ES Journal - 2013

[TskTsk]

Quote from drownpruf:

It all comes back to securitization of the MBS market (the fire) and the Greenspan and Bernanke 0-rate policy (gasoline). Do you think that AIG was using the copula when they went one-way with every CDS transaction? There was no netting problem as AIG never bought a CDS.

Does the shit look brighter now? What are the notional exposures in CDS at present? Swap losses at 5% on long bonds? Caldera?

It comes back to a ton of factors. I didn't even get into the tons of fatal and completely incompetent pieces of regulation passed on govt. level. Rates during the 90s were historically high. M0 increase was miniscule compared to M2 increase which banks control and are required to regulate via their risk models.

But I'll agree CDS still looks like shit.

Quote from actionzip54:

Are people really arguing that the fed is doing things right? All you need to know is that they are embarking on policies that have never worked. I'll fade them succeeding, of course timing is always relevant.

Right. Wasn't there a guy on here who lost his entire acct. being influenced by zero hedge? had you "faded" the market since 08 based on the fact that their "policies don't work", you'd be standing today bankrupt. Good luck in your Fed fighting endeavours.

 

[actionzip54]

Quote from TskTsk:


Right. Wasn't there a guy on here who lost his entire acct. being influenced by zero hedge? had you "faded" the market since 08 based on the fact that their "policies don't work", you'd be standing today bankrupt. Good luck in your Fed fighting endeavours.

Don't get so defensive. It's unbecoming. I never said I thought the market was necessarily going lower over the long term. I guess I should have said that the unintended consequences that will be a product of these policies are what you should be wary of. With that in mind I can "fade" the fed and not be short. You should try not being so dogmatic.

 

[TskTsk]

Quote from actionzip54:

Don't get so defensive. It's unbecoming. I never said I thought the market was necessarily going lower over the long term. I guess I should have said that the unintended consequences that will be a product of these policies are what you should be wary of. With that in mind I can "fade" the fed and not be short. You should try not being so dogmatic.

What would those unintended consequences be and how do you intend to profit of them..? just curious.

 

[actionzip54]

Quote from TskTsk:

What would those unintended consequences be and how do you intend to profit of them..? just curious.

It could be multiple things. It's not really that simple but I would assume at some point we are either going to have high inflation, high interest rates, or both.

 

[mastacoli71]

TskTsk officially on ignore now. Anybody that thinks they are smarter then the market has one place: IGNORE TANK!

 

[drownpruf]

Quote from TskTsk:

It comes back to a ton of factors. I didn't even get into the tons of fatal and completely incompetent pieces of regulation passed on govt. level. Rates during the 90s were historically high. M0 increase was miniscule compared to M2 increase which banks control and are required to regulate via their risk models.

But I'll agree CDS still looks like shit.


Right. Wasn't there a guy on here who lost his entire acct. being influenced by zero hedge? had you "faded" the market since 08 based on the fact that their "policies don't work", you'd be standing today bankrupt. Good luck in your Fed fighting endeavours.

Single family housing should never have become a profit-center. Conceptually it's retarded. You take housing out of the equation and no crash, no bailout and no second bailout (QE). All of our problems were/are related to the securitization and leveraging of the products related to dwellings occupied by bus drivers and their unfortunate progeny.

Never should've happened.

 

[ammo]

Quote from drownpruf:

Single family housing should never have become a profit-center. Conceptually it's retarded. You take housing out of the equation and no crash, no bailout and no second bailout (QE). All of our problems were/are related to the securitization and leveraging of the products related to dwellings occupied by bus drivers and their unfortunate progeny.

Never should've happened.

not true, was due to credit default swaps created by banks and traded off shore to avoid regulation, there was no proof that if you were buying a 5 million dollar credit default swap backed by 5 , one million dollar mortgages, that the same paper wasn;t sold 15 times, unsecuritized,the ensuing five years , the paperwork was swept under the carpet to protect the banks, trapsing out the janitor that lost her house on a subprime loan was a ruse,fed,treasury,aig coludhave absorbed all the subprime loans for a lot less than the original tarp deal

 

[TskTsk]

Quote from drownpruf:

Single family housing should never have become a profit-center. Conceptually it's retarded. You take housing out of the equation and no crash, no bailout and no second bailout (QE). All of our problems were/are related to the securitization and leveraging of the products related to dwellings occupied by bus drivers and their unfortunate progeny.

Never should've happened.

Agree completely

Quote from mastacoli71:

TskTsk officially on ignore now. Anybody that thinks they are smarter then the market has one place: IGNORE TANK!

Why so mad? Was it my comment about austrians?

 

[drownpruf]

Quote from ammo:

not true, was due to credit default swaps created by banks and traded off shore to avoid regulation, there was no proof that if you were buying a 5 million dollar credit default swap backed by 5 , one million dollar mortgages, that the same paper wasn;t sold 15 times, unsecuritized,the ensuing five years , the paperwork was swept under the carpet to protect the banks, trapsing out the janitor that lost her house on a subprime loan was a ruse,fed,treasury,aig coludhave absorbed all the subprime loans for a lot less than the original tarp deal

Look at the "unnetted" losses from CDS vs. the notional dollars lost in MBS as a whole. I don't have the figures but the Fed has already spent $2T buying MBS from our beloved banks. Other than AIG's 200B and the "Axis of Evil" (GS, MS, BAC) losing like twenty yards. It's what, 20x CDS losses, 50x? More?

 

[ammo]

Quote from drownpruf:

Look at the "unnetted" losses from CDS vs. the notional dollars lost in MBS as a whole. I don't have the figures but the Fed has already spent $2T buying MBS from our beloved banks. Other than AIG's 200B and the "Axis of Evil" (GS, MS, BAC) losing like twenty yards. It's what, 20x CDS losses, 50x? More?

all that info is buried in a vault in Area 51,unwritten public doesn't need to know rule