<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: 100-Year Bonds ?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2008/12/100-year-bonds/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2008/12/100-year-bonds/</link>
	<description>Macro Perspective on the Capital Markets, Economy, Geopolitics, Technology, and Digital Media</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 14 Feb 2012 15:29:45 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.5</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: flipspiceland</title>
		<link>http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2008/12/100-year-bonds/comment-page-1/#comment-130600</link>
		<dc:creator>flipspiceland</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 04 Dec 2008 15:31:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/?p=11722#comment-130600</guid>
		<description>Let&#039;s see.  If the GOVERNMENT issued 100 year bonds in December 1908, and they matured today, what would happen?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Let&#8217;s see.  If the GOVERNMENT issued 100 year bonds in December 1908, and they matured today, what would happen?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mark E Hoffer</title>
		<link>http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2008/12/100-year-bonds/comment-page-1/#comment-130506</link>
		<dc:creator>Mark E Hoffer</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 04 Dec 2008 03:54:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/?p=11722#comment-130506</guid>
		<description>hitting /print/</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>hitting /print/</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mark E Hoffer</title>
		<link>http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2008/12/100-year-bonds/comment-page-1/#comment-130505</link>
		<dc:creator>Mark E Hoffer</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 04 Dec 2008 03:53:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/?p=11722#comment-130505</guid>
		<description>mikeydoggy, 

nice post, it&#039;s refreshing to see, so simply spelled out, how things actually work.

People, if they&#039;re paying attention, would do well by warming up the spooler, and hitting 

A nice turn you&#039;ve done.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>mikeydoggy, </p>
<p>nice post, it&#8217;s refreshing to see, so simply spelled out, how things actually work.</p>
<p>People, if they&#8217;re paying attention, would do well by warming up the spooler, and hitting </p>
<p>A nice turn you&#8217;ve done.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: mikeydoggy</title>
		<link>http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2008/12/100-year-bonds/comment-page-1/#comment-130446</link>
		<dc:creator>mikeydoggy</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 04 Dec 2008 00:38:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/?p=11722#comment-130446</guid>
		<description>Fisher doesn&#039;t understand monetary operations or reserve accounting. His &quot;locking in a rate&quot; idea is inapplicable to the way the government spends.

The government spends by crediting bank accounts. The spending occurs before the sale of securities or the collection of taxes and results in an increase in reserves in the system. The sale of securities functions as a reserve maintenance operation and is done solely to sustain the Fed&#039;s interest rate target. There is no &quot;borrowing&quot; per se.

Interest rates are set by the Fed--period. It targets the overnight lending rate but has the prerogotive to directly set rates along the entire term structure if it wishes. 

The notion that the Treasury is selling securities to &quot;fund&quot; the bailouts is wrong. The Treasury is not &quot;funding&quot; anything. It spends by crediting bank accounts. Over the past two months actions taken by the Treasury and Fed have caused bank reserves to swell by $600 billion. The planned sale of $550 billion will simply reduce reserve balances. The public swaps a reserve balance (cash) for a higher paying Treasury security. The net financial position of the public has not changed. 

Since the government spends by crediting bank accounts and doesn&#039;t borrow per se, it needs to sell nothing more than the shortest term T-Bills to effectively manage reserves. The only reason the Treasury sells longer dated securities is because various maturity lengths are demanded by portfolio investors. It is simply satisfying that demand, but doesn&#039;t have to. It has nothing to do with the need to lower borrowing costs because it doesn&#039;t borrow.

Yields have plummeted recently because actions by the Treasury and the Fed boosted reserves by an historic amount. In other words the government provided the funds--in historic quantity--with which to buy the securities. It&#039;s simple supply and demand: the Fed and Treasury have provided an enormous amount of money to the system, but the securities are being sold in relatively small amounts at intervals.

The Fed&#039;s decision to buy longer term securities stems from a desire to set long term rates lower. It sets long term rates in the same fashion that it sets the overnight rate--by buying or selling securities from the public. This is being done on the assumption that it will lead to more credit demand. It may not work. It didn&#039;t work in Japan. A boost in aggregate demand is what is really needed now. The Fed does not control that, but the Federal Government certainly can.

Using the example of Disney and its sale of long-term bonds is like comparing apples to oranges. Disney is not the Federal Gov&#039;t. They DO need to borrow and their borrowing costs matter. It&#039;s not the same for the government. Bad analogy and misses a critical, yet fundamental, distinction.

