AuthorTopic: Da Fed: Central Banking According to RE  (Read 22925 times)

Offline Eddie

  • Administrator
  • Master Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 16110
    • View Profile
Re: Da Fed: Central Banking According to RE
« Reply #60 on: November 01, 2017, 07:13:49 AM »
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/WqzZ3jxx650&fs=1" target="_blank" class="new_win">http://www.youtube.com/v/WqzZ3jxx650&fs=1</a>
What makes the desert beautiful is that somewhere it hides a well.

Offline moniker

  • Bussing Staff
  • **
  • Posts: 82
    • View Profile
Re: Da Fed: Central Banking According to RE
« Reply #61 on: November 01, 2017, 08:11:11 AM »
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/WqzZ3jxx650&fs=1" target="_blank" class="new_win">http://www.youtube.com/v/WqzZ3jxx650&fs=1</a>

Thanks Eddie. Comic relief helps.

Unfortunately the game they are playing is way more serious and the technology exponentially more powerful.

Online RE

  • Administrator
  • Chief Cook & Bottlewasher
  • *****
  • Posts: 34186
    • View Profile
The End Of Money.
« Reply #62 on: November 02, 2017, 06:46:09 PM »
https://heisenbergreport.com/2017/11/02/the-end-of-money/

The End Of Money.


The End Of Money.

 
 

Ok so recently, Deutsche Bank’s Jim Reid decided it was about time someone sat down and penned a 94-page epic tome on the history of financial crises. So that’s what he did.

And as part of that War & Peace-ish manifesto, Reid also made a list of the “possible candidates” for the next crisis.

That note was easily one of the better pieces of research we’ve seen this year and although it’s impossible to do it justice with blog posts, we did endeavor to pen two missives based on short excerpts. Those two posts can be found here:

In that latter post, we talked at length about the extent to which an unanchored system (i.e. a regime not tethered to a universally accepted, finite store of value like a precious metal) is a double-edged sword. It provides the flexibility to respond to crises, but that flexibility involves adopting polices that will invariably sow the seeds for the next meltdown. The entire thing hinges on the extent to which the response to the previous crisis can be unwound (i.e. the countercyclical ammo replenished) by the time the excesses (the “boom”) that response created lead to the next bust.

But there’s a problem with that. It can’t work forever because implicit in the arrangement is that the booms and busts will get larger over time. At some point the bust will be so large that it overwhelms our ability to lean against it with the tools afforded us by an untethered system. Or, perhaps more accurately, it ensures that our attempts to counter busts will become increasingly absurd until we’re forced to resort to some iteration of helicopter money. Allow us to excerpt a few passages from our previous piece, because dammit, that post was pretty well-written. Here’s what we said:

While we can observe an increased frequency of crises in a world that’s abandoned the gold standard and while we can draw common sense conclusions from that observation, there’s still the old “correlation doesn’t always equal causation” problem to contend with. That is, “yes” it is likely that the lack of discipline which invariably accompanies an unanchored system contributes directly to the incidence of busts. But it is certain that a constrained system lacks the flexibility to respond to busts when they occur. So if even one crisis out of a dozen isn’t attributable to the adoption of an unanchored system (i.e. a system not based on gold), then by tethering our fate to an archaic concept we may be unnecessarily ensuring a complete collapse from which there is no recovery. Hence Deutsche’s “double edged sword” metaphor.

The worry now however, is that in this latest iteration of responding to a crisis with intervention and money creation, we have exhausted our capacity to leverage (figuratively and literally) the flexibility afforded by an unanchored system to rescue us from the abyss. There’s a cruel irony inherent in that. Each time we respond to a panic with the tools afforded us by a system based not on some finite store of value, but rather based solely on the “full faith and credit” of governments and their printing presses, we almost always exacerbate (in one way or another) the imbalances that led to the very crisis to which we’re responding. The inevitable result: a rolling boom-bust cycle that snowballs with each turn, ensuring that each new crisis and each crisis response is even more spectacular than the last.

