Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : The Epic American Credit and Bond Bubble Laboratory -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: ild who wrote (1616)	10/22/2003 11:14:25 AM
From: mishedlo	Respond to of 110194

They are trying to F me on my "no rate hike bet" Bought EuroDollar spreads on Monday for .06 (or so I thought) Apararently those spreads never traded for .06 They filled me on something else The lowest traded Sep spreads were for .08 What I really want is the Sept spreads for .06 cause that is what the floor offered and I took it and then some. If I have to pay .08 I will do that cause that spread is already worth .12 (nothing like a 50% gain overnight) Now if they give me .06 I have a FN double overnight But here I sit in g*d Damn I do not even know what but whatever it is I am probably underwater on it. If there is any justice in this world I get that fill at .06 My broker says this will all get straightened out. Well the FN floor offered me .06 and I want .06 but will settle for .08. Thsi is not my mistake but theirs damn it but here I am sitting in the wrong god damn spread. If they fill me at .06 I am up a fast $5000 M

To: ild who wrote (1616)	10/22/2003 9:48:40 PM
From: TimbaBear	Respond to of 110194

The decline reflects rising mortgage rates, which in turn are tied to the yield on the U.S. 10-year Treasury note that has been moving higher on growing indications of economic recovery. Suppose the rise in the yield on the 10-year Treasury is due, instead, to the excess supply of Treasuries over the declining demand for them? Is it a cup half-full or half-empty scenario? Or just an optimistic read on the part of the story writer?

To: ild who wrote (1616)	10/22/2003 10:44:03 PM
From: ild	Respond to of 110194

Household Debt Burden Looms Larger for Lower-Income Renters By GREG IP Staff Reporter of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL WASHINGTON -- American households may be carrying much bigger financial burdens than previously reported, but the burden is larger for lower-income renters than homeowners, new data developed by the Federal Reserve indicate. Americans currently pay 13.3% of after-tax income to service their debts, but adding other recurring liabilities such as rent and auto leases pushes the figure up to 18.1%, according to a report published in this month's Federal Reserve Bulletin. Both figures are slightly below the record levels reached at the end of 2001, but up more than two percentage points since 1993. Because the trend in financial burdens is similar under both measures, the new data don't suggest household balance sheets are deteriorating any more quickly than previously estimated. But they do suggest that renters are far more stretched than homeowners. The household debt-service burden is a popular way to assess consumer balance sheets. The higher the burden, the less money consumers have left to spend on goods and services and the more likely they are to default. The report by Fed economists Karen Dynan, Kathleen Johnson and Karen Pence introduces a far broader "financial obligations ratio" that includes rent, auto leases, homeowners insurance and property taxes. Federal Reserve policy makers have played down the recent rise in debt burdens in part because it has been heavily driven by a shift from renting to homeownership, in particular by lower-income households. That implies merely a shift from rent to mortgage payments, rather than a rise in overall burdens. The new data support that. Homeowners' financial-obligations ratio has risen from 12.2% in 1992 to 14.1% now, but excluding renters-turned-homeowners, the ratio would have risen only to 13.2%. The report also shows that renters' financial obligations have soared to 29% of after-tax income from 22.5% in 1993. The reason isn't so much because of increasing rents, but because renters tend to be poorer than homeowners, and the gap between rich and poor households' incomes grew sharply in the last decade. From 1992 and 2001, renters' incomes rose 22% while homeowners' incomes rose 60%, the Fed said.