PDA

View Full Version : Fed to Buy $300 billion in Treasurys; Will Double up Fannie and Freddie securities



Winehole23
03-19-2009, 10:52 AM
Federal Reserve plan stuns investors (http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/15eb2de2-13d8-11de-9e32-0000779fd2ac.html?nclick_check=1)

By Krishna Guha in Washington



Published: March 18 2009 18:17 | Last updated: March 18 2009 23:40

The Federal Reserve on Wednesday stunned investors by announcing plans to buy $300bn of US government debt, triggering a plunge in bond yields and the dollar.


In a further display of aggression, the US central bank also said it was more than doubling its purchases of securities issued by housing giants Fannie Mae (http://markets.ft.com/tearsheets/performance.asp?s=us:FNM) and Freddie Mac (http://markets.ft.com/tearsheets/performance.asp?s=us:FRE) to $1,450bn. It said it now expected to keep interest rates near zero for an “extended period” of time.
EDITOR’S CHOICE (registration is free)


Opinion: The quest for a global solution is misguided (http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/350a26b2-140d-11de-9e32-0000779fd2ac.html) - Mar-18


Treasury bonds gyrate on Fed’s shock move (http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/4aa726c6-1419-11de-9e32-0000779fd2ac.html) - Mar-19


Short View: Fed’s shock and awe (http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/71da8612-13fa-11de-9e32-0000779fd2ac.html) - Mar-18


Fed boosts mortgage and Treasury markets (http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/1ce3853c-13f0-11de-9e32-0000779fd2ac.html) - Mar-18


Fed move leads to flip-flop charge (http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/774380d6-1413-11de-9e32-0000779fd2ac.html) - Mar-18


US stocks spike on Fed plan (http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/56575dd6-13c1-11de-9e32-0000779fd2ac.html) - Mar-18




The yield on 10-year US Treasuries plummeted 50 basis points to 2.50 per cent, while private borrowing rates fell by roughly half as much. Equities bounced with big gains in troubled banks such as Citigroup and Bank of America. But the dollar fell 3.2 per cent against the euro and 2.3 per cent against the yen.

Interactive feature

http://media.ft.com/cms/e88ae014-f8ec-11dd-ab7f-000077b07658.jpgQuantitative easing explained (http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/8ada2ad4-f3b9-11dd-9c4b-0000779fd2ac.html)

Goldman Sachs said the Fed was throwing the “kitchen sink” at the problem. The plan to buy Treasuries caught investors off guard. “It appears that they wanted to give the market a jolt,” said Peter Hooper, an economist at Deutsche Bank.



The last time the central bank attempted to bring down yields on long-term securities through direct intervention came during the ill-fated Operation Twist in the 1960s. Recent comments by Ben Bernanke, Federal Reserve chairman, and William Dudley, New York Fed president, did not suggest that Treasury purchases were imminent.


But the deterioration in the US outlook, problems rolling out the US financial rescue plan and the Bank of England’s success in buying UK government gilts seem to have persuaded the Fed to act.



Alan Ruskin, a strategist at RBS, said it was a “flip-flop” that “could be cast as a sign of desperation” but “confirmed that Bernanke will do whatever it takes to get some hold of the problem”.


The Fed said it would concentrate on Treasuries with maturities of two to 10 years. It said its objective was to “improve conditions in private credit markets” – not to help the government finance its mounting deficits. The Bank of Japan said it was stepping up its purchases of Japanese government debt by about a third to Y1,800bn a month.


Wednesday’s Fed announcement will increase the size of its balance sheet by another $1,150bn to about $3,000bn even before the roll-out of a $1,000bn scheme to finance credit markets. Once this scheme is fully implemented, its balance sheet could approach $4,000bn – nearly a third the size of the US economy.


A swollen Fed balance sheet runs the risk that the US central bank may find it difficult to manage down the money supply when the economy turns, raising the possibility of inflation.


Gold surged in response to the Fed’s announcement, rocketing from a session low of $884.10 a troy ounce to a high of $942.90, a jump of 6.6 per cent.

Winehole23
03-19-2009, 11:17 AM
http://i.l.cnn.net/money/2009/03/18/markets/bondcenter/credit_market/ust30y.mkw.gif (http://money.cnn.com/markets/bondcenter/index.html)

Winehole23
03-19-2009, 11:19 AM
http://www.marketwatch.com/charts/gifquotes/story-sm-ss.img?symb=UST2YR&time=6&freq=1&compidx=aaaaa:0&comp=&uf=0&lf=1&lf2=0&lf3=0&state=0&sid=1224038&startdate=&enddate=39890&nosettings=1&%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20style=10 12&size=1&mocktick=1&rand= (http://www.marketwatch.com/tools/quotes/intchart.asp?symb=UST2YR)

TDMVPDPOY
03-19-2009, 11:34 AM
why buy 10year yield bonds at shit rates

when online deposit accounts give around 4.25-5%?

Winehole23
03-19-2009, 11:46 AM
why buy 10year yield bonds at shit rates

when online deposit accounts give around 4.25-5%?Choose a good bank. FDIC doesn't have enough reserves to cover the likely failures in the US.

RandomGuy
03-19-2009, 12:13 PM
A swollen Fed balance sheet runs the risk that the US central bank may find it difficult to manage down the money supply when the economy turns, raising the possibility of inflation.


Gold surged in response to the Fed’s announcement, rocketing from a session low of $884.10 a troy ounce to a high of $942.90, a jump of 6.6 per cent.

Yikes.

We could see some nasty jumps in the discount rate.