The only way this can go on in perpetuity is if we assume there is no limit on the extent to which we can leverage (again, both figuratively and literally) the flexibility inherent in an unanchored (i.e. a fiat-based) system. If the busts keep getting bigger, it will of course be painful and harrowing, but if the capacity of the fiat system to respond with ever larger money printing programs is limitless, then theoretically we will just boom-bust our way along forever until finally we’re all losing everything once every six months only to have central bankers make us all millionaires the very next day by topping up our bank accounts with newly-created money.

There’s something conspicuously missing from our analysis as presented in those excerpts. Specifically, a mention of the impact structural disinflation has on the ability of an unanchored system to respond.

“The basic premise is that a fiat currency system – the likes of which we’ve had since 1971 – is inherently unstable and prone to high inflation all other things being equal,” the above-mentioned Jim Reid writes, in a brand new piece expanding on his original work. He continues: “However, for the current system to have survived this long perhaps we’ve needed a huge offsetting disinflationary shock.

And there it is. The missing piece of the puzzle that allows an inherently ridiculous system to persist. A disinflationary shock serves to short-circuit the mechanism that, in the absence of a countervailing force, would invariably translate unchecked credit creation and thin-air-money-printing into hyperinflation.

To be sure, Reid brings this up in his original post, but the argument is the backbone of the new piece. Here’s Jim:

In “The Next Financial Crisis” we suggested how China’s fairly sudden integration into the global economy at the end of the 1970s and a very favourable once-in-a-lifetime shift in demographics from around 1980 onwards could have contributed to the modern boom/bust culture that has made financial crises more regular in recent decades. The argument is based around a view that a positive labour supply shock from China and developed countries’ demographics between 1980-2015 has allowed inflation to be controlled externally as the surge in the global labour supply at a time of rapid globalisation has suppressed wages. With inflation controlled externally it has allowed governments and central banks the luxury of responding to every crisis and shock with more leverage, loose policy and latterly more and more money printing. Its not usually this easy as inflation would have normally increased with such stimulus and credit creation. It could be argued that this external disinflation shock has perhaps ‘saved’ fiat currencies after the runaway inflation of the 1970s in the immediate aftermath of the collapse of the Bretton Woods quasi Gold Standard from 1971 onwards.

What’s implicit there is that if the dynamics that “saved” the fiat regime were to reverse course, well then the untethered system could face an existential crisis.

But before he gets to that, Reid reminds you that contrary to the popular narrative, inflation is not “low” by historical standards. To wit:

Figure 1 shows our global median inflation index back over 800 years and then isolates the period post 1900 where inflation exploded relative to long-term history.

Inflation

Figure 2 then shows this in year-on-year terms and as can be seen, in the 700 years before the twentieth century inflation and deflation were near equal bedfellows with only a gradual upward creep in inflation as new precious metals were mined or governments periodically punched holes in existing coins and thus slightly debasing the currency.

Inflation2

The message: this is relative. “As someone that has studied economic history it always amuses me to hear that we live in times of extremely low inflation when history would suggest these are relatively high inflation times,” Reid writes, delivering what is probably an uncomfortable reality check to anyone who isn’t steeped in eight centuries of econ data. Here’s how Reid explains our current situation:

What has happened though is that we saw a 35 year disinflationary period start in 1980 that took inflation down from the extremes at the start of that decade to what we think will be the secular lows around the middle of this decade.

Ok, so getting back to the question of whether we can continue to depend on the disinflationary shock that’s allowed the current system to persist (and that gives us the flexibility to respond to crises with inflationary policies), Reid’s answer is “perhaps not.”

“We think that the effective global labour force exploded from around 1980 due to natural global demographics and China opening up its economy to the outside world at the end of the 1970s,” Reid writes, adding that “in the two decades we have data for prior to 1980, real wage growth was much higher than the post 1980-period.”

