Conquer Club

PLAYER57832 wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:QE3 has been rejected?

so far, yes.

Let's clarify. You believe them (the same people who said they would never do QE1) when they say they won't QE3. I laugh when they say QE3 is rejected.

Perhaps there are a few stones in the past you should turn up to seek the truth and the reality of QE and what has been said about it in the past.

There IS no QE 3

“QE3 may be coming after all.”

That opening line from a new CNBC article says it all: experts are now predicting that the country’s economic woes will likely be used to justify a new round of quantitative easing (which is essentially the government printing money to buy its own bonds). It would be the third round in recent memory, hence the name QE3.

“In a dramatic turnabout, market participants now believe the Federal Reserve is more likely than not to resume purchasing assets during the next year in a third round of quantitative easing,” CNBC says regarding its August Fed Survey.

“There is no doubt that over the last week the odds of seeing another round of asset purchases has risen significantly,” Tom Porcelli, chief US economist at RBC Capital Markets, told CNBC. “This doesn’t mean we think it will have any more success than QE2. What this simply reflects is a Fed with few remaining options.”

The survey polled 60 different economists, stock and bond strategists, and portfolio managers

jbrettlip wrote:a reverse repurchase agreement is a way for the fed to deleverage its balance sheet. It would be the opposite of QE3, and is one of the tools that would actually raise short term rates. When they have traded in this style with primary dealers and money market funds, rates were set higher (15-20) vs the normal market operations.

Phatscotty wrote:

jbrettlip wrote:a reverse repurchase agreement is a way for the fed to deleverage its balance sheet. It would be the opposite of QE3, and is one of the tools that would actually raise short term rates. When they have traded in this style with primary dealers and money market funds, rates were set higher (15-20) vs the normal market operations.

jbrettlip wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:

jbrettlip wrote:a reverse repurchase agreement is a way for the fed to deleverage its balance sheet. It would be the opposite of QE3, and is one of the tools that would actually raise short term rates. When they have traded in this style with primary dealers and money market funds, rates were set higher (15-20) vs the normal market operations.

not bad for a drunk, huh?

Phatscotty wrote:

jbrettlip wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:

jbrettlip wrote:a reverse repurchase agreement is a way for the fed to deleverage its balance sheet. It would be the opposite of QE3, and is one of the tools that would actually raise short term rates. When they have traded in this style with primary dealers and money market funds, rates were set higher (15-20) vs the normal market operations.

not bad for a drunk, huh?

How do you know this stuff? do you work in a certain sector or do you just read a lot/

jbrettlip wrote:Did you see the SEC investigation into S&P, and potential leaks....I bet Soros is named as a profiter of the downgrade. The Chicago way strikes again!!

saxitoxin wrote:Finally, a voice of reason on deficit reduction issues:

• Field Marshal Chen Binge, Chief of General Staff Headquarters of the Chinese People's Liberation Army:
  "The U.S. must slash its gigantic military expenditure and bloated social welfare costs and accept international supervision over U.S. dollar issues."
  http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/story/2 ... ml?ref=rss

Field Marshal Binge is right. Just by withdrawing and demobilizing forces from the so-called "ROK" and Japan, mothballing all aircraft carriers operating in the Pacific out of San Diego and Seattle, terminating the US-Phillippines so-called "defence agreement" and shuttering the USAF's so-called signals intel facilities in Pine Gap, Australia, the U.S. could probably eliminate half the deficit in one swoop.

Timminz wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:

Timminz wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:

jbrettlip wrote:Did anyone notice the fact that treasuries RALLIED Monday? Probably not, since people on here jsut make shit up and don't actually look at the real world.

Treasuries rallied, the stock market plummetted.

This is something I'm having trouble wrapping my head around. Why, upon news of the USA being less credit-worthy, are people leaving private investments, and moving towards more government bonds? It seems rather counter-intuitive to me.

Because the United States didn't default? I'm not sure.

I'm going to ask my finance professor, this evening. I will report back, if he has any idea, and no one else has clarified for us yet.

Phatscotty wrote:Okay. I regret nobody has done this sooner, and if they have, hey....sorry.

Default = Not able to pay the interest on the debt
Revenues = 2.2 trillion/year

How did anybody sell the sloppy poo-doo that with 2.2 trillions dollars, we would be unable to pay the interest on our debt? There was never going to be a default. It was another scare tactic ala "If we don't bail these companies out, we're gonna have a depression in the next 30 seconds."

jbrettlip wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:Okay. I regret nobody has done this sooner, and if they have, hey....sorry.

Default = Not able to pay the interest on the debt
Revenues = 2.2 trillion/year

How did anybody sell the sloppy poo-doo that with 2.2 trillions dollars, we would be unable to pay the interest on our debt? There was never going to be a default. It was another scare tactic ala "If we don't bail these companies out, we're gonna have a depression in the next 30 seconds."

We would have defaulted on all the government programs that we currently borrow to fund, though. And in a technical default rates would probably rise, so all retired debt would be reissued at a higher rate.

I think we may disagree on the bank bailouts, not the GM bailout.

Woodruff wrote:Good to see this. Not that I think anything was necessarily going on, but it seems prudent to look into it:
http://www.theatlanticwire.com/business ... ade/41249/

Phatscotty wrote:

Woodruff wrote:Good to see this. Not that I think anything was necessarily going on, but it seems prudent to look into it:
http://www.theatlanticwire.com/business ... ade/41249/

Chicago politics son

Woodruff wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:

Woodruff wrote:Good to see this. Not that I think anything was necessarily going on, but it seems prudent to look into it:
http://www.theatlanticwire.com/business ... ade/41249/

Chicago politics son

You didn't even read the article, did you? Come on, Scotty...Michael Moore didn't write this one!

GreecePwns wrote:1. Mystery man plops a billion dollars in the futures market betting against the US Bond market.
2. S&P downgrade just a day or two later.
3. Mystery man's money grows tenfold.

Coincedence? I think not.

Woodruff wrote:Good to see this. Not that I think anything was necessarily going on, but it seems prudent to look into it:
http://www.theatlanticwire.com/business ... ade/41249/

PLAYER57832 wrote:

Woodruff wrote:Good to see this. Not that I think anything was necessarily going on, but it seems prudent to look into it:
http://www.theatlanticwire.com/business ... ade/41249/

I am sure someone did this. Whether the S & P employees are guilty is another story.

BigBallinStalin wrote:

Timminz wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:

Timminz wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:Treasuries rallied, the stock market plummetted.

This is something I'm having trouble wrapping my head around. Why, upon news of the USA being less credit-worthy, are people leaving private investments, and moving towards more government bonds? It seems rather counter-intuitive to me.

Because the United States didn't default? I'm not sure.

I'm going to ask my finance professor, this evening. I will report back, if he has any idea, and no one else has clarified for us yet.