Search results

I think you may find that this has been much discussed at one point on the T2W thread.

I think you should conduct a Rorschach test right here on this thread. Howard willing, of course.

I am not trying to provoke him... My comment was really not directed at him at all. I am hoping he ignores it. He knows my thoughts on his endeavors already, from T2W.

Doing this to doctors and nurses is just plain stupid and very very bad karma. Next thing you know this 10 quid note is "accidentally" forgotten in one of your bodily cavities during a routine operation/physical.

Why is there "I don't give a sh1t/rat's ass/flying f*ck/insert expletive" choice?

+1

Seems like it was on the back of one big offer into the Fed buyback.

They said they will sell "QE assets"... Why are you interpreting this to mean MBS? Moreover, if they sell 0.01% of their UST portfolio and sit on the rest of their assets to maturity that would technically qualify as "selling of QE assets", wouldn't it?

Yes, of course all the assets are on the Fed balance sheet temporarily, but that's because the portfolio is self-amortizing, especially the MBS portion of it. They're redeeming at par at a rate of smth like $30bn/month (that's last I heard), so why should they be marked-to-mkt at anything else...

I would disagree... I think by the time they start thinking about QE unwind, there won't be much MBS left on their balance sheet.

Fisher is actually a very very good guy. Apart from his using Lindsay Lohan's name in vain, for which he's gonna get sued, I'm sure, he's very credible.

Yeah, but that's 'cause you might not have enough money in case you get a margin call. You're subject to liquidity constraints/cashflow issues and therefore you have to mark-to-mkt. The Fed can't have liquidity issues, by definition. You're most powerful and intelligent, no doubt, but you...

I don't have the honor of knowing your ex-wife, excellent woman that she is, I'm sure. So correct me if I'm wrong, your problem isn't with the Fed marking this crap at par, but with the guarantee itself?

The article is incorrect... Maybe they mean to say the "securities the Fed bought from the mkt which, in turn, bought them from the Treasury" and decided to skip the bit in the middle. The difference is important.

What non-performers? This is agency MBS we're talking about, right? So Fannie, Freddie and a bit of Ginnie... Where do you get the non-performing, credit bit from? Where should the Fed mark the liabilities of the US Treasury, other than par? [B] Sure, I can understand that... I am not a...

The Fed buys bonds from the mkt, rather than the Treasury.

Well, if private financial institutions, like money-mkt and pension funds, etc, are allowed to do this, I don't see why the Fed shouldn't be. There's a whole lot of literature on accrual vs mark-to-mkt accounting and I am sure you're familiar with it. So I trust I don't have to have offer...

Here you go... I'd like to quote/paraphrase the most excellent Macro Man (with all due apologies to the Christians): Our Ben, Who art in heaven, Hallowed Ber-nanke, Thy auctions come, Thy Bill's be done, In Twos as they are in Sevens, Give us this day our daily FED, And forgive us our...

Well, you see, denner, you got me all wrong... I don't support the Federal Reserve. I support common sense as I see it. Most of the rabid unthinking attacks on the Fed contradict common sense, so I am obliged to respond (I consider it my karmic duty to try to reduce the amount of idiocy...

Well, I've been busy, y'know... Lots of stuff flying arnd here in our neck of the woods. To answer your question, no, I wouldn't pay par for their MBS, but so what? Firstly, it's agency MBS we're talking about, which means these are liabilities of the US treasury (I think we can drop the...