NoMoreGubmint
@fuse.net | reply to tiger72
Re: Sweet!
Agree. Name me ONE thing the gubmint runs efficiently.
Barry |
|
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. |
|
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. |
|
amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
 ·Cox HSI
 ·magicjack.com
3 edits | 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 |
|
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. |
|
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. |
|
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. |
|
amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
·Cox HSI
·magicjack.com
| 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
| 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. |
|