The Fed has a lot more room to raise them upwards, so that is a bit less of a problem than the other way around. You can't lower the rate less than zero (although some yields briefly fell below zero in some bond auctions recently)

If the economy starts turning around, there will be some MASSIVE inflationary pressures if so.

I am guessing that they will be unwinding from their present positions over a loooong time.

Wish I could tell where this will all end up. I am staking my retirement investments on the fact that energy will get more expensive overall though.

RandomGuy
03-19-2009, 12:14 PM
Choose a good bank. FDIC doesn't have enough reserves to cover the likely failures in the US.

Nope. Expect to see a rather nasty upwards tick on the price of FDIC insurance...

coyotes_geek
03-19-2009, 12:33 PM
Seems like a good thread to drop this in......

*****************

More Mind-Numbing Stupidity
By Alyce Lomax
March 16, 2009

In yet another piece of news that makes me wonder what planet I am living on, it turns out the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) failed to collect premiums from many banks for 10 years. That's hardly heartening, since the FDIC may need to turn to the government for funds for future bank failures.

The FDIC has sought the ability to borrow up to $500 billion from the U.S. Treasury in case it needs to take over banks.

You probably remember hearing last year that a large portion of what it had on hand was being depleted as the FDIC shelled out for large failures like IndyMac and Washington Mutual, the latter of which was eventually acquired by JPMorganChase (NYSE: JPM). The FDIC had just $18.9 billion as of the end of December, a far cry from the $52.4 billion it had at the end of 2007. Needless to say, the fear is that if the FDIC had to swoop in and take over a huge entity like Citigroup (NYSE: C) or Bank of America (NYSE: BAC), it would be left with nothing but pocket lint.

Rose-colored glasses were "in" for way too long
Unfortunately, it seems the powers that be figured the FDIC didn't need to collect insurance premiums from most banks from 1996 through 2006 because times were so good. According to The Boston Globe, which broke this story, the fund had become so large that interest income on it covered the premiums (or so the argument went). Apparently, there had been so few bank failures in recent memory that this tactic seemed logical. (Then again, what are we dealing with here -- goldfish? Was the savings and loan crisis in the '80s that long ago?)

The Globe quotes FDIC Chairman Sheila Bair as saying, "An important lesson going forward is we need to be building up these funds in good times so you can draw down upon them in bad times." Um, no kidding. As ridiculous as that statement sounds (couldn't a seven-year-old tell you that?), the article does say that Bair did testify on Capitol Hill about the need to impose the fees in 2001, but nothing came of it.

We can thank Congress for this: Banks wanted the fees waived (and as much as this might have boosted their profitability, let's face it, weaseling out of these premiums had to be a negligible boost), and Congress agreed that no collections needed to be made as long as the fund was at "safe" levels. And nobody was at all intellectually prepared for the kind of massive economic storm we have now.

In another example of how messy things can get, the FDIC is now saying it plans a new emergency fee for banks to help shore up its dwindling reserves. Some community banks are complaining that this will make things tough for them. Whether you give credence to that argument or not, it seems as if had things been done properly in the first place, such emergency measures wouldn't need to be taken now.

Another blow to confidence
Given the current crisis, we can all argue about regulatory policies. And we should, because there are plenty of examples when politicians and regulators clearly dropped the ball, and citizens need to hold them accountable. Congress really thought it was reasonable to assume good times would never end? (Let's face it: Our entire culture also forgot about saving for a rainy day, but one might hope our elected representatives would be wiser than that.) It seems Americans who like the idea of the FDIC insuring their deposits should have a bone to pick with those who voted to let banks weasel out of their premiums, if the FDIC was to exist at all.

The FDIC, formed in response to many banks failing after the stock market crashed in 1929, is meant to give people a sense of confidence in their deposits in banks and to discourage bank runs. Its existence reassures depositors that their funds will be safe as they entrust them to banks like SunTrust (NYSE: STI), BB&T (NYSE: BBT), Wells Fargo (NYSE: WFC), and US Bancorp (NYSE: USB), not to mention the small community banks that might not feel too safe without it. For all that everybody's been talking about that elusive commodity "confidence," unfortunately, we are given more and more reasons to be confident of little except that there's been way too much greed and stupidity in both business and government.

That's what gets me. Although greed has been a problem in this mess we're in, I'm beginning to wonder how much has actually been incompetence. Way too many people didn't acknowledge the reality of economic cycles. Way too many people thought the good times would never end. Way too many people acted myopic, even just plain stupid.

Come on, all you supposedly smart ladies and gentlemen in the top ranks of business and government. Start flying straight and proving you're all as smart as you're supposed to be; give us something to be confident about. These days, you're not exactly batting a thousand.

http://www.fool.com/investing/dividends-income/2009/03/16/more-mind-numbing-stup...

Winehole23
03-19-2009, 12:54 PM
Economists react (http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2009/03/18/economists-react-huge-step-forward/).

Winehole23
03-19-2009, 05:18 PM
That's what gets me. Although greed has been a problem in this mess we're in, I'm beginning to wonder how much has actually been incompetence. Way too many people didn't acknowledge the reality of economic cycles. Way too many people thought the good times would never end.That's a pre-911 mindset, bro!

All that worry is outmoded. Deficits? Financial prudence? Capital ratios? Don't matter anymore. Thing of the past. USG backs up the whole tamale if it fails.

Winehole23
03-19-2009, 06:48 PM
En serio, good post, CG.:tu

TDMVPDPOY
03-19-2009, 08:01 PM
us. dollar is deflating.....

thank you :D