Inflation3

Hopefully you can see where this is going. The idea here is that if the supply of labor falls and growth stays on trend, wage pressures rise. And while that’s great for workers in terms of helping to mitigate the disparity between capital and labor, it could imperil the fiat system. Here’s Reid:

The problem for the current global monetary system is that over the last 45 years it has relied on governments and central banks being able to turn on the stimulus spigots at the drop of a hat when a crisis has come. This has enabled each crisis to be dealt with via increasing leverage rather than creative destruction type policies. For this to be possible you’ve needed an offset to such stimulus to prevent such policies being inflationary. Fortunately (or unfortunately if you believe it’s an inherently unstable equilibrium) the external global downward pressure on labour costs ensured that this has happened. So what would happen to the global monetary system if labour costs started to reverse their 35 year trend? If central banks had their current mandates of keeping inflation around 2% then they would be duty bound to tighten policy more often regardless of the external environment. However, such an outcome is probably unrealistic given how much debt there is at a global level.

And so, inevitably, central banks would need to act to ensure that yields didn’t skyrocket (do quote Donald Trump: “DO SOMETHING!”). That would mean still more QE, and around we go until all vestiges of control are lost.

Then comes the end game:

Eventually, it’s possible that inflation becomes more and more uncontrollable and the era of fiat currencies looks vulnerable as people lose faith in paper money. Once the value of debt has been eroded the debate would likely be live as to what replaces fiat currencies as surely the backlash would be severe against the system that allowed us to get to such a situation.

Reid goes further to lay out the counter arguments, not the least of which is of course that technology represents a powerful source of structural deflation. That entire argument can be summed up in one visual:

d69b354fb831ef222c7f7f6af61931d9

But at the end of the day, the question for us is this: what does it say about a system when the feasibility of that system rests entirely on there being a disinflationary offset that allows something inherently dubious (fiat money) to remain some semblance of viable?

Something to think about.

Money

And no, this post should not be seen as an endorsement of Bitcoin or as a call to buy physical gold, because although everything said above might leave you inclined to think that we’re believers in cryptocurrencies and shiny yellow metal as “stores of value”, regular readers know that’s not our position.

 

SAVE AS MANY AS YOU CAN

Online RE

  • Administrator
  • Chief Cook & Bottlewasher
  • *****
  • Posts: 34186
    • View Profile
All of the World’s Money and Markets in One Visualization
« Reply #63 on: November 04, 2017, 10:55:51 AM »
http://www.visualcapitalist.com/worlds-money-markets-one-visualization-2017/

All of the World’s Money and Markets in One Visualization


SAVE AS MANY AS YOU CAN

Offline Surly1

  • Administrator
  • Master Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 14383
    • View Profile
    • Doomstead Diner
Re: Da Fed: Central Banking According to RE
« Reply #64 on: November 04, 2017, 11:00:00 AM »
Great find. Love infographics anyhow, but this is exceptional.
"It is difficult to write a paradiso when all the superficial indications are that you ought to write an apocalypse." -Ezra Pound

Offline moniker

  • Bussing Staff
  • **
  • Posts: 82
    • View Profile
Re: All of the World’s Money and Markets in One Visualization
« Reply #65 on: November 04, 2017, 12:46:37 PM »
http://www.visualcapitalist.com/worlds-money-markets-one-visualization-2017/

All of the World’s Money and Markets in One Visualization

Nice visualization, but the amount of derivatives is usually stated in notional value. The amount of money that will actually be transacted is a small fraction of notional value.

Online RE

  • Administrator
  • Chief Cook & Bottlewasher
  • *****
  • Posts: 34186
    • View Profile
Re: All of the World’s Money and Markets in One Visualization
« Reply #66 on: November 04, 2017, 01:29:38 PM »
Nice visualization, but the amount of derivatives is usually stated in notional value. The amount of money that will actually be transacted is a small fraction of notional value.

That is irrelevant.  The derivatives represent assts on the bank balance sheets that serve as collateral for other loans.  Once you net out the derivatives, there is no longer sufficient notional capital for the bank to support the loans, and it becomes insolvent.  Other banks call in those loans, because they too are in trouble with their balance sheets.  It's a classic cascade failure of a Ponzi.

