Seeking Alpha

Jim Myrtle

Jim Myrtle
Send Message
View as an RSS Feed
View Jim Myrtle's Comments BY TICKER:
Latest  |  Highest rated
  • The Fed Should Stimulate Lending [View article]
    Unless they sold them, Citi, for instance is reducing them, yes, banks still have mortgages, some underperforming, on their balance sheets.

    Nope, the Fed never bought anything but guaranteed bonds.

    They did have some crap in the Maiden Lanes, bought at a large discount to face value and turning a decent profit since 2008.
    Aug 17, 2012. 03:02 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • The Fed Should Stimulate Lending [View article]
    "The stuff is so valueless that Warren Buffet has been scrambling around trying to buy up the "crap," too"

    These guys don't know much, but they sure know how to repeat their (incorrect) talking points.
    Aug 17, 2012. 02:29 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • The Fed Should Stimulate Lending [View article]
    "And what "market" rate is Warren paying for these assets - face value or discounted?"

    If he's buying Agencies, he's paying above par.

    http://on.wsj.com/Ona3cb
    Aug 17, 2012. 02:28 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • The Fed Should Stimulate Lending [View article]
    "The Fed bought these assets so the banks would not have to mark them down"

    We're talking about government guaranteed agency MBS.
    Trading well above par.

    How are those toxic?
    Aug 17, 2012. 02:26 PM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • The Fed Should Stimulate Lending [View article]
    "What did these banks sell this crap to the FED if they were so great?"

    Allow me to repeat myself.
    The Fed didn't buy them because they had no buyers.
    The Fed bought them to boost money supply and bring down rates.

    The Fed paid market price. For guaranteed mortgages.
    And hasn't lost a penny on them.
    Has made tens of billions annually on them and has tens of billions of unrealized capital gains on the ones that haven't been refinaced away from them.
    Keep claiming they were crap with zero evidence.
    It makes you look silly.
    Aug 17, 2012. 01:18 PM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • The Fed Should Stimulate Lending [View article]
    "If these assets had buyers, the Fed would not have needed to buy them"

    The Fed didn't buy them because they had no buyers.
    The Fed bought them to boost money supply and bring down rates.

    "And now the Fed is stuck with these assets"

    Yes, the Fed is stuck with these high yielding mortgages with very large unrealized capital gains. Just awful.
    Aug 17, 2012. 11:54 AM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • The Fed Should Stimulate Lending [View article]
    Yeah, survival beats the alternative.
    Aug 17, 2012. 09:49 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • The Fed Should Stimulate Lending [View article]
    The first that you know.
    Still waiting for some proof the capital position matters one bit.
    Aug 17, 2012. 09:48 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • The Fed Should Stimulate Lending [View article]
    "These were toxic assets when they bought them"

    Government guaranteed mortgages were toxic?

    "How do you figure that they did not overpay for these assets?"

    Do you have proof they did? Beyond your feelings?
    Aug 17, 2012. 09:47 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • The Fed Should Stimulate Lending [View article]
    "That's a net cushion of 4.44%"

    It seems like it was only hours ago that you were claiming they only earned 2% on assets, things have improved.

    Great, so in a few years, the rate goes to 4.75% and then the Fed doesn't give the Treasury any money for a while. So what?
    The Treasury survived before they rec'd $80 billion a year, if they go 5 or 10 years getting zero, the republic will survive.
    Aug 16, 2012. 09:20 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • The Fed Should Stimulate Lending [View article]
    "And they won't resign, they'll sterilize."

    They've got a lot of room to sterilize at higher rates before they blow thru their $80 billion annual profit. Not a problem.
    Aug 16, 2012. 07:41 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • The Fed Should Stimulate Lending [View article]
    "In chess terms, you seem to be saying that the Fed's rook is pinned"

    I may have a better chess term.

    A player whose turn it is to move who has no move that does not worsen his position is said to be in zugzwang.

    Sell bonds, immediate losses, negative capital.
    Pay 6% to sterilize reserves, long term losses, negative capital.

    Do nothing, hyperinflation.

    I guess the Fed should just resign.
    Aug 16, 2012. 05:05 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • The Fed Should Stimulate Lending [View article]
    "They have already paid too much for the MBS"

    How do you figure that?

    "They don't want to take more losses here"

    They have gains on their MBS.
    Aug 16, 2012. 04:38 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • The Fed Should Stimulate Lending [View article]
    "On the Fed's financial position: we are not talking about paying back deposits: just about paying 6% interest with assets yielding 2%"

    They hold $853 billion in MBS and $91 billion in agency debt, at face value. I'm pretty sure they earn a lot more than 2% on those.
    They earned about $80 billion last year. If they need to pay 6% to "sterilize reserves", $80 billion/0.06 = about $1.3 trillion in reserves.

    What's the problem?
    Aug 16, 2012. 03:01 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • The Fed Should Stimulate Lending [View article]
    "All that TARP did was allow one class that was most culpable to escape financial ruin"

    Yup, those Main Street defaulters and their Congressmen escaped with an intact banking system.

    "and the costs were passed on to everyone else"

    Bank TARP made money.
    If you want to talk about the Fannie, Freddie and auto portions, let me know.

    "If we had just let these guys go bust we would now be beyond this"

    That's funny.
    Aug 15, 2012. 05:11 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
COMMENTS STATS
1,150 Comments
794 Likes