Fleursdumal
फूल की बुराई
maremmina bu'aiola, oggi si capisce una seg@ 
Derivati USA: CME-CBOT-NYMEX-ICE T-Bond-10y-Bund : la maledizione di f4f (vm18)
- Creatore Discussione gipa69
- Data di Inizio
Fleursdumal
फूल की बुराई
ah qualcosa si capisce ora, hanno eggiato tutti insieme per le emissioni di corp bonds di sta settimana
Treasuries slip on non-government bond issuance slew
Mon Sep 11, 2006
By John Parry
NEW YORK, Sept 11 (Reuters) - U.S. Treasury debt prices slipped on Monday as traders sold Treasuries to adjust positions ahead of a slew of non-government bond issuance, dealers said.
Bond investors also braced for comments from Federal Reserve speakers that could reinforce or shift the prevailing market view that the central bank will hold interest rates unchanged at its monetary policy meeting later this month.
"I will attribute the down move to a little bit of rate locking and foreign bonds' moves," said Ted Ake, executive director and head of bond trading with Mizuho Securities USA in New York.
Dealers sell Treasuries as they put on "rate locks" ahead of issues of corporate bonds and mortgage-backed securities, which weighs on Treasury prices. Then when deals price, dealers buy Treasuries back, boosting prices.
About $20 billion of corporate bond issuance is expected this week.
Benchmark 10-year notes <US10YT> traded down 7/32 in price for a yield of 4.81 percent, versus 4.78 percent late on Friday. Bond yields and prices move inversely.
"Most of the supply that is coming in these other markets will put a little pressure on us coming into the CPI number on Friday," Ake added.
he August U.S. consumer price index could prove to be the week's economic report which has the biggest market impact.
Earlier, Treasuries hardly budged after Boston Fed President Cathy Minehan echoed Friday's comments from Sandra Pianalto, the president of the Cleveland Federal Reserve, saying she expected to see core inflation subside into next year, although adding the Fed must stay vigilant.
Two-year notes <US2YT> traded down 1/32 in price to yield 4.83 percent, compared with 4.82 percent on Friday.
The bond market is likely to pay close attention to St. Louis Fed President William Poole, scheduled to speak later in the session about monetary policy. Bond investors anticipate the Fed will keep interest rates on hold at its Sept. 20 policy-setting meeting, and any revival of expectations for a rate hike could trigger a bond market sell-off.
The 30-year bond <US30YT> traded down 12/32 in price, for a yield of 4.95 percent, compared with 4.92 percent late on Friday.
Treasuries slip on non-government bond issuance slew
Mon Sep 11, 2006
By John Parry
NEW YORK, Sept 11 (Reuters) - U.S. Treasury debt prices slipped on Monday as traders sold Treasuries to adjust positions ahead of a slew of non-government bond issuance, dealers said.
Bond investors also braced for comments from Federal Reserve speakers that could reinforce or shift the prevailing market view that the central bank will hold interest rates unchanged at its monetary policy meeting later this month.
"I will attribute the down move to a little bit of rate locking and foreign bonds' moves," said Ted Ake, executive director and head of bond trading with Mizuho Securities USA in New York.
Dealers sell Treasuries as they put on "rate locks" ahead of issues of corporate bonds and mortgage-backed securities, which weighs on Treasury prices. Then when deals price, dealers buy Treasuries back, boosting prices.
About $20 billion of corporate bond issuance is expected this week.
Benchmark 10-year notes <US10YT> traded down 7/32 in price for a yield of 4.81 percent, versus 4.78 percent late on Friday. Bond yields and prices move inversely.
"Most of the supply that is coming in these other markets will put a little pressure on us coming into the CPI number on Friday," Ake added.
he August U.S. consumer price index could prove to be the week's economic report which has the biggest market impact.
Earlier, Treasuries hardly budged after Boston Fed President Cathy Minehan echoed Friday's comments from Sandra Pianalto, the president of the Cleveland Federal Reserve, saying she expected to see core inflation subside into next year, although adding the Fed must stay vigilant.
Two-year notes <US2YT> traded down 1/32 in price to yield 4.83 percent, compared with 4.82 percent on Friday.
The bond market is likely to pay close attention to St. Louis Fed President William Poole, scheduled to speak later in the session about monetary policy. Bond investors anticipate the Fed will keep interest rates on hold at its Sept. 20 policy-setting meeting, and any revival of expectations for a rate hike could trigger a bond market sell-off.
