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 : 2026 TeoTwawKi ... 2032 Darkest Interregnum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Maurice Winn who wrote (49822)	5/8/2009 5:33:24 PM
From: TobagoJack	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 217869

we must stop agreeing with each other ;0) btw, huawei is part of the 30 mil with spare time on hands, feet, and minds, and a front for the folks liberation army, and is simply focused on another front on the monetary front in metacometland, just in in-tray player #1 Looking at the auction results, they truly were terrible. I'm assuming that things haven't changed much from when I was on the Government Trading Desk. (I actually used to have to go to the Federal Reserve Building, where I was on the phone to the head trader and wrote down the bids and dropped them in the box less than a minute before the auction closed). A 2-3 point "tail" was acceptable and 4-5 basis point tails were awful. Yesterday's results? Median Yield = 4.185% High Yield - 4.288% That is a 10.3 basis point tail! Disastrous! And on top of that, 57.15% of the bonds sold were at the High Yield - that makes the results even worse! That said the February results were just as bad, so perhaps things have changed since I was in the market....I don't know. player #2 as i have previously remarked, quantitative easing is a self-defeating strategy. it really is a good method for shooting oneself in the foot. btw., judging from the public appearances by Bernanke and Obama prior to the auction, they must have had advance knowledge that the auction would be very poor. why else would they talk about 'methods of taking monetary accomodation back in the future' (Bernanke) and 'making hard budget decisions' (Obama) just ahead of the auction? you'd think both topics would be topics for the future, not the here and now. after all, they are committed interventionists who believe monetary pumping and deficit spending to be legitimate and useful tools for re-creating the staus quo ante faux bubble prosperity.