how-to block ads
|
|
Share Topic
 |
 |
|
|
Ahrenl
join:2004-10-26
North Andover, MA | reply to amigo_boy
Re: Sweet! 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. | |
Reviews:
 ·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 | 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. | |
|
