Search results

Thats why I'm not betting big, I can see some scenarios where the Fed gets hawkish from here(as opposed to 2008-2010 where I knew the market was completely wrong). Furthermore the ECB hawk talk made the market price only like 3 gradual hikes for this year, the Fed would probably generate less...

Probably the same way he responded to the Japanese: "Print Money"

Got long on Fed futures for Feb 2012, filled at 99.565 and 99.57 If the fed hikes twice I lose a little less than 10% of my networth, on no hikes I make a little less than that loss amount. On 1 hike, I lose like 2%

Its interesting this trading game, its common knowledge that the vast majority of traders fail. Yet I'm still amazed to re-read books of interviews with great traders to find out that many(if not most) have either shut down their funds due lack of performance, gone broke, underperformed the...

Haven't purchased the Fed futures yet(Although I still have a residual position on the Dec 2011), they continue to decline so I'm waiting for some kind of stabilization there. I'm not going to bet very big there, probably will risk 10% of my networth in a 2 25bps hikes scenario, profit should be...

Too Big to Fail also looks like will be awesome, cast is high quality

The correction in the Fed futures has arrived. The Feb 2012 is looking juicy, you only lose big if the Fed hikes 2 times and by 'big' I mean slightly more than you will win if there are 0 hikes, so the R-R is good(About 1.2-1) To me the biggest risk factor is the middle east and a possible...

Its not going to be hard to get better questions in compared to congress

"The chairman has gotten louder" - Larry Meyer

The Fed's decision to do press conferences I believe is a good one for me. Sometimes you can pick up some non-verbal cues from Bernanke that might help you understand how he is thinking. The congress testimonies were full of silly questions and populist stuff(Maxine Waters takes the trophy on...

I have 3 internet connections in my notebook and I'm wondering if I can run a set of programs with 1 connection and another set with another connection. There might be way to do something like that, anyone?

And even if they dont sell the MBS, still, the USTs from the QEs should be MTM given they already said they already said its a trade not a HTM type of investment. They probably didn't want to lose reputation when they start to report losses as IR rise hence they are treating as if no selling is...

1st - Because they are part of QE1 2nd - Yes. But the fed can't have the free lunch of saying 'its not monetization because we will sell the QE purchases' and at the same time have the accounting treatment as if they were not going to sell it. I'm asking for consistency here. They are supposed...

Interesting study that I was not aware on kids and delaying gratification http://www.economist.com/node/18276096

I addressed this very issue a few days back when I asked why Salerno from mises.org disagrees with the Fishers theory of debt deflation and the Efficiency wage theory. Bernanke ain't doing this because he's a madman, he did it because he's got both theoretical and empirical reasons to believe...

There is a difference between being on the balance sheet temporarily because they will mature one day and being temporarily because the owner expects to sell it, what you believe will happen could be true but its not what the Fed STATES will happen(They say they will sell)

Stratfor says the Libyan war reasoning by the west is flawed http://www.zerohedge.com/article/stratfor-libya-west-and-narrative-democracy

ok but think about the implications of saying the assets are there temporarily and yet not marking them to market. Its inconsistent and reeks as an accounting trick used to now show losses/volatility

I dont believe the Fed is holding the MBS to maturity, Bernanke said under oath is his intention to sell the assets from the QEs. Therefore MTM might make sense due the interest rate risk

Just google the article you want to read(typing the title) and you get free access(Same thing with WSJ and The Economist)