Seeking Alpha

Jim Myrtle

Jim Myrtle
Send Message
View as an RSS Feed
View Jim Myrtle's Comments BY TICKER:
Latest  |  Highest rated
  • There's No Longer A Bernanke Put [View article]
    "The effect of that is profound: banks will have a chance to offload their crappy MBS onto the Fed"

    Yeah, those crappy, guaranteed MBS.
    They'd rather have cash yielding 0%.

    "and begin lending to households again"

    Yes, loans to defaulters are preferred to guaranteed bonds.
    Sep 15, 2012. 09:11 AM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • There's No Longer A Bernanke Put [View article]
    "They probably just felt it was time to print the next batch for the budget deficit to carry on exceeding $1 trillion without any consequences"

    You think the government needs the Fed to finance the deficit?
    How much has the Fed financed over the last 12 months?
    Sep 15, 2012. 08:32 AM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Citigroup, Other Banks Too Cheap To Ignore [View article]
    "I think about how derivative contracts nearly took down, Merrill, AIG, Morgan Stanley, Allied Financial, and wiped out Lehman"

    Except for AIG, those other firms lost money because of the MBS they held, not because of derivatives. I'm sure Jason can go into more detail.
    Sep 9, 2012. 10:15 AM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Citigroup, Other Banks Too Cheap To Ignore [View article]
    "how does the government not take the loss if housing prices take a loss?"

    Government takes a loss if housing tanks.
    But the government doesn't own the bonds, the Fed does.
    You said the Fed wants to inflate to protect the value of the bonds.
    The Fed doesn't care, so why would they need to inflate?

    Glad to help you get a clue, finally.
    Sep 6, 2012. 10:11 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Citigroup, Other Banks Too Cheap To Ignore [View article]
    "When the bonds are backed by overpriced houses inflation is the only way to maintain the price of these bonds"

    Wrong. The holders of agency MBS don't care if the price of the house rises, falls or remains the same. They're insured. Geez.
    Sep 6, 2012. 09:04 PM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Citigroup, Other Banks Too Cheap To Ignore [View article]
    "Well without rampaging inflation, these " profitable" Bond holdings are no longer profitable"

    Rampaging inflation is really bad for holders of fixed rate bonds.
    You should have heard that in the Econ 101 class you flunked.
    Try again?
    Sep 6, 2012. 09:03 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Citigroup, Other Banks Too Cheap To Ignore [View article]
    "The amount of money the government poured into this company is astounding"

    Yeah, the money the company paid back was astounding, plus over $12 billion.

    "The government is engineering inflation so all the mortgage bonds it owns through Fannie and Freddie and the Federal Reserve do not take losses"

    Who cares if the tens of billions in annual Fed profit on their MBS turns flat over the next few years?

    And do you really imagine bond holders benefit from inflation?
    Back to the books for you.
    Sep 6, 2012. 05:39 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Citigroup, Other Banks Too Cheap To Ignore [View article]
    "And then all the junk mortgage paper held by the Federal Reserve raises gasoline prices"

    How does the Fed's profitable bond holdings raise the price of gas.

    "I could go on and on here"

    Please do, it's funny.
    Sep 5, 2012. 10:26 PM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • The Fed Should Stimulate Lending [View article]
    "You mention, "what the underlying is worth""

    And I notice you didn't answer the question.

    "And what is the worth of the "$13.083 trillion bank assets?"

    $13 trillion of assets is worth $13 trillion.

    "Jason C believes "MBS" is 100%."

    You're not making sense.
    Aug 28, 2012. 07:38 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • The Fed Should Stimulate Lending [View article]
    "How do you loan an insolvent-in receivership trillions of dollars and expect them to pay it back, or perhaps lose trillions more because they know (moral hazard) that some idiot will lend them their losses forever"

    No bank is insolvent in the trillions because of derivatives.

    "It means that they have insurance policies (derivatives) outstanding (bets) that are now listed on their balance sheet which means that their depositors money would be used to pay any loses"

    Yes, and their bets put nothing close to $78 trillion at risk.
    A $10 bet on a Cubs game has a notional value of over $1 billion, because that's what the "underlying" is worth. But the most I could gain or lose is $10.
    Am I insolvent if I lose? No.
    Am I insolvent if I win and my counterparty defaults? No.

    "Since most were bets on the housing market, how much do you think they would have to pay"

    No they weren't, not even close.
    How much would they have to pay?
    Probably nothing, They're probably winning trades.

    "To puchase a $1 million in stock (100,000 shares at $10 each) they would only take $1 million out of your account. Then when you sell the 100,000 shares at $10 each they would deposit $1 million in your account."

    Awesome! 2 trades through Ameritrade cost me less than $20.

    "With that comment the only proper recourse is termination of the conversation"

    You're right, anyone who thinks Ellen knows her head from her ass is a waste of conversation.
    Aug 27, 2012. 08:39 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • The Fed Should Stimulate Lending [View article]
    "-Yes, that is correct but in order to do that they would have to declare the banks "insolvent" and place them in "receivership" so they would be allowed to "print" the "taxpayers money and give it to them as a "bailout" (gift) thru the FDIC"

    Gift? They could loan it to them instead.

    "Maybe you should Google "Bank of America scheme to place $78 trillion of derivatives on books to gain FDIC protection"

    What does the $78 trillion in that sentence mean? Explain it to me.

    "As for it being a zero sum game-that is a false statement"

    If I bet my brother $10 on a Bears game, is that a zero sum bet?
    How is a derivative different?

    "Its like saying if you purchase stock for $1 billion and sell it for $1billion you have NO LOSS"

    LOL! My purchase and sale price includes commission, so yes, I have no loss.

    "Who paid "the market makers " the millions of dollars cost (charge ) to buy and sell?"

    You pay a market maker when you buy or sell?

    "Also try : "Web of Debt" by Ellen Brown" "

    This helps explain your confusion, Ellen is an idiot.
    Aug 26, 2012. 11:11 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • The Simplified Bank Stress Test [View article]
    "This will be inflationary I heard... "

    Rising interest rates will be inflationary?
    Aug 26, 2012. 12:44 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • The Fed Should Stimulate Lending [View article]
    "How does that Pay out $8.8 trillion with out panic?"

    He said it, right here....

    "the Fed would provide physical currency for those demand deposits"

    You: "How do you call in $7.1 trillion in loans without "SYSTEMIC FAILURE"?"

    Why would the banks need to call in loans?
    How would they do it? Is your mortgage callable?

    I see your confusion isn't limited to derivatives.
    Aug 25, 2012. 08:48 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • The Fed Should Stimulate Lending [View article]
    "Bank of America had $88 trillion outstanding in derivatives (bets) of that incomprehensible amount only maybe 2% may possible be the loss to cover. OK, so where would FDIC get the $1.7 trillion to cover the “insured” loss ?"

    What does 2% of the notional amount of their derivatives have to do with reality? They didn't bet $88 trillion on anything.
    You're really confused about derivatives.
    Aug 23, 2012. 07:43 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • The Fed Should Stimulate Lending [View article]
    Wow!
    You're really confused about derivatives.
    Aug 23, 2012. 05:33 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
COMMENTS STATS
1,175 Comments
814 Likes