RE
SAVE AS MANY AS YOU CAN

Offline moniker

  • Bussing Staff
  • **
  • Posts: 82
    • View Profile
Re: All of the World’s Money and Markets in One Visualization
« Reply #67 on: November 04, 2017, 03:00:41 PM »
Nice visualization, but the amount of derivatives is usually stated in notional value. The amount of money that will actually be transacted is a small fraction of notional value.

That is irrelevant.  The derivatives represent assts on the bank balance sheets that serve as collateral for other loans.  Once you net out the derivatives, there is no longer sufficient notional capital for the bank to support the loans, and it becomes insolvent.  Other banks call in those loans, because they too are in trouble with their balance sheets.  It's a classic cascade failure of a Ponzi.

RE

The following is from fasb.org,

Accounting for Derivative Instruments and Hedging Activities (Issued 6/98)
Summary

This Statement establishes accounting and reporting standards for derivative instruments, including certain derivative instruments embedded in other contracts, (collectively referred to as derivatives) and for hedging activities. It requires that an entity recognize all derivatives as either assets or liabilities in the statement of financial position and measure those instruments at fair value. If certain conditions are met, a derivative may be specifically designated as (a) a hedge of the exposure to changes in the fair value of a recognized asset or liability or an unrecognized firm commitment, (b) a hedge of the exposure to variable cash flows of a forecasted transaction, or (c) a hedge of the foreign currency exposure of a net investment in a foreign operation, an unrecognized firm commitment, an available-for-sale security, or a foreign-currency-denominated forecasted transaction.


The fair value of a derivative will be less than its notional value.

Online RE

  • Administrator
  • Chief Cook & Bottlewasher
  • *****
  • Posts: 34186
    • View Profile
Re: All of the World’s Money and Markets in One Visualization
« Reply #68 on: November 04, 2017, 05:46:13 PM »
Nice visualization, but the amount of derivatives is usually stated in notional value. The amount of money that will actually be transacted is a small fraction of notional value.

That is irrelevant.  The derivatives represent assts on the bank balance sheets that serve as collateral for other loans.  Once you net out the derivatives, there is no longer sufficient notional capital for the bank to support the loans, and it becomes insolvent.  Other banks call in those loans, because they too are in trouble with their balance sheets.  It's a classic cascade failure of a Ponzi.

RE

The following is from fasb.org,

Accounting for Derivative Instruments and Hedging Activities (Issued 6/98)
Summary

This Statement establishes accounting and reporting standards for derivative instruments, including certain derivative instruments embedded in other contracts, (collectively referred to as derivatives) and for hedging activities. It requires that an entity recognize all derivatives as either assets or liabilities in the statement of financial position and measure those instruments at fair value. If certain conditions are met, a derivative may be specifically designated as (a) a hedge of the exposure to changes in the fair value of a recognized asset or liability or an unrecognized firm commitment, (b) a hedge of the exposure to variable cash flows of a forecasted transaction, or (c) a hedge of the foreign currency exposure of a net investment in a foreign operation, an unrecognized firm commitment, an available-for-sale security, or a foreign-currency-denominated forecasted transaction.


The fair value of a derivative will be less than its notional value.

Obviously, but once they net out they have ZERO value.

RE
SAVE AS MANY AS YOU CAN

Online RE

  • Administrator
  • Chief Cook & Bottlewasher
  • *****
  • Posts: 34186
    • View Profile
https://wolfstreet.com/2018/01/09/ecb-spawns-mass-culture-of-financial-dependency-thats-now-very-hard-to-undo/

ECB Spawned Mass Culture of Financial Dependency that’s Now Very Hard to Undo


by Don Quijones • Jan 9, 2018 • 9 Comments   
Right at the front of the monetary welfare queue is the government of Italy.
By Don Quijones, Spain, UK, & Mexico, editor at WOLF STREET.

