Comments on: Smackdown of the day: Bloomberg vs the Fed http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2011/12/07/smackdown-of-the-day-bloomberg-vs-the-fed/ A slice of lime in the soda Sun, 26 Oct 2014 19:05:02 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=4.2.5 By: Bradly Corner http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2011/12/07/smackdown-of-the-day-bloomberg-vs-the-fed/comment-page-1/#comment-55269 Fri, 17 Oct 2014 08:07:22 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/?p=11405#comment-55269 Before the game, perhaps everyone thought Li Na would win, but certainly can not think she can so “terrorist” to win, after all, Jankovic is a former women “one elder sister”, she in the 3 game of the match against Li Na in the recent three game winning streak

]]>
By: Bert Lebourgeois http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2011/12/07/smackdown-of-the-day-bloomberg-vs-the-fed/comment-page-1/#comment-55218 Thu, 16 Oct 2014 20:21:30 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/?p=11405#comment-55218 We stumbled across a similar matter whenever primarily I used to be attempting to see precisely why items were being using such a long time to download because of this assistance. I had developed the actual marketing tabs exhibiting from the Windows Taskmanager and also noticed that when I quit in the process, this community interconnection would still be being employed. On trial and error further I stumbled upon while We shut down often the DESKTOP and also rebooted this system relationship was still being being used with software program.

]]>
By: Danny_Black http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2011/12/07/smackdown-of-the-day-bloomberg-vs-the-fed/comment-page-1/#comment-33940 Mon, 12 Dec 2011 10:55:08 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/?p=11405#comment-33940 8th attempt at least to spin thr same stale old news as outrage

http://mobile.bloomberg.com/news/2011-12 -11/no-one-says-who-took-586-billion-in- fed-swaps-done-in-anonymity.html

]]>
By: Danny_Black http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2011/12/07/smackdown-of-the-day-bloomberg-vs-the-fed/comment-page-1/#comment-33851 Thu, 08 Dec 2011 22:31:40 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/?p=11405#comment-33851 Another example of how these Bloomberg “journalists” are liars is the “story” you repeated about how Paulson somehow let his mates in on the top secret idea that Frannie might be put into conservatorship on the 28th July 2008. Of course, one hopes they didn’t pay much for that talk when they could have got the same information for free from the internet two weeks earlier:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/11/busine ss/11fannie.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

http://money.cnn.com/2008/07/10/news/com panies/fannie_freddie/index.htm

Guess it helps when fabricating scandals to have no integrity and be pathological liars and to be in an industry where that is perfectly acceptable.

]]>
By: Danny_Black http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2011/12/07/smackdown-of-the-day-bloomberg-vs-the-fed/comment-page-1/#comment-33822 Wed, 07 Dec 2011 20:29:44 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/?p=11405#comment-33822 McMath, there a host of possible reasons:

1) The Fed was someone who was guaranteed to be able to lend. A bank could scramble around to shave off some interest and take the risk it didn’t raise all the cash in time or it could pay a penalty rate and guarantee it.

2) The bank could have to raise some emergency cash as clients pulled their accounts and they could get it there and then from the Fed vs telling their clients to hold on in a febrile atmosphere.

3) The choice might be between doing a fire sale and paying a penalty rate for a short time.

You must come from the same brain trust that thinks no one would ever lend at a negative rate, which happened at this time too. After all by your logic, you could get a better rate in cash.

]]>
By: McMath http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2011/12/07/smackdown-of-the-day-bloomberg-vs-the-fed/comment-page-1/#comment-33820 Wed, 07 Dec 2011 20:16:18 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/?p=11405#comment-33820 Of course they were below market rates. Why else would the banks borrow from the Fed if they weren’t below market rates?

>”normal rates” does NOT mean “greater than current market rates”

If they charged greater than current market rates they would clearly never have lent out any money. The fact that they EVER gave a loan at .01% indicates that the rates were way below market.

