supporting a waste of tax dollars. Simply look at the rider to the 700bil stimulus. I say we should vote out ALL incumbents. |
|
amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
·Cox HSI
·magicjack.com
| reply to Ahrenl
said by Ahrenl :The way the Fed cutting rates helps banks, is bank liabilities (The prices banks pay to depositors) are fixed to fed funds/treasuries/swaps etc. I'm talking about the Fed. Discount rate, and the Discount money made available at the discount window (and through the relatively unprecedented anonymous auctions after banks were afraid to use the window for fear it would mean something about their condition).
The stories I read a few months ago (from reputable organizations, not kook sites) was that banks were borrowing this Discount money and trading things like Credit Default Swaps.
That's not inconsistent with anything you've said (concerning the Fed. Funds rate. Two different things.).
Mark |
|
Ahrenl
join:2004-10-26
North Andover, MA
·Verizon FIOS
| reply to amigo_boy
quote:
I agree. It's like a year ago when the Fed slashed interest rates as the credit crisis began. It was supposed to cause the banks to free up money for everyone else. Instead, banks created what's called a "carry trade." They borrowed the cheap Fed. Discount money and used it to invest in speculative (risky) investments to make money.
We, as a nation, have an uncanny way of giving money away to help business -- and at the same time claiming there can't be any societal expectation (to regulate how business uses the money) because that would violate "free market" principles. As if giving money to businesses is a "free market."
Mark
Sorry, I usually use qreply, and don't hit the Auto Quote button.
If banks were borrowing Fed Discount Money and investing it in term "risky investments" (which is a big no no) then we wouldn't have a credit crunch as assets (risky investments) would be in high demand.
The problem right now is that even non risky-assets are under stress because there are too many of them. Off balance sheet vehicles and SIV's created too much demand, and as their collateral is siezed it is sold at fire-sale prices by collateral holders who only need cents on the dollar to be whole, which further depresses asset prices. Thus banks are keeping large balances AT THE FED in order to keep large liquidity positions to offset market price marks on assets are that are economically sound.
The way the Fed cutting rates helps banks, is bank liabilities (The prices banks pay to depositors) are fixed to fed funds/treasuries/swaps etc. which they can purchase assets, or make loans at rates that are much higher. The higher that spread, the greater margin is available to create more capital organically. This is because banks can reprice the rates on their deposits more easily than loans/assets can be repriced. |
|
KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
 ·AT&T Yahoo
·AT&T DSL Service
·Cox HSI
| reply to dnoyeB
said by dnoyeB :That is, unless I missed something... Yeah. Like reality.
Sorry to sound so cynical, it's not a criticism of your post, it's just more like a /sigh based on past experience that the chances of this happening actually approach zero.
--
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini
|
|
amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
·Cox HSI
·magicjack.com
| reply to Ahrenl
said by Ahrenl :Do you just make this stuff up in your free time? That's not what happened at all, banks have been shedding risk as fast as they can since August 2007. That's the definition of a credit crunch. I can't tell what you were disputing, except generally from the post you replied to. The definition of a credit crunch is when banks stop lending to each other, and to corporations. There's nothing contradictory about that, and them taking Fed. Discount money (made available even through relatively unprecedented anonymous auctions) to trade in Credit Default Swaps.
Mark |
|
Ahrenl
join:2004-10-26
North Andover, MA | reply to amigo_boy
Do you just make this stuff up in your free time? That's not what happened at all, banks have been shedding risk as fast as they can since August 2007. That's the definition of a credit crunch. |
|
S_engineer
join:2007-05-16
Chicago, IL
·Comcast
| reply to TamaraB
said by TamaraB :You are absolutely correct. We must be a nation of fools to keep accepting this. We are a nation thats being feed propaganda at every angle. Theres major competition for your money, and that competition is polarizing the nation. |
|
TamaraB
Question The Current Paradigm
Premium
join:2000-11-08
Brooklyn NYC | reply to amigo_boy
You are absolutely correct. We must be a nation of fools to keep accepting this. |
|
tiger72
SexaT duorP
Premium
join:2001-03-28
Saint Louis, MO
clubs:
 ·T-Mobile US
·RoadRunner Cable
| reply to yabos
said by yabos :It works fine in other countries like S. Korea where the government owns the infrastructure and leases it to companies to sell services on. In a country that small and that densely populated, that's fine. But with the amount of lobbying and - dare i say - corruption in washington, All I see is the government paying out the ass. Seriously, there's no such thing as fiscal responsibility in Washington, and from a government that doesn't see a problem paying $600 for a toilet seat, do you think they'll make even remotely wise investments in broadband infrastructure? Their definition of "broadband" is 128kbps! Now you can at least switch to competition when you have it. If the government takes over you'll have blazing fast 128kbps for life! No more speed jumps from 3mbps-5mbps-8mbps-15mbps thanks to DSL price-competition. Nope. No competition other than on price. Which means no innovation for better technology.
--
"What makes us omniscient? Have we a record of omniscience? ...If we can't persuade nations with comparable values of the merit of our cause, we'd better reexamine our reasoning."
-United States Secretary of Defense (1961-1968) Robert S. McNamara |
|
tiger72
SexaT duorP
Premium
join:2001-03-28
Saint Louis, MO
clubs:
·T-Mobile US
·RoadRunner Cable
| reply to jc100
said by jc100 :Um... And Deregulation works? Obviously, we need a fine balance between government intervention and private business. We see what Deregulation got us... The worst economy since almost the Great Depression. Nice work there Republicans in both houses for MAKING and APPROVING the bill. Thanks there Clinton for signing their stupid law. Bipartisan stupidity for the win. Huh? I've seen my prices with time-warner in my market stay stable ever since I moved here 6 years ago. My speed has gone from 3mbps/384kbps to 15mbps/1mbps for the same price. Not even an increase due to inflation. Why? Because of competition. I, like 90% of Americans, don't live in Bumville, Nebraska. I, like most Americans who live in cities, have competition. I've got DSL, Wifi, Cable, and Wireless Cell competition. If Cable raises its rate, I'll call em and cancel and switch to DSL. If DSL raises theirs I can get a T-Mobile data card. It ain't great, but it's better than nothing. And I'll take that over what the government always provides: bad service, bad investment, and bad management because the tax payers get to eat up every loss.
--
"What makes us omniscient? Have we a record of omniscience? ...If we can't persuade nations with comparable values of the merit of our cause, we'd better reexamine our reasoning."
-United States Secretary of Defense (1961-1968) Robert S. McNamara |
|
en102
Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA
·RoadRunner Cable
·DSL EXTREME
| reply to dnoyeB
said by dnoyeB :So like "roads and canals", "national parks", and "interstate highways", the American people will own the broadband infrastructure!!! This is going to significantly reduce the cost of broadband by lowering the barrier to market entry, thus allowing for increased competition. That is, unless I missed something... Yeah - you missed something... Government will fund it with debt and by printing money (bad) to kick start the economy (good) for much needed infrastructure improvements that would never come. The 'bad' part will come afterwards, when its 'sold' to private sector to run/manage/purchase it.
In essence.. we will never 'own' it, but pay for it.
--
Canada = Hollywood North |
|