As the Eurozone economy continues to grow, pressure is rising on Europe’s biggest bond buyer, the ECB, to withdraw from the market, a process it has already begun. No one believes that more than the head of Germany’s Bundesbank, Jens Weidmann, who recently told Spanish newspaper El Mundo that the ECB should soon set a date to end its multi-trillion euro asset-buying program.

”The prospects for the evolution of prices correspond to a return of inflation to a level sufficient to maintain the stability of prices,” he said. “For this reason, in my opinion, it would be justifiable to put a clear end to the buying of bonds by establishing a concrete date (for ending the program).”

Weidmann, who is hotly tipped to replace Draghi in 2019, has been one of the most vocal critics of the ECB’s QE program.

“Central banks have become the largest creditors of nation states,” Weidmann noted. “With our program of bond purchases, the financing conditions of Member States depend much more directly on monetary policy than in normal times. This could lead to political pressure on the ECB board to maintain lax monetary policy for longer than would in fact be justified from the perspective of price stability.”

Though it has lowered its asset purchases to €30 billion a month, the ECB has pledged to keep buying until at least September. But with the Eurozone economy growing faster than it has since the crisis and inflation comfortably above 1%, the ECB is widely expected to wind down the program thereafter. “If the economy continues to do so well, we could let the program run out in 2018,” ECB rate-setter Ewald Nowotny told Sueddeutsche Zeitung.

But what would that mean for the countries, companies, and banks that have grown to depend so much on the ECB’s extraordinary largesse?

Right at the front of the monetary welfare queue is the government of Italy, which is saddled with one of the biggest public debt mountains on the planet. The ECB now holds €326 billion of Italian bonds, an amount that far exceeds the €246 billion increase of Italy’s gross national debt since 2012, when this program started. The ECB’s binge buying of Italian debt has enabled just about every other investor in the market, including Italian, French and German banks, to offload some of their holdings.

As the ECB cuts its purchases of Italian bonds, those investors will have to come back into the market in a big way; otherwise the yields on Italian bonds will begin soaring, driving up the costs of funding for the government. This will be a huge, perhaps even insurmountable, problem for a country whose economy is still 6% smaller than it had been before the global financial crisis of 2008.

But the problem of mass financial dependency in Europe created by the ECB’s unconventional monetary programs extends far beyond national governments. As the IMF warned in its latest note on Spain’s financial system, Spanish banks have also grown dangerously dependent on ECB liquidity in recent years, with 6% of their total funding now coming directly from the central bank’s coffers

In this case it’s not the ECB’s QE programs but rather its myriad TLTRO programs, clocking in at almost one trillion euros, that have fuelled the dependency. Many banks used the virtually free loans the ECB offered them for carry-trade purposes, acquiring 2-3% yielding Spanish bonds and pocketing the difference. According to the IMF, by the close of 2016, one entity (whose identity it refuses to disclose, for obvious reasons) relied on ECB funding for 17% of its liquidity needs.

Although the report’s authors acknowledge that overall Spanish banks’ finances have improved in recent years, they have serious reservations about the banks’ capacity to access sufficient funds in an adverse market scenario. They also believe that replacing ECB financing, which is virtually free of charge, with funds provided by the more expensive wholesale market could be “detrimental” to the stability of Spanish banks. There could even be “liquidity tensions” if the ECB opts to cut off the liquidity tap too fast.

Also at risk of a drastic draw down in ECB funds are the hordes of zombie companies for whom the ECB’s buying of corporate bonds and the artificial regime of low or even negative interest rates have provided a desperate lifeline. According to research by Bank of America, about 9% of Europe’s biggest companies could be classified as the walking dead — that is, companies with interest-coverage ratios at 1 or less and that risk collapse if the support dries up.

In other words, rather than helping to address the myriad systemic issues plaguing Eurozone banks, the ECB’s multi-trillion euro monetary policy measures have merely delayed the inevitable while creating a mass culture of monetary dependency at the very top of Europe’s shaky economic edifice. By Don Quijones.