]]>
By: NedStark http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2011/12/07/smackdown-of-the-day-bloomberg-vs-the-fed/comment-page-1/#comment-33815 Wed, 07 Dec 2011 15:48:00 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/?p=11405#comment-33815 I have to disagree with much of this analysis. Personally, I found the Fed’s letter useful in understanding where the Bloomberg article was misleading and/or flat-out wrong. It’s a complicated subject matter for those of us who don’t make a living in the finance industry…but a subject that’s nonetheless important. Is it too much to ask for an truthful, objective analysis from what’s supposed to be a news organization?

Also, it’s pretty obvious which article Bernanke was talking about…there’s no reason to be coy if one wants to have an honest discussion. Similarly, defending misleading statements with “technically, I never said that” doesn’t exactly constitute “winning” an argument. Sounds more like what politicians do….not journalists.

I read through a fair number of “comments” sections on media websites…and it’s pretty obvious that MANY people have very little understanding of any of the Fed activities under discussion. There was a LOT of obvious misunderstanding throughout the “blogosphere” of what the Fed had done during the crisis….most of which seems to be a result of that particular Bloomberg article. Whether intentional or not, the article assisted in widespread misunderstanding…and, as a result, provided fuel to the flames of “Fed-hating” on the internet for no apparent reason (other than the usual sensationalism aimed at bringing in more “eyeballs” to the Bloomberg website). I find it entirely appropriate that the Fed take the opportunity to point out errors in their reporting…regardless as to how its message was disseminated or whether the author here could conveniently “copy and paste” the document. It might seem like a quaint notion to political columnists, but some of us in the public still expect (or at least hope) to find relatively accurate and unbiased reporting and analysis from respected news organizations.

]]>
By: Danny_Black http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2011/12/07/smackdown-of-the-day-bloomberg-vs-the-fed/comment-page-1/#comment-33812 Wed, 07 Dec 2011 13:47:36 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/?p=11405#comment-33812 Slapdash13, look at fresnodan, the link he pointed to, other commentary on this and the posts that will come in soon here to see why Bloomberg “won”. Too many people are invested in the narrative that the banks were bailed out by the Fed in some sort of secret plan, probably involving Goldman Sachs.

Weirdly, no one ever seems to worry about Frannie and the creditors there that were actually bailed out.

]]>
By: Slapdash13 http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2011/12/07/smackdown-of-the-day-bloomberg-vs-the-fed/comment-page-1/#comment-33811 Wed, 07 Dec 2011 13:21:46 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/?p=11405#comment-33811 I find it hard to see how you can claim Bloomberg won this round. Their report was deliberately misleading. It is an example of the worst kind of financial reporting; the kind that assumes it can get away with these types of shell games because its audience is not familiar enough with monetary policy and the banking industry to follow the ball. Using NIM to calculate a profit is roundly ridiculous. Bloomberg’s “rebuttal” just continues this tact. I am disappointed that you support this garbage populist journalism.

Oh, and taking the PDF to text took all of ten seconds with Adobe. How do you not know this?

]]>
By: Danny_Black http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2011/12/07/smackdown-of-the-day-bloomberg-vs-the-fed/comment-page-1/#comment-33809 Wed, 07 Dec 2011 11:52:45 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/?p=11405#comment-33809 fresnodan, gotta love those fake analogies that Waldman trots out. Not entirely sure what the inflammable insurance analogy was meant to be but lets look at the meth analogy. Well, lets assume he has a 300,000USD home but he needs the money quickly – a more accurate example – so you take a lien over his home, lend him the money against that collateral as a larger haircut than usual and at a higher interest rate than if he had time to shop around and he goes out, gets a job and then pays the loan back. This is the real analogy. As for the risk the Fed was taking, have a look at the haircuts they were taking for overnight loans. From recollection they were taking something like 20% haircuts on equities – the “sketchiest” collateral – which means the risk they were taking was that in 12 hours time, MS would be out of business AND those equities would be down by more than 20%.

I have only ever read two posts of his. The other one was were he compared John Paulson’s sidekick telling the investment committee at ACA Capital Management about a short position, which happened to also include the exact same people who ran ACA Financial Guaranty Corp, to telling the toilet cleaner. He is, by all accounts, a smart knowledgeable person so one can only assume he knows the analogies he is giving are false.

And of course, nothing he says is relevent to what the Fed has said vs what Bloomberg and the tossers who repeated their “analysis” have claimed.

]]>