The 30-year bond <US30YT> traded down 12/32 in price, for a yield of 4.95 percent, compared with 4.92 percent late on Friday.
ditropan
Forumer storico
spread a 1,596 ...
... settimana scorsa stava sui 2,249 quando è stato segnalato, ad oggi su un contratto future pieno (+4 mini e -4 mini ... queste operazioni è meglio farle sui mini che sono elettronici, quindi più veloci) avrebbe reso la bellezza di :
2,249-1,596 = 0,653 $
10000$ * 0,653 = + 6530 $ !!!!!!!!!!!!
su di un solo mini bisogna dividere per 4 ... ovvero ..
6530/4 = 1632.5 $
... non male direi.
... settimana scorsa stava sui 2,249 quando è stato segnalato, ad oggi su un contratto future pieno (+4 mini e -4 mini ... queste operazioni è meglio farle sui mini che sono elettronici, quindi più veloci) avrebbe reso la bellezza di :
2,249-1,596 = 0,653 $
10000$ * 0,653 = + 6530 $ !!!!!!!!!!!!
su di un solo mini bisogna dividere per 4 ... ovvero ..
6530/4 = 1632.5 $
... non male direi.
gipa69
collegio dei patafisici
Investment Strategy
by Jeffrey Saut
“Any time you subsidize something you get more of it.”
. . . Anonymous
I heard the above quote early in my career on the “street of dreams” and cannot remember if it was from one of Wall Street’s icons like Larry Tisch, one of my mentors (like Lucien Hooper), or the floor traders I used to drink with after the 3:30 p.m. market close at “Harry’s at the AMEX.” However, it was one of those market “saws” that stuck with me over the years, just like “Shorting stocks is a trading operation, because you can only make 100% on you money, unlike going ‘long’ where your upside in unlimited!” Yet to reiterate, “Any time you subsidize something you get more of it” . . . be that subsidized farm crops, alternative energy, welfare, or in this most recent case, real estate.
Verily, the “housing subsidy” was brought about by nearly zero percent “real” interest rates, fancy financing vehicles, no money down schemes, unrealistic appraisals, loose lending standards, generational house price appreciation, a belief that housing prices could never go down, and the list goes on, causing one savvy seer to exclaim, “Can you spell bubble?!” Statistically, however, the new millennium’s housing subsidy made sense, for as the National Association of Realtors’ (NAR) Walter Molony stated in Grant’s Interest Rate Observer, “It (real estate) has never gone nationally.” Yale University’s Robert Shiller agrees, but points out that, “residential real estate prices, in real terms, rose by all of 66% between 1890 and 2004, or by just 0.4% a year.” Grant’s, however, takes exception with Molony’s “never” by noting, “For ‘never’ we would substitute ‘infrequently’ or not since the NAR began keeping score.” Grant’s further expounds, “In fact, average national house prices posted modest declines in 1964 and 1959, as well as horrific drops in both the early 1930s and early 1940s”
More importantly, real estate’s price decline in individual “bubble areas” has been quite severe, as witnessed by Houston’s 23% price decline, and California’s 21% decline in the early 1990s. From a personal perspective, we experienced a HUGE real estate price decline during the 1973 to 1975 Atlanta “condo crash.” While back then real estate’s woes were more of an economic effect than a cause, more recently arguably 30% of the job creation since late 2001 has been driven by real estate (1.4 million of the 4.4 million new jobs), we are concerned about the economic fallout of the current real estate debacle.
Nevertheless, we can also see the bright side of the equation, for as the good folks at GaveKal opine:
“With the slowdown in U.S. housing, the U.S. current account deficit will most likely improve considerably. So much so that ‘net trade’ will add quite a few percentage points to the U.S. GDP, a development which would make a U.S. recession very unlikely. For years, the perma-bears have warned us that the U.S. current account deficit, and the U.S. real estate ‘bubble’ were two side of the same coin. To be fair, there does seem to be a nice correlation. And an unsurprising one at that: a housing boom usually leads to a large increase in imports (furniture, cars, white products, etc. . . .), especially in a country moving increasingly toward services.
But if the perma-bears are right, then the current slowdown in the U.S. property market should lead to a large improvement in the current account deficit. We thus need to prepare for a sharp drop in U.S. imports in the next few months. . . . Let us take for granted that the U.S. current account deficit will be ‘improving’ over the coming months. Some might welcome this news; we see it as a serious source of concern. Indeed, as we have shown time and again, the U.S. current account deficit is the primary source of liquidity for world trade.
