Search results

By the way, I assume you are implicitly talking about the Federal reserve balance sheet ... http://www.federalreserve.gov/Releases/H41/Current/ Notice the capital account (although relatively small). That is your equity equivalent account. Where do you come up with this stuff?

I make a product, and sell it for more than my costs and salaries. I've created a situation where my net assets are more than my liabilities, and thus have equity.

Yes, but tax revenue stream is largely a function of price level, which is itself a function of central bank policy. People buy treasuries because they believe the central bank won't devalue the currency (they search for 'real' return). The 'collateral' is thus <b>faith</b> in sane...

<b>Anaconda's Comment: Being that our tax paying ability is essentially collateral for the whole system, I think we have a right to know what exactly is going on.</b> No. The 'collateral' for the whole system is merely <b>faith</b> that those we elect won't run it into the ground (and will...

Interesting take on this: http://www.nber.org/papers/w10291 The idea that since governments have a claim to tax revenues, which are derived of course from equity value (which itself is derived from long term dividend streams/yields), governments are inherent equity holders. And...

I'm talking about real tangible assets, not monetary assets. The Federal reserve could come out tommorow and make the balance sheet have $1 on each side (effectively dividing the value of every outstanding US $ by 2 billion), and it wouldn't mean the productive assets of the country were...

If you step back, as governments have the power to destroy debt just as easily as they create it, all while retaining the "assets" of the country, its easy to see that this is a moot point ( and I don't even think a correct one). You talk about debt creation as if equity matters, but then you...

A = D + E If you increase E, A must increase, holding D constant. That's basic accounting 101.

This isn't a bad idea to keep reposting this poll.. then correlate analysis to actual performance. You never know.... after 6 months of data we might have a tradeable system here. Why not a daily poll ? then we might have a faster collection rate for a usable sample.

Of course not. Many of these funds have mandates to keep those funds liquid or relatively liquid, ergo short term paper. The currency call is not really original, nor are the comments about credit. With this Fed interest on reserves policy, your statement is not necessarily true. Credit...

Well if the fund managers rolled those agency purchases into long term treasuries, the answer is no, not until they mature. If they bought short term paper with it, then yes.

I found this: http://www.zerohedge.com/article/pimco-dumps-80-billion-fed-sponsored-agencies-taxpayers-lap-makes-over-1-billion So if Pimco sold around 80-100B in 2009, and is the world's largest bond fund, I think that only explains a little bit of marginal demand. There is still another...

http://tradethenews.com/weekly-calendar.asp

Sure. Without a doubt, interest rates may have been higher. Or maybe not? Imagine without the money printing how risk assets and job losses would've continued to worsen and how deflationary the prognosis would have been. That alone might have moved the treasury demand curve out to the right...

Let me add why I don't qualify Pimco purchases of the debt (funded by MBS sales) as being equal to Fed purchases. YR 1: Fed buys 1T of agencies from funds. Funds by 1T of treasuries (1Y maturity). You might claim the fed directly monetized it. YR 2: The treasury needs to roll over its...

The Fed has bought about 1T of agency mbs debt so far. they print money to do that, and expand the balance sheet. Then they've trapped that money from being circulated, by essentially setting policies to disincentize lending. The Fed buying agencies from Pimco, enabling Pimco to buy...

No. Where did I say that? I am disputing the #s. They bought 1T of agency MBS and 300B of treasuries. The fed did not buy 80% of the deficit though.

This is actually kind of comical. I never actually heard anyone cite CNBC as a reputable source so aggressively. Seriously. Its like writing a PhD thesis and citing wikipedia.

I won't spend too much time with this, but here is an example of where Grayson came up with it: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=armOzfkwtCA4 I can't make myself read further than the past 2 paragraphs when it mentions "New pledges from the Fed, the Treasury...

And its just a bad claim. There's more than enough data out there to refute it. Unless you believe there actually is no foreign demand for treasuries and the TICs data is fabricated from fantasy. I'm sure with enough follow through, you could find out who is the holder of every outstanding...