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: Wyätt Gwyön who wrote (13016)	5/1/2004 11:36:47 AM
From: gregor_us	Respond to of 110194

The Loss of the Bond Market as a Reliable Indicator occurred, I suppose, several years ago now and I have been thinking and writing about this. And yes, I read Mauldin this A.M. and agree that his view is possible because--again--we have no idea what "the truth" is anymore in the bond market.

To: Wyätt Gwyön who wrote (13016)	5/3/2004 12:18:26 AM
From: mishedlo	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 110194

Would we be seeing a "false" positive curve because of the Fed holding rates down and thus assume we are not in danger of a recession within the next 12 months? I could make good cases for both sides of that argument, but the answer is that we would be in completely new territory with little historical precedent. I read that paragraph 5 times and I still do not understand it. Explain this to me: Remember, ten-year rates are 4.5%. Could the "natural" yield curve sometime later this year be negative, suggesting a recession 12 months later? WTF is he saying? Never mind. I get it finally. If natural rates are 3.5%, at 4.5% we are signaling recession. But by that measure, how long have we been negative by "natural rate" theory? M