Because the U.S.$ is still the reserve currency of the world, and because most trade exchanges are still priced in U.S.$, a reduction in the U.S. deficit is equivalent to a liquidity squeeze. When the U.S. deficit improves, all of a sudden, outside the U.S., there are less U.S.$ around to grease the wheels of global trade. Money becomes scarcer. Which is why, with each improvement in the U.S. current account deficit, someone who is in debt and/or negative cash, goes bust. From painful, and expensive experience, we have learnt that, when the U.S. current account deficit improves, one wants to own little but debt-free assets that generate U.S.$ cash-flows.”
Under GaveKal’s scenario U.S. investors would likely want to go from being over-weight foreign investments, and commodities, to underweighted; and, over-weighted “platform companies” with little debt and strong free cash flows. While we are intrigued by GaveKal insights into the housing situation, and its favorable impact on the current account deficit, we have a difficult time embracing their views on the concurrent impact on foreign markets, and commodities, even though we continue to think the correction in those arenas is not complete. In our view, a collapse in housing prices is a bad “bet” because houses “vote!” Therefore, the powers that be will do ANYTHING to prevent a housing crash. Consequently, our views are more aligned with our economist, Scott J. Brown, Ph.D. While we have condensed his comments due to space constraints, his full remarks can be found on page 3 of these comments. To wit:
“There is widespread confusion about the role of housing in the business cycle. While housing slowdowns have coincided with broad economic downturns in the past, housing sector weakness has been more of an effect than a cause of recession. Building permits are one of ten components in the leading economic indicators, but housing is not, by itself, ‘predictive’ of general economic health. Residential construction accounts for about 6% of GDP – a 30% correction would not, by itself, send the economy into a recession. Of course, there are a number of important secondary effects – the impact of the loss of housing wealth on consumer spending, adjustable rate mortgage resets, and a slowing in the net extraction of home equity. Home prices will be sluggish to decline – so we are unlikely to see a sharp unraveling of the price increases of the last few years. More likely, prices will flatten or rise slowly for an extended period.
About $1.2 trillion in adjustable rate mortgages (first lien, second mortgages, and home equity lines of credit) will reset both this year and next. While this seems large, many will convert to fixed rate mortgages (still relatively low by historical standards). For those with resetting mortgages, the impact will be significant, but the aggregate impact on the consumer sector will be moderate. The net extraction of home equity has been a significant force supporting consumer spending growth (amid a lack of job growth in the first two years of the recovery and then in the face of higher energy costs in the last two years). However, while net home equity extraction is likely to slow, it should not disappear completely (again, mortgage rates remain relatively low). As the impact of net home equity extraction fades, job and wage growth should work to support consumer spending growth. In addition, a flattening in oil prices would lead to lower inflation and higher real wage gains, more than offsetting the secondary effects from the housing slowdown.”
The call for this week: We remain in the camp that says no recession (a view embraced for nearly five years), although admittedly the odds of a recession are rising. We also are in the camp that thinks the equity markets are in a topping process even while averring the DJIA could “tag” a new all-time high in the process. Additionally, as stated in last Thursday’s comments, if forced to make a trading bet right here it would be that volatility is going to rise and therefore believe trading accounts should consider going long the Volatility Index (VIX/13.16). Moreover, while “shorting” is a trading operation, for investment accounts a prudent hedge to your long positions would clearly be some short positions. In past missives recommendations have been made on a number of long/short mutual funds to achieve this goal. There are also a number of new “short” ETFs (Exchange Traded Funds) for the various indices (call our Closed-End Fund Research Department). As for me, I think The Prudent Bear Fund (BEARX/$6.07) makes a lot of sense since David Tice & Associates do research on individual stocks to “short” in an attempt to add value over and above just the shorting of indexes. And, to the 16 friends I lost five years ago . . . I still miss you!
September 11, 2006
by Jeffrey Saut
“Any time you subsidize something you get more of it.”
. . . Anonymous
I heard the above quote early in my career on the “street of dreams” and cannot remember if it was from one of Wall Street’s icons like Larry Tisch, one of my mentors (like Lucien Hooper), or the floor traders I used to drink with after the 3:30 p.m. market close at “Harry’s at the AMEX.” However, it was one of those market “saws” that stuck with me over the years, just like “Shorting stocks is a trading operation, because you can only make 100% on you money, unlike going ‘long’ where your upside in unlimited!” Yet to reiterate, “Any time you subsidize something you get more of it” . . . be that subsidized farm crops, alternative energy, welfare, or in this most recent case, real estate.
