Well, you can see it in the front contract... Dec9 FRA/OIS at 16bps now, only wider by 2bps. Printed at 19 at one point, apparently.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
The Credit Crisis Financial Stocks Short Journal
- Thread starter Daal
- Start date
Quote from Martinghoul:
Daal, what you asked for is attached...
Thanks a ton. Looks like I will have to be very careful, I have no idea how bad things will get specially with the limited amount of TARP avaliable so I will have to watch a libor-ois stop. Will be interesting to see the libor for today
NP. It fixed just 0.11bps higher today. Notice that the CDS chart shows most of the banks on the LIBOR panel (bar BTMU, Norinchukin, Rabo and RBC, I think), but there's all sorts of interesting dynamics that come into play due to the panel's flexible nature.Quote from Daal:
Thanks a ton. Looks like I will have to be very careful, I have no idea how bad things will get specially with the limited amount of TARP avaliable so I will have to watch a libor-ois stop. Will be interesting to see the libor for today
Finished the book The Greatest Trade Ever.
Its a good book, however I'm not sure I agree that the short US dollar trade is such a nobrainer trade over the long-run
For one, the current account deficit has declined materially, secondly the Fed might very well struggle during their exit so there could be some inflation above the target but what seems to matter for FX isn't the inflation itself but the level of real interest rates. The volcker period had high inflation rates but very high real interest rates and a strong dollar, same thing is happening with the BRL and the TRY. And if one believes the fed keeps real rates low for longer, its better to just fade fed futures expectations or E$ or something
With regards to deficits and debt levels, if one is going to play that view its probably better to just short treasuries instead of the dollar. It looks like Pellegrini is doing that
http://www.marketfolly.com/2009/11/paolo-pellegrinis-psqr-capital-investor.html
That might not be a good trade in the short-run at all. The UST market doesnt seem to care much about deficits(after all we are seeing record low rates with record high deficits to gdp ratios) and disinflation is still going on
Its a good book, however I'm not sure I agree that the short US dollar trade is such a nobrainer trade over the long-run
For one, the current account deficit has declined materially, secondly the Fed might very well struggle during their exit so there could be some inflation above the target but what seems to matter for FX isn't the inflation itself but the level of real interest rates. The volcker period had high inflation rates but very high real interest rates and a strong dollar, same thing is happening with the BRL and the TRY. And if one believes the fed keeps real rates low for longer, its better to just fade fed futures expectations or E$ or something
With regards to deficits and debt levels, if one is going to play that view its probably better to just short treasuries instead of the dollar. It looks like Pellegrini is doing that
http://www.marketfolly.com/2009/11/paolo-pellegrinis-psqr-capital-investor.html
That might not be a good trade in the short-run at all. The UST market doesnt seem to care much about deficits(after all we are seeing record low rates with record high deficits to gdp ratios) and disinflation is still going on
What is Buffett thinking when he says the US best years are in the future?He might want to take a look at this
http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/us_20th_century_chart.html
Surely some government functions are necessary and important but why was it appropriate to have less than 10% of government 100 years ago but now have 40%?He seems to think there are no consequences to this, the chart doesnt even add up the costs that regulation produces, if you add that up as much as half of the output of the country is controlled by the government and that is set to rise as re-regulation is in for at least a cyclical rise(maybe even secular).
Does he really think that with the government controlling ever larger percentages of the economy that will not hurt growth, employment and profits?Not to mention the run up in government debt and the possibility of congress choosing an inflationary solution to SS and Medicare
http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/us_20th_century_chart.html
Surely some government functions are necessary and important but why was it appropriate to have less than 10% of government 100 years ago but now have 40%?He seems to think there are no consequences to this, the chart doesnt even add up the costs that regulation produces, if you add that up as much as half of the output of the country is controlled by the government and that is set to rise as re-regulation is in for at least a cyclical rise(maybe even secular).
Does he really think that with the government controlling ever larger percentages of the economy that will not hurt growth, employment and profits?Not to mention the run up in government debt and the possibility of congress choosing an inflationary solution to SS and Medicare