Search results

Oh no, Howard... You're truly incorrigible.

Huh?

So you're effectively saying that democracy doesn't work? [B] Of course, I am not suggesting there's some sort of a moral or legal obligation. I am simply stating that Iceland refuses to abide by the set of EEA rules that it finds punitive now, while it happily benefited from the same...

Oh no, we're not having this discussion again, are we? We're not gonna be discussing the Rothschilds and Alien Brtiney next, are we?

There's nothing all that interesting about it... It's a well-known fact that's explained in the article. It's just reclassifying the UST holdings from UK to China.

Me, me, me!! I know! Start by looking at Excel, maybe? I knew you'd like it, sire :).

Start by reading some basic options textbooks maybe?

I am not trying to steer you down anything... I suggested that you look at the bank failures on and off Wall Street by comparing the assets of the failed banks in these two groups. For a broad comparison, $50bn or so in Repo 105 is irrelevant (as I have pointed out earlier). Anyways...

Well, this is plain silly... Suggesting the Fed and the Treasury are one and the same just because the Fed owns a lot of Treasuries is rather absurd. [B] Erm, do you happen to know the size of Lehman balance sheet in 2008 (with or without Repo 105, which is peanuts)? What about Bear and...

From the govt, you mean? How much came from the US Treasury, as opposed to the Fed? In terms of comparing, using numbers is obviously meaningless, given the different sizes of the two samples. Shouldn't you be comparing the total assets held by the failed institutions in the two categories...

I try not to read between the lines, if I can help it... I don't really understand what "strong ties" and "favoring" means specifically.

I all for breaking up TBTF banks. As to the Fed being made up of Wall Street firms (more or less), that's a rather otherworldly statement. You noticed? There's two good reasons for this... Firstly, I can offer substance upon request and provided there's a meaningful discussion. Secondly, I...

This is incorrect, in a whole variety of ways...

Good luck, Daal...

Well, in an overwhelming variety of ways, $10 strike puts have lesser, rather than greater, risk.

That can't be right...

+1 and amen to that... And, as usual, I would suggest Burghardt's "Treasury Bond Basis" as the one and only starting point.

Ah, in that case I think I have responded already... No such thing as contango/backwardation in them. The concept is meaningless, since the CTD and, indeed, the whole basket can change when the front contract rolls.

I have never looked at t-bill futures... As far as I know, there's no liquidity in them, so I never had any reason to care about the way the rolls are in those.

Have you tried the Internet with t he help of Google?