Verily, the “housing subsidy” was brought about by nearly zero percent “real” interest rates, fancy financing vehicles, no money down schemes, unrealistic appraisals, loose lending standards, generational house price appreciation, a belief that housing prices could never go down, and the list goes on, causing one savvy seer to exclaim, “Can you spell bubble?!” Statistically, however, the new millennium’s housing subsidy made sense, for as the National Association of Realtors’ (NAR) Walter Molony stated in Grant’s Interest Rate Observer, “It (real estate) has never gone nationally.” Yale University’s Robert Shiller agrees, but points out that, “residential real estate prices, in real terms, rose by all of 66% between 1890 and 2004, or by just 0.4% a year.” Grant’s, however, takes exception with Molony’s “never” by noting, “For ‘never’ we would substitute ‘infrequently’ or not since the NAR began keeping score.” Grant’s further expounds, “In fact, average national house prices posted modest declines in 1964 and 1959, as well as horrific drops in both the early 1930s and early 1940s”
More importantly, real estate’s price decline in individual “bubble areas” has been quite severe, as witnessed by Houston’s 23% price decline, and California’s 21% decline in the early 1990s. From a personal perspective, we experienced a HUGE real estate price decline during the 1973 to 1975 Atlanta “condo crash.” While back then real estate’s woes were more of an economic effect than a cause, more recently arguably 30% of the job creation since late 2001 has been driven by real estate (1.4 million of the 4.4 million new jobs), we are concerned about the economic fallout of the current real estate debacle.
Nevertheless, we can also see the bright side of the equation, for as the good folks at GaveKal opine:
“With the slowdown in U.S. housing, the U.S. current account deficit will most likely improve considerably. So much so that ‘net trade’ will add quite a few percentage points to the U.S. GDP, a development which would make a U.S. recession very unlikely. For years, the perma-bears have warned us that the U.S. current account deficit, and the U.S. real estate ‘bubble’ were two side of the same coin. To be fair, there does seem to be a nice correlation. And an unsurprising one at that: a housing boom usually leads to a large increase in imports (furniture, cars, white products, etc. . . .), especially in a country moving increasingly toward services.
But if the perma-bears are right, then the current slowdown in the U.S. property market should lead to a large improvement in the current account deficit. We thus need to prepare for a sharp drop in U.S. imports in the next few months. . . . Let us take for granted that the U.S. current account deficit will be ‘improving’ over the coming months. Some might welcome this news; we see it as a serious source of concern. Indeed, as we have shown time and again, the U.S. current account deficit is the primary source of liquidity for world trade.
Because the U.S.$ is still the reserve currency of the world, and because most trade exchanges are still priced in U.S.$, a reduction in the U.S. deficit is equivalent to a liquidity squeeze. When the U.S. deficit improves, all of a sudden, outside the U.S., there are less U.S.$ around to grease the wheels of global trade. Money becomes scarcer. Which is why, with each improvement in the U.S. current account deficit, someone who is in debt and/or negative cash, goes bust. From painful, and expensive experience, we have learnt that, when the U.S. current account deficit improves, one wants to own little but debt-free assets that generate U.S.$ cash-flows.”
Under GaveKal’s scenario U.S. investors would likely want to go from being over-weight foreign investments, and commodities, to underweighted; and, over-weighted “platform companies” with little debt and strong free cash flows. While we are intrigued by GaveKal insights into the housing situation, and its favorable impact on the current account deficit, we have a difficult time embracing their views on the concurrent impact on foreign markets, and commodities, even though we continue to think the correction in those arenas is not complete. In our view, a collapse in housing prices is a bad “bet” because houses “vote!” Therefore, the powers that be will do ANYTHING to prevent a housing crash. Consequently, our views are more aligned with our economist, Scott J. Brown, Ph.D. While we have condensed his comments due to space constraints, his full remarks can be found on page 3 of these comments. To wit:
“There is widespread confusion about the role of housing in the business cycle. While housing slowdowns have coincided with broad economic downturns in the past, housing sector weakness has been more of an effect than a cause of recession. Building permits are one of ten components in the leading economic indicators, but housing is not, by itself, ‘predictive’ of general economic health. Residential construction accounts for about 6% of GDP – a 30% correction would not, by itself, send the economy into a recession. Of course, there are a number of important secondary effects – the impact of the loss of housing wealth on consumer spending, adjustable rate mortgage resets, and a slowing in the net extraction of home equity. Home prices will be sluggish to decline – so we are unlikely to see a sharp unraveling of the price increases of the last few years. More likely, prices will flatten or rise slowly for an extended period.