Did someone say “referendum?” Read…  Switzerland too Falls Out of Love with the EU
SAVE AS MANY AS YOU CAN

Online RE

  • Administrator
  • Chief Cook & Bottlewasher
  • *****
  • Posts: 34186
    • View Profile
Bye-Bye Dammit Janet
« Reply #70 on: January 31, 2018, 12:43:49 PM »
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/MZtavHAsQCM" target="_blank" class="new_win">http://www.youtube.com/v/MZtavHAsQCM</a>

RE

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-01-31/fed-leaves-rate-unchanged-as-yellen-departs-sets-up-march-hike


Janet Yellen’s Fed Era Ends With Unanimous Vote of No Rate Hike

By Craig Torres
and Christopher Condon
January 31, 2018, 10:00 AM AKST Updated on January 31, 2018, 11:00 AM AKST


    Adds ‘further’ for emphasis in outlook for gradual hikes
    Inflation ‘is expected to move up this year,’ FOMC says

Trump Warns Against Concessions to North Korea
FBI Director Wray Said to Oppose Release of GOP Memo on Russia Probe
The Fed keeps borrowing rates unchanged. Bloomberg’s Chris Condon reports.

Federal Reserve officials, meeting for the last time under Chair Janet Yellen, left borrowing costs unchanged while adding emphasis to their plan for more hikes, setting the stage for an increase in March under her successor Jerome Powell.

“The committee expects that economic conditions will evolve in a manner that will warrant further gradual increases in the federal funds rate,” the policy-setting Federal Open Market Committee said in a statement Wednesday in Washington, adding the word “further” twice to previous language.


The changes to the statement, collectively acknowledging stronger growth and more confidence that inflation will rise to their 2 percent target, may spur speculation that the Fed will pick up the pace of interest-rate increases. Officials also said inflation “is expected to move up this year and to stabilize” around the goal, in phrasing that marked an upgrade from their statement in December.

At the same time, the Fed repeated language saying that “near-term risks to the economic outlook appear roughly balanced.”

“It opens the door to four hikes for them, but I don’t think they have walked through it,” said Michael Gapen, chief U.S. economist at Barclays Plc in New York. “It closes the door to two hikes.” Fed officials penciled in three rate moves this year in quarterly forecasts they updated last month, according to their median projection.

With her term ending later this week after President Donald Trump chose to replace her, Yellen is handing the reins to Powell, who has backed her gradual approach and is widely expected to raise interest rates at the FOMC’s next meeting for the sixth time since late 2015. Fed officials are hoping to keep a tight labor market from overheating without raising borrowing costs so fast that it would stifle the economy.

“Gains in employment, household spending and business fixed investment have been solid, and the unemployment rate has stayed low,” the Fed said, removing previous references to disruptions from hurricanes. “Market-based measures of inflation compensation have increased in recent months but remain low.”

With a gradual pace of rate increases, policy makers want to nudge inflation back up to their 2 percent target, a goal they have mostly missed for more than five years. Even with a brightening outlook for global growth and Fed tightening, financial conditions continue to ease.
What Our Economists Say
The FOMC is more confident in the inflation outlook, but is not looking to deviate from its gradual path of policy normalization. The economic assessment acknowledged straightforward improvements in economic conditions, but the tone in no way hints of concerns about the economy overheating.

The Fed is on track to raise rates in March.

-- Carl Riccadonna and Yelena Shulyatyeva, Bloomberg Economics

The vote by U.S. central bankers to keep the benchmark overnight lending rate in a 1.25 percent to 1.5 percent target range was unanimous. Fed officials also voted to continue with their program to reduce the central bank’s balance sheet, which began in October.

The FOMC said in a separate statement Wednesday that it elected Powell as its chairman, effective Feb. 3. He will be sworn in as chairman of the Board of Governors on Feb. 5.

“On a 12-month basis, both overall inflation and inflation for items other than food and energy have continued to run below 2 percent,” the FOMC said, removing a previous reference to declines in inflation in 2017.

