What’s Behind the Sell-Off in USD/CAD? [View article]
The Loonie bounced higher the same day the Opposition leader announced his party would support the Government's Budget. Reduced political turmoil=stronger currency.
Review of "100 Years of Corporate Bond Returns Revisited" [View article]
Perhaps the favourable Treasuries' return of the 25 years ending in 2005 may have something to do with with Volker's successful attack on inflation in the early '80's which saw Treasuries peak near 14%. The subsequent rate decline created much in the way of capital gains.
Current Treasury rates are "good" only in the sense that we may be facing a financial armageddon. If we muddle through, today's rates may cause investors much distress. GNMA's would be relatively better investments in this case, as spreads would likely narrow.
The Ag Industry: Another Credit Crisis Casualty? [View article]
Farming is all about commodities. Fertilizer is a commodity too. The recent price spike reflects that. When the fertilizer companies see reduced demand, fertilizer prices will decline, just like food prices have. This decline in input prices will help cushion farmers and reduce their required financing needs.But it will be awhile before banks extend credit.
Lehman's CDS Mess: Who's on the Hook? [View article]
The DTCC knows how much the money flows will be on Oct 21, and I assume they know the names attached to these flows. It's surprising this list hasn't been leaked out yet.
How well are Fanny/Freddie doing with respect to their $225B rollover by month end? Has recent activity been essentially very short term in nature? And finally, what's the rollover need for Q4?
The Beginning of the End of the Credit Crisis? [View article]
Yes, the market is probably just taking a rest awaiting the next shoe to drop. Will the banks suffer real loan write-offs? And what about the increase in ABX prices; will they hold and inspire mark-to-market write-ups. What an unnerving spectacle that would be.
Larry Kudlow is Dead Wrong: CRA Didn't Start the Meltdown [View article]
Well, well the PC'ers are at it again. Minorities = "correct", poor is not. Race doesn't matter if you're poor. Poor people are "fiscally challenged". Fiscally challenged people who have mortgages are more likely to default than those folk who are not so fiscally challenged. Hence default rates on so called subprime mortgages will be higher than prime mortgages. It therefore follows that something that encourages greater use of subprime mortgages can be seen as "causing" the current mess, whether it be the CRA, greedy mortgage brokers etc, etc etc. But clearly the CRA is in as an early cause of the subprime quagmire as it encouraged the creation of subprime mortgages.
How Much Can We Blame the Uptick Rule? [View article]
thanks Fred S. I found the study and I while its conclusions may be valid for the time under study, I question whether or not Werner et al would get the same results during a concerted down turn such as we've had recently, particularly with the growth in hedgies of the past couple of years. Also, the study seemed to focus on a wide swath of stocks, and perhaps, if there's something untoward going on, it may be on a smaller batch of stocks. And along those lines there was no indication of the characteristics of the stocks in each catagory.
How Much Can We Blame the Uptick Rule? [View article]
A good question from the Bespoke Group, but if they want to headline a good question, one hopes they might have a decent go of answering it. The article does not make a serious attempt to answer the question. As such, it's not much of a serious article. Bespoke can do better than waste our time with such gibberish (and usually does). Or maybe Seeking Alpha could be more selective in what it publishes. But it is a good question. Has anyone seen a decent study of the effect of removing short traders' shackles (elimination of the up-tick rule and the SEC's generally ignoring naked shorting)?
Here's Why the Fed Has No Credibility [View article]
to fjd10595; one of the problems is that there has been too much fedspeak. They all seem to be staking out territory and need to be reined in. Besides, with rates at 3%, there's clearly less room to the downside than before. He was just (unnecessarily) stating the obvious. This is a good example of "less is more".
Sort by:
Latest | Highest ratedCiti's TARP Convert and Chrysler's Indiana Bond Holders [View article]
45 Cheap Repurchasers of Stock [View article]
The Strange Death of American Capitalism: A Review of 'Bailout Nation' by Barry Ritholtz [View article]
What’s Behind the Sell-Off in USD/CAD? [View article]
Review of "100 Years of Corporate Bond Returns Revisited" [View article]
Current Treasury rates are "good" only in the sense that we may be facing a financial armageddon. If we muddle through, today's rates may cause investors much distress. GNMA's would be relatively better investments in this case, as spreads would likely narrow.
The Ag Industry: Another Credit Crisis Casualty? [View article]
Lehman's CDS Mess: Who's on the Hook? [View article]
Bond Expert: Tuesday Wrap [View article]
Homebuilder Bankruptcies: Who Might Be Next? [View article]
The Beginning of the End of the Credit Crisis? [View article]
Larry Kudlow is Dead Wrong: CRA Didn't Start the Meltdown [View article]
How Much Can We Blame the Uptick Rule? [View article]
How Much Can We Blame the Uptick Rule? [View article]
But it is a good question. Has anyone seen a decent study of the effect of removing short traders' shackles (elimination of the up-tick rule and the SEC's generally ignoring naked shorting)?
Investment Bank Regulation: Beware the Dawn of This New Era [View article]
Here's Why the Fed Has No Credibility [View article]