Display:
I don't see any central bank panic.  They've put in a bit of liquidity to stabilize short term credit markets.  The sums are tiny.  Less than we are pissing down a rathole in Iraq in a month.

the panic is in the corporate press types who see their white shoed buds heading for a major whacking.  Cramer's croc tears for the people losing their houses is cover for a bailout for  billionaire hedge fund managers who for the most part have the bulk of their money in their own funds.

Markets are stupid.  We've had boom/bust cycles for centuries as greed gets out of hand from time to time.  Without the pain to keep the bozo's honest (at least a little), speculation gets crazy.  How can any sane person pay the value of a house for a tulip bulb?  Or $5K for a frigging beanie babie?  Yet people do it.  Over and over.

Social benefit?  What makes you think most people give a rats ass about social benefit?  They care about THEIR benefit.  Hence the Republican/Tory parties.

by HiD on Fri Aug 17th, 2007 at 05:41:39 AM EST
[ Parent ]
The sums are tiny.  Less than we are pissing down a rathole in Iraq in a month.

Yes but people don't realize this.

If the central bank lent 500 billions USD worldwide for one week and saved a 10% interest spike to the private banks involved (all numbers are way above what happened) that makes it to less than one billion USD of "giveaway", that is less than four days of Iraq war cost (10 billions USD per month IIRC).

It's not a reason to do it, but that's not big money.

by Laurent GUERBY on Fri Aug 17th, 2007 at 06:30:39 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I think we're getting close to a total of $200-$300 billion of liquidity injection from various central banks over the last week or so.

I'd say that's more than 'a bit.'

The Iraq war isn't really comparable, because that's treated as a straight outlay - effectively it's just public spending by one government.

But what's happening with the ECB and other national banks is that they're using their own reserves to try to solve a problem that was created in the US by the US money markets, and which should have remained local to the US.

The Fed meanwhile is hemming and hawing and throwing in some token liquidity to make it look as if it's doing something. But Bernanke has done almost exactly nothing so far - possibly because he knows he doesn't have to as long as Europe, Japan and the rest will provide the US with more cheap cash for a little longer.

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Fri Aug 17th, 2007 at 07:40:45 AM EST
[ Parent ]

we're getting close to a total of $200-$300 billion of liquidity injection from various central banks over the last week or so.
I'd say that's more than 'a bit.'

That's loans to European banks, usually secured. The only real subsidy is that these funds were lent at 4% rather than the then prevailing 4.7% caused by the drying liquidity. So the actual subsidy would 0.7% of the above amount, if the money were repaid only in a year.


But Bernanke has done almost exactly nothing so far - possibly because he knows he doesn't have to as long as Europe, Japan and the rest will provide the US with more cheap cash for a little longer.

Not quite either: while the ECB has provide straightforward loans against deposits of treasuries to banks, the Fed has apparently lent against mortgaged-backed paper, i.e. the toxic underlying assets - if mortagages are the problem, then these amounts are much more likely to become actual subsidies - in any case, it makes the Fed one of the potential losers of the mortgage defaults.

Meanwhile, what the ECB has done is allow the European Banks to have enough liquidity to reduce their exposure to US "toxic sludge" without being forced to distress sales, i.e. without giving up a lot of the potential residual value. That allows European banks to eat their losses, but nothing more (panic would have forced them to take much larger hits). everybody is being hit by the underlying mess, but the scope of these losses is dwarfed by the potnetial losses if the whole pyramid unwinds brutally.

So the ECB has done its job, I'd say. And it would seem that they still intend to raise their main rate to 4.25% from the current 4% at the next meeting, thus showing that they intend to continur their tightening policies, even after that targetted intervention.

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes

by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Fri Aug 17th, 2007 at 08:22:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]
AFAIK central bank made a few days maturity (collaterized) loans to private banks, then bank repaid. In the end (after my conservative week estimate) there is no more money outstanding now than before intervention. The amount short-term loaned each time decreased quickly.

The private banks saved : (amount outstanding) * (number of days to maturity / 365) * (rate in spike mode - rate in normal mode).

Here: 500e9 * 7 / 365 * (x+10%-x) ) ~= 1e9.

We can say this is a subvention from central banks to private banks.

by Laurent GUERBY on Fri Aug 17th, 2007 at 08:24:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]
The Iraq war isn't really comparable, because that's treated as a straight outlay - effectively it's just public spending by one government.

i thought it was an investment in our security from terror!

so cornfused...

~"When an inner situation is not made conscious, it appears outside as fate." Karl Jung~

by melo (melometa4(at)gmail.com) on Fri Aug 17th, 2007 at 09:35:09 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I see my latest comment echoes what was discussed in this subthread. That's what happens when one arrives late to a big party of a thread.

Can the last politician to go out the revolving door please turn the lights off?
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Tue Aug 28th, 2007 at 04:11:03 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:
Login
. Make a new account
. Reset password
Occasional Series