3 ms·

$15.3B is, what, 2.19% ROI? Do you know what else could have been done with an investment of $700B in government outlay in the same period? The Fed funds rate

$15.3B is, what, 2.19% ROI? Do you know what else could have been done with an investment of $700B in government outlay in the same period? The Fed funds rate is being raised on the backs of long-term investors who are forced to suffer interest-rate risk, bar the ones who got out in time of course with sufficient inside information -- guess who those are. This is just the flip side of the Fed funds rate being kept low on the backs of short-term investors in prior years. If you were in short-term investment until recently and began investing as the economy got better -- all very rational, risk-averse behavior -- or were just beginning to accumulate savings, you just got screwed twice. You'll get screwed a third time when the next financial crisis hits. We're all literally still paying for the banks' last mistakes, and will continue to do so for many years to come. And yeah, your chart [2] conveniently ends at 2017-01-01 just after the time when interest rates troughed. This is also with the backdrop of a relatively strong GDP and not considering the increasing fiscal load being shunted to the state and local levels. The fiscal situation is not good and the only thing propping it up is dollar seigniorage, which, let's be honest, is necessarily going to end at the worst moment when you most need it.

pas 8y ago
Investors invest in both good and bad times. It's not like they are just sitting on money when it rains, but of course risk adjusted returns are lower in a pessimistic economic climate, and a lot of project gets put back into the drawer, the economy ('s growth rate) contracts. That 700B was essential to stagger that contraction, and it was too small, because Congress is retarded, so the Fed tried its best with QE and other ZIRP compatible tools. It's of course not a secret that there are possible things to do on the federal level that would generate more ROI than what Congress currently spends on. (For example health care reform, criminal justice reform, public transport and urban planning reform.) The rate rise is to keep inflation at the 2.0 mark, which is the Fed's target. Like it or not, they are doing what they have to do to meet that target. Investors might be negatively affected by this, but the general population very much favors this. Also, (both long and short term) investors have options to hedge interest rate changes, if they want. There are many, many problems with regulations (SEC, CFTC, FinCEN are not proactive, the CFPB is currently being dismantled, and the market is at the same time too oligopolistic and too heterogeneous, too many layers of laws, only the big players can afford to navigate the legal maze), with banks (only the ruthless remains, the sane ones were long priced out of the market), and with the Fed policies of the past (Greenspan et al.'s handling of early 2000s), and even the financial news media is to blame (as they are very biased, either for or against the establishment, detached rational analysis is simply not bringing in the clicks).
- pishpash 8y ago
  Interest rate hedges are not free. There is no free lunch. Anyway I am not suggesting that there is a way to avoid paying the cost one way or the other, once the horse has left the barn when the banks put junk on their books with depositors' money. Unless you can unwind those or claw back years of executive compensation the damage is done.
  - pas 8y ago
    Agreed, but long term rates are and always were (to my knowledge) higher exactly because of the larger uncertainty. That said, "mark to market" is better than some magical nominal pricing. Of course creative accounting is the name of the game, that's why regulators need proper authority to request reports that help clarify things (so that helps them to stay ahead).

pas 8y ago

Investors invest in both good and bad times. It's not like they are just sitting on money when it rains, but of course risk adjusted returns are lower in a pessimistic economic climate, and a lot of project gets put back into the drawer, the economy ('s growth rate) contracts. That 700B was essential to stagger that contraction, and it was too small, because Congress is retarded, so the Fed tried its best with QE and other ZIRP compatible tools. It's of course not a secret that there are possible things to do on the federal level that would generate more ROI than what Congress currently spends on. (For example health care reform, criminal justice reform, public transport and urban planning reform.) The rate rise is to keep inflation at the 2.0 mark, which is the Fed's target. Like it or not, they are doing what they have to do to meet that target. Investors might be negatively affected by this, but the general population very much favors this. Also, (both long and short term) investors have options to hedge interest rate changes, if they want. There are many, many problems with regulations (SEC, CFTC, FinCEN are not proactive, the CFPB is currently being dismantled, and the market is at the same time too oligopolistic and too heterogeneous, too many layers of laws, only the big players can afford to navigate the legal maze), with banks (only the ruthless remains, the sane ones were long priced out of the market), and with the Fed policies of the past (Greenspan et al.'s handling of early 2000s), and even the financial news media is to blame (as they are very biased, either for or against the establishment, detached rational analysis is simply not bringing in the clicks).

pishpash 8y ago
Interest rate hedges are not free. There is no free lunch. Anyway I am not suggesting that there is a way to avoid paying the cost one way or the other, once the horse has left the barn when the banks put junk on their books with depositors' money. Unless you can unwind those or claw back years of executive compensation the damage is done.
- pas 8y ago
  Agreed, but long term rates are and always were (to my knowledge) higher exactly because of the larger uncertainty. That said, "mark to market" is better than some magical nominal pricing. Of course creative accounting is the name of the game, that's why regulators need proper authority to request reports that help clarify things (so that helps them to stay ahead).