Inflation has picked up slightly since the middle of 2017 while remaining short of the central bank’s 2 percent goal. The Fed’s preferred price gauge, a Commerce Department index linked to consumer spending, rose 1.7 percent in the 12 months through December. Excluding volatile food and energy costs, inflation was 1.5 percent.

Yellen isn’t scheduled to hold a press conference after this meeting; her final such event was in December. Fed policy makers will update their economic projections in March, when Powell is also expected to hold his first press briefing as chairman.
New Members

An annual rotation among the 12 regional Fed presidents who vote on the FOMC saw Loretta Mester of Cleveland, Thomas Barkin of Richmond, Raphael Bostic of Atlanta, and John Williams of San Francisco join as members at this meeting. Barkin and Bostic are voting for the first time since taking their posts.

The committee also reviewed its long-run policy goals statement at the January meeting and reiterated its support for the 2 percent inflation target, approving a statement that updated the long-run normal rate of unemployment to 4.6 percent -- the median in projections from December.

Several Fed officials have called for a rethink of the central bank’s policy framework, which could include aiming for a higher inflation target, or allowing prices to rise faster to make up for the time that they were too low.

During Yellen’s four years at the helm, U.S. unemployment has fallen to 4.1 percent, the lowest since 2000, as she navigated the Fed away from its crisis-era emergency policies and inched interest rates away from zero. Yellen exploited low inflation to maintain low interest rates that helped pull millions of more Americans back into jobs, and the Fed under her leadership began to pay more attention to labor-market inequality.

“She is going out on a high note,” Diane Swonk, chief economist for Grant Thornton LLP in Chicago, said before Wednesday’s decision.
SAVE AS MANY AS YOU CAN

Offline Eddie

  • Administrator
  • Master Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 16110
    • View Profile
Re: Da Fed: Central Banking According to RE
« Reply #71 on: January 31, 2018, 01:21:05 PM »
Another weasel slips out before the chickens come home to roost.  What's the over/under for Powell making it out alive?
What makes the desert beautiful is that somewhere it hides a well.

Online RE

  • Administrator
  • Chief Cook & Bottlewasher
  • *****
  • Posts: 34186
    • View Profile
Re: Da Fed: Central Banking According to RE
« Reply #72 on: January 31, 2018, 01:26:38 PM »
Another weasel slips out before the chickens come home to roost.  What's the over/under for Powell making it out alive?

Term is 4 years, right?  I give it 65-35 Odds we have a major crash before 4 years is up.

RE
SAVE AS MANY AS YOU CAN

Offline Golden Oxen

  • Golden Oxen
  • Contrarian
  • Master Chef
  • *
  • Posts: 12070
    • View Profile
Re: Da Fed: Central Banking According to RE
« Reply #73 on: January 31, 2018, 10:38:23 PM »
Another weasel slips out before the chickens come home to roost.  What's the over/under for Powell making it out alive?

Term is 4 years, right?  I give it 65-35 Odds we have a major crash before 4 years is up.

RE

Amazed at your optimism RE.

Put me down for 6 months to a year,"At Most."

Online RE

  • Administrator
  • Chief Cook & Bottlewasher
  • *****
  • Posts: 34186
    • View Profile
Re: Da Fed: Central Banking According to RE
« Reply #74 on: February 01, 2018, 01:15:42 AM »
Another weasel slips out before the chickens come home to roost.  What's the over/under for Powell making it out alive?

Term is 4 years, right?  I give it 65-35 Odds we have a major crash before 4 years is up.

RE

It could come in 6mo-1yr, however I would put the odds on the at about 1:5.

RE

Amazed at your optimism RE.

Put me down for 6 months to a year,"At Most."
SAVE AS MANY AS YOU CAN

 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
2 Replies
1724 Views
Last post December 26, 2014, 11:19:47 PM
by RE
1 Replies
776 Views
Last post July 03, 2015, 05:31:53 PM
by azozeo
0 Replies
319 Views
Last post July 07, 2016, 04:28:57 PM
by RE