About $1.2 trillion in adjustable rate mortgages (first lien, second mortgages, and home equity lines of credit) will reset both this year and next. While this seems large, many will convert to fixed rate mortgages (still relatively low by historical standards). For those with resetting mortgages, the impact will be significant, but the aggregate impact on the consumer sector will be moderate. The net extraction of home equity has been a significant force supporting consumer spending growth (amid a lack of job growth in the first two years of the recovery and then in the face of higher energy costs in the last two years). However, while net home equity extraction is likely to slow, it should not disappear completely (again, mortgage rates remain relatively low). As the impact of net home equity extraction fades, job and wage growth should work to support consumer spending growth. In addition, a flattening in oil prices would lead to lower inflation and higher real wage gains, more than offsetting the secondary effects from the housing slowdown.”
The call for this week: We remain in the camp that says no recession (a view embraced for nearly five years), although admittedly the odds of a recession are rising. We also are in the camp that thinks the equity markets are in a topping process even while averring the DJIA could “tag” a new all-time high in the process. Additionally, as stated in last Thursday’s comments, if forced to make a trading bet right here it would be that volatility is going to rise and therefore believe trading accounts should consider going long the Volatility Index (VIX/13.16). Moreover, while “shorting” is a trading operation, for investment accounts a prudent hedge to your long positions would clearly be some short positions. In past missives recommendations have been made on a number of long/short mutual funds to achieve this goal. There are also a number of new “short” ETFs (Exchange Traded Funds) for the various indices (call our Closed-End Fund Research Department). As for me, I think The Prudent Bear Fund (BEARX/$6.07) makes a lot of sense since David Tice & Associates do research on individual stocks to “short” in an attempt to add value over and above just the shorting of indexes. And, to the 16 friends I lost five years ago . . . I still miss you!
September 11, 2006
gipa69
collegio dei patafisici
gipa69
collegio dei patafisici
gipa69
collegio dei patafisici
Per l'uomo (si fa per dire ) di poca fede f4f....
quà sotto il grafichino che mostra la quasi perfetta relazione tra indice azionario US e andamento dell'oil.....
Notare che la ripartenza è partita prima per l'azionario ma è terminata anche dopo....
Inoltre sempre per rimarcare la mancanza di fiducia notare come stamattina tra le 10 e le 12 ora italiana i miei interventi sottolineavano la possibilità di ripartenza dai minimi per gli indici e notare sotto dove si trovava il futuro del minisp500 a quell'ora e come dopo aver fatto un doppio minimo da manuale in corrispondenza del minimo dell'oil (in area 65 ultimo baluardo....) si sia comportato.
ahimè mi tocca fare tutto da solo
per punizione hai da studiare i seguenti strumenti...
XLF January 2007 put options 33 XLFMG
SDS proshares ultrashort S&P500
BEARX Prudent Bear Fund
PS: rimbalzo dell'oil poco convinto e Eur/Yen su resistenza cruciale.
) di poca fede f4f....quà sotto il grafichino che mostra la quasi perfetta relazione tra indice azionario US e andamento dell'oil.....
Notare che la ripartenza è partita prima per l'azionario ma è terminata anche dopo....
Inoltre sempre per rimarcare la mancanza di fiducia notare come stamattina tra le 10 e le 12 ora italiana i miei interventi sottolineavano la possibilità di ripartenza dai minimi per gli indici e notare sotto dove si trovava il futuro del minisp500 a quell'ora e come dopo aver fatto un doppio minimo da manuale in corrispondenza del minimo dell'oil (in area 65 ultimo baluardo....) si sia comportato.
ahimè mi tocca fare tutto da solo
per punizione hai da studiare i seguenti strumenti...
XLF January 2007 put options 33 XLFMG
SDS proshares ultrashort S&P500
BEARX Prudent Bear Fund
PS: rimbalzo dell'oil poco convinto e Eur/Yen su resistenza cruciale.
Fernando'S
Forumer storico
Fernando'S
Forumer storico
sopra è lo s&P e qui sotto il bravo della famiglia
meglio di così .... 30 punti sul nasdq100 sono buoni
...nasdy è sempre puntuale
Fernando'S ha scritto:
meglio di così .... 30 punti sul nasdq100 sono buoni
...nasdy è sempre puntuale