Again, the only reason the government sells anything other than the shortest dated T-Bill is to satisfy the demand of portfolio investors. Aside from that, it doesn&#039;t need to.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Fisher doesn&#8217;t understand monetary operations or reserve accounting. His &#8220;locking in a rate&#8221; idea is inapplicable to the way the government spends.</p>
<p>The government spends by crediting bank accounts. The spending occurs before the sale of securities or the collection of taxes and results in an increase in reserves in the system. The sale of securities functions as a reserve maintenance operation and is done solely to sustain the Fed&#8217;s interest rate target. There is no &#8220;borrowing&#8221; per se.</p>
<p>Interest rates are set by the Fed&#8211;period. It targets the overnight lending rate but has the prerogotive to directly set rates along the entire term structure if it wishes. </p>
<p>The notion that the Treasury is selling securities to &#8220;fund&#8221; the bailouts is wrong. The Treasury is not &#8220;funding&#8221; anything. It spends by crediting bank accounts. Over the past two months actions taken by the Treasury and Fed have caused bank reserves to swell by $600 billion. The planned sale of $550 billion will simply reduce reserve balances. The public swaps a reserve balance (cash) for a higher paying Treasury security. The net financial position of the public has not changed. </p>
<p>Since the government spends by crediting bank accounts and doesn&#8217;t borrow per se, it needs to sell nothing more than the shortest term T-Bills to effectively manage reserves. The only reason the Treasury sells longer dated securities is because various maturity lengths are demanded by portfolio investors. It is simply satisfying that demand, but doesn&#8217;t have to. It has nothing to do with the need to lower borrowing costs because it doesn&#8217;t borrow.</p>
<p>Yields have plummeted recently because actions by the Treasury and the Fed boosted reserves by an historic amount. In other words the government provided the funds&#8211;in historic quantity&#8211;with which to buy the securities. It&#8217;s simple supply and demand: the Fed and Treasury have provided an enormous amount of money to the system, but the securities are being sold in relatively small amounts at intervals.</p>
<p>The Fed&#8217;s decision to buy longer term securities stems from a desire to set long term rates lower. It sets long term rates in the same fashion that it sets the overnight rate&#8211;by buying or selling securities from the public. This is being done on the assumption that it will lead to more credit demand. It may not work. It didn&#8217;t work in Japan. A boost in aggregate demand is what is really needed now. The Fed does not control that, but the Federal Government certainly can.</p>
<p>Using the example of Disney and its sale of long-term bonds is like comparing apples to oranges. Disney is not the Federal Gov&#8217;t. They DO need to borrow and their borrowing costs matter. It&#8217;s not the same for the government. Bad analogy and misses a critical, yet fundamental, distinction.</p>
<p>Again, the only reason the government sells anything other than the shortest dated T-Bill is to satisfy the demand of portfolio investors. Aside from that, it doesn&#8217;t need to.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mike in Nola</title>
		<link>http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2008/12/100-year-bonds/comment-page-1/#comment-130430</link>
		<dc:creator>Mike in Nola</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 03 Dec 2008 23:44:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/?p=11722#comment-130430</guid>
		<description>National lottery sounds good. &quot;A tax on stupidity&quot; as my wife calls lotteries. It would be a tax &lt;i&gt;we&lt;/i&gt; wouldn&#039;t have to pay. Think Kudlow would play?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>National lottery sounds good. &#8220;A tax on stupidity&#8221; as my wife calls lotteries. It would be a tax <i>we</i> wouldn&#8217;t have to pay. Think Kudlow would play?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: TrickStar</title>
		<link>http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2008/12/100-year-bonds/comment-page-1/#comment-130423</link>
		<dc:creator>TrickStar</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 03 Dec 2008 23:06:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/?p=11722#comment-130423</guid>
		<description>oops, i think you had already alluded to that.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>oops, i think you had already alluded to that.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: TrickStar</title>
		<link>http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2008/12/100-year-bonds/comment-page-1/#comment-130422</link>
		<dc:creator>TrickStar</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 03 Dec 2008 23:05:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/?p=11722#comment-130422</guid>
		<description>cielosan - ah yes.  excellent ideas.  we should also offer Credit Default Swaps on the winner.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>cielosan &#8211; ah yes.  excellent ideas.  we should also offer Credit Default Swaps on the winner.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: cielosan</title>
		<link>http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2008/12/100-year-bonds/comment-page-1/#comment-130393</link>
		<dc:creator>cielosan</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 03 Dec 2008 20:54:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/?p=11722#comment-130393</guid>
		<description>I like the idea of the lottery.  Maybe have one in the same way as the movie The Island.  Where the lottery is actually a con, and the winner gets to be chopped up into little pieces and sold for body parts to the person that had insurance for major accidents. 

It&#039;s a brilliant idea and really embodies all aspects of the current crisis.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I like the idea of the lottery.  Maybe have one in the same way as the movie The Island.  Where the lottery is actually a con, and the winner gets to be chopped up into little pieces and sold for body parts to the person that had insurance for major accidents. </p>
<p>It&#8217;s a brilliant idea and really embodies all aspects of the current crisis.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Winston Munn</title>
		<link>http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2008/12/100-year-bonds/comment-page-1/#comment-130344</link>
		<dc:creator>Winston Munn</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 03 Dec 2008 18:36:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/?p=11722#comment-130344</guid>
		<description>I guess this was inevitable.  The states got the numbers racket, native Americans got gambling, and the U.S. protection racket and drug money isn&#039;t what it used to be....so it was only a matter of time before one of the families brought up the idea of counterfeiting.....</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I guess this was inevitable.  The states got the numbers racket, native Americans got gambling, and the U.S. protection racket and drug money isn&#8217;t what it used to be&#8230;.so it was only a matter of time before one of the families brought up the idea of counterfeiting&#8230;..</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: leftback</title>
		<link>http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2008/12/100-year-bonds/comment-page-1/#comment-130341</link>
		<dc:creator>leftback</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 03 Dec 2008 18:26:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/?p=11722#comment-130341</guid>
		<description>Great idea. 

Let me short them.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Great idea. </p>
<p>Let me short them.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

