Search results

Mate, why you adding and subtracting, when you should be multiplying and dividing? Basically, it's just this: Today, with AUDUSD at 1.06785 and NZDUSD at 0.8205, AUDNZD is at 1.06785 / 0.8205 = 1.301463. Yesterday, with AUDUSD at 1.06785 + 0.0108 = 1.07865 and NZDUSD at 0.8205 + 0.0060 =...

I disagree... Nothing inherently more "unsafe" about CP than other unsecured debt and people who own it on a normal, prudent mark-to-market basis deal with it. For example, the original Canadian ABCP blowup in 2007 was, while messy, dealt with. The problem is the fundamental mismatch between...

I have done some AUDNZD in the past. Made a bit of money being short from 1.37, but covered much too early. According to a small model I run, I don't see anything too exciting about it. It's slightly overvalued, but nothing to write home about. I would stay flat here. As to your question...

Well, from what I can see Reserve Primary had $23bn of assets before Leh. If we assume they only lost $785MM on writing down Leh paper to 0, that's a loss of smth like 3c on the dollar. This is a rough estimate.

http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?threadid=158143

Here's a slightly different, much longer-term chart... You're selling the line again.

Good luck! You're gonna need it, 'cause you'll be going short the line in the attched chart.

It's edge, if you know what you're doing and you don't mark-to-mkt (insurance co's are profitable for a reason). Otherwise, it ain't. I think I have said this a few times before.

These days? Anything's possible, given the fun 'n games in LIBOR/Funds basis.

Mwuahahahaha... You have learned to know the Dark Side of the Force!

You have now officially lost me, amico...

I don't know whatever it is that you think you know. As to me asking permission to comment, I have no idea what you might be referring to. To be brutally honest, I am having some general difficulty folowing your reasoning here.

Really? And you arrived at this incredible epiphany how precisely, pray tell?

That's my point. MMF investors have been led to believe that the $1 NAV floor is some sort of an inviolate rule that has been imposed by Holy Writ. That is entirely the fault of the industry, which has seen its assets swell as a result of promising things they know they realistically may not...

+1 "Steepness" and "inversion" are the relevant terms.

It's somewhat different, but you do have a point. FDIC DIF exists precisely for this reason (to prevent depositor runs). But it's actually not even about that. What matters is the fact that, as a retail bank depositor, you're well aware (or, if not, you should be) that your deposit is...

No, I didn't... You may have edited your post, while I was typing my response. That might be the source of the issue. I was responding to this, which is what you typed originally: If I have caught you mid edit and you didn't mean the above, I apologize.

Huh? Wrong again? There's a difference between not getting your money back (which is what you claimed earlier) and a 1 month lockup. I still think you don't understand. Do you think the money fund you're invested in is actually capable of instant redemptions under all mkt conditions? Do...

Yes, but then you're barking up the wrong tree... The money mkt fund industry is quite concentrated and already presents a massive systemic risk (as evidenced by the events of 2008). So if you want to do something about the dominoes, money funds offer as good a place to start as any.

Here's a couple: http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&postid=3131050&highlight=money+mkt+fund#post3131050 http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&postid=2328002&highlight=money+mkt+fund#post2328002 I am happy to expand if need be. [B] That is NOT what the gov't is...