Search results

50bn SEK is nuthin', especially since the SNDO intends to do it over a course of a year... Probably less size than Elin needs to do :)!

It's not worth it to be outright short an option that's worth a few cents... It's a different kettle of fish if it's a spread.

Oh no, please stop, tj... My head is about to explode from the gibberish you're spouting. What does anything have to do with the yield/coupon of the 2s?

tj, I'm sorry... I am normally very tolerant, as many people here can attest, but, at this point, I have to say this. You're an idiot. You don't understand trading, you don't understand rates and you certainly don't have a slightest clue about trading rates. That wouldn't be a problem for...

It's all about liquidity... It's very difficult to model and predict, which, in an overwhelming majority of cases, is to blame for larger than expected drawdowns. Combine that with the fact that lots of HF strategies center around liquidity provision and you have your answer. That doesn't...

Well, apart from the fact that the author doesn't have any of his facts straight and is monumentally confused, the article makes a rather blindingly obvious point. Specifically, if there's a catastrophic loss of confidence in the banking system, we're all royally f*cked. I don't quite see why...

I'm all confused... I thought your target was 0.8713?

Jeez, darkhorse, you don't exactly hold back on the linkage, do ya?

There's no question that, whatever happens to your short calls, be it early/normal exercise or worthless expiry, you will either go short Dec10 futures or nothing.

This works the same way as options on Eurodollar futures, i.e. serial monthly expiries on quarterly contracts. So for the Oct10 and Nov10 expiries the underlying is the Dec10 futures contract. As to the feasibility of early exercise, that's a (somewhat) more complicated question.

If by "butterfly flattener" you mean long the belly vs the wings, your two examples are actually the same trade, now and for the foreseeable future.

Well, you know what they say, right? It ain't over til' the fat lady sings.

When I said 'costless' I meant it primarily to apply to options (to exclude strategies that have a strictly non-negative payoff, such as butterflies, but require upfront payment of premium) The point is that you and I are, effectively, in agreement. The way I define the term "arbitrage" in...

That's a big load of bollox... Basis trading is NOT arbitrage. It's almost impossible to find actual arbitrage in modern mkts, no matter what silly definitions Investopedia or whoever else publishes. And I have to say, this new "relationship trading" term the first link mentions really...

Come on, surely she is deserving of a better pic... This: http://www.riksbank.com/upload/Bilder_riksbank/Pressbilder/Karolina_Ekholm_pressbild_high.jpg

There's too many errors in this blurb to mention.

Yeah, but two dissenters at the RiksBank is somewhat significant. Svensson has always been a bit of an outlier, but not Ekholm (and she's damn hot, btw). Why can't more CBs have sexy Swedish babes like her on their boards?

Well, this is normally correct... However, we've had a financial crisis in the UK, right? That means a) gilts got very bid; b) banks got screwed. So now, very simplistically, cash (which is, effectively, you lending money to a bank) offers you a higher return than gilts.

1) When you buy this ETF, you're effectively buying a UK govt bond with a particular maturity (equal to the current duration of the relevant index), probably arnd 3yrs. Given the duration of the index, you'll be buying this theoretical bond at a yied of arnd 0.75%. That's, essentially, your...

Not "in which", you linguistic genius, just "which"... Don't worry about trying to write meaningful sentences, you'll pull a muscle or smth.