Welcome to NexusFi: the best trading community on the planet, with over 150,000 members Sign Up Now for Free
Genuine reviews from real traders, not fake reviews from stealth vendors
Quality education from leading professional traders
We are a friendly, helpful, and positive community
We do not tolerate rude behavior, trolling, or vendors advertising in posts
We are here to help, just let us know what you need
You'll need to register in order to view the content of the threads and start contributing to our community. It's free for basic access, or support us by becoming an Elite Member -- see if you qualify for a discount below.
-- Big Mike, Site Administrator
(If you already have an account, login at the top of the page)
Broker: Advantage, Trading Technologies, OptionsCity, IQ Feed
Trading: CL, NG
Posts: 1,038 since Jul 2010
Thanks Given: 1,713
Thanks Received: 3,863
Some interesting points but we may not be seeing this the same. I'll just break this down to it's simplest. If you own a muni let's say and its yielding 3.5% tax-free while current yields are 1.5% - 2%, that would be re-investment risk. Not to mention the inventory for anything yielding a decent amount is scarce. Like I said, the idea for an ultra wealthy individual/family is to first and foremost retain their wealth with relatively little risk while preserving their current living standards/purchasing power/legacy. The second huge concern tends to be taxes. If you're invested in muni's again for example, your primary concern is retaining a steady stream of income without severe tax implications. Selling bonds at a premium will result in capital gains first and then you would need to find suitable bonds to reinvest in that were similar to what you had which probably doesn't exist if you're holding older paper (reinvestment risk). So ultimately, your net income will begin to decrease because of this. So with regards to inflating your fixed income securities, it's irrelevant if not a burden because of the damage it does to the underlying yield (to maturity/call). Keep in mind, I'm referring to people who are already wealthy. It creates a strange dynamic.
That's great! Executive assistant? Lol! Totally kidding! Good to see another from the biz. Were you at Cantor in NYC? As for the plain joe on the street, not sure I mentioned that but agree, they get hosed.
The fact this is QE3 should say something about how ineffective the FED has been. I am afraid they will bankrupt us all as they roll the dice under the cloak of darkness.
"The day I became a winning trader was the day it became boring. Daily losses no longer bother me and daily wins no longer excited me. Took years of pain and busting a few accounts before finally got my mind right. I survived the darkness within and now just chillax and let my black box do the work."
The Fed is pretty good at catching a falling knife. Tripling a losing position is a dangerous game. We as traders know better. Let us run the economy.
"The day I became a winning trader was the day it became boring. Daily losses no longer bother me and daily wins no longer excited me. Took years of pain and busting a few accounts before finally got my mind right. I survived the darkness within and now just chillax and let my black box do the work."
This is correct if I understand what you're saying correctly - however purchasing us treasuries is not "deficit spending" and neither is purchasing MBS. Due to political realities in this country our gov't cannot take the steps that would actually help the economy (deficit spending funded by the treasury similar to Obama's stimulus package). They gov't is avoiding the politically unpopular (but smartest) option of deficit spending by relying on the Fed to "stimulate" the economy. As I have said elsewhere, this is due to a reliance on the erroneous theory of Monetarism. Because of these realities, the best option for the FOMC is to try to revive the economy by attempting to lower mortgage rates - in effect, stimulate the economy through the housing market. I don't think it is going to work as effectively as they would like it to but it will have an effect for sure.
As to it "only helping the elites" - I would say that is not correct and somewhat simplistic (sorry!). Mortgage securities come in all shapes and sizes and one main distinction is that a mortgage is either "conforming" or "non-conforming". This effects what sort of tranches the mortgage can be packaged up in to be "dealt" on the primary markets for MBS. A "conforming" mortgage has a lot of specific traits but the easiest to understand is the amount of the loan. To "conform" in this sense it has to be small. Anything over $400k-$500k (varies by market now) is "non-conforming" and will not be directly affected by this new FOMC program - thus the folks borrowing small amounts will see the benefits of this program more-so than those borrowing larger amounts. To my mind this will actually help the little guy more than the big guy.
Seek freedom and become captive of your desires. Seek discipline and find your liberty. - Frank Herbert
Sept. 13 (Bloomberg) -- On today's "Roundtable," AEI's Stephen Oliner, Vanguard's Bob Auwaerter and Sterne Agree & Leach's Sharon Lee Stark discuss about the Federal Reserve's decision to expand its holdings of long-term securities with open-ended purchases of $40 billion of mortgage debt a month. They speak on Bloomberg Television's "Street Smart." (Source: Bloomberg)
Bloomberg Video
Sept. 13 (Bloomberg) -- Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi Chief Financial Economist Chris Rupkey discusses the Fed's decision on more stimuli. He speaks with Mark Crumpton on Bloomberg Television's "Bottom Line." (Source: Bloomberg)
Bloomberg Video
Sept. 13 (Bloomberg) -- Michael McKee reports on Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke press conference about the Federal Reserve's decision to expand its holdings of long-term securities with open-ended purchases of $40 billion of mortgage debt a month. McKee speaks on Bloomberg Television's "Street Smart." (Source: Bloomberg)
Bloomberg Video
Sept. 13 (Bloomberg) -- Bloomberg's Mike McKee reports that the Federal Reserve said it will expand its holdings of long-term securities with open-ended purchases of $40 billion of mortgage debt a month in a third round of quantitative easing as it seeks to boost growth and reduce unemployment. The FOMC also said it would likely hold the federal funds rate near zero “at least through mid-2015.” He speaks on Bloomberg Television's "Lunch Money."
So.. the fed goes out and buys MBS paper from the market, takes it out of circulation at a good price. The banks and other former holders of this paper may now go to the US Treasury auction with their fresh cash and buy up new paper. If the Fed is the banker for the government, then it is indirectly financing it's own deficit. It is a type of deficit spending, the monetarist version.
yes yes, we all know the trickle down theory. If we let the banks borrow from the fed at 0% interest then they will be able to loan out to the little guy at a low rate and stimulate the credit/investment cycle. Those bankers wouldn't take that free money and park it in more interest paying treasuries.. heck, that would be free money for the elite.
Sorry, quantitative easy is gutting the middle class and making the rich richer than ever. End of story.