What Just Happened In Today's "Crazy" And Biggest Ever "Window-Dressing" Reverse Repo? Submitted by Tyler Durden on 09/30/2014 23:58 -0400 http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-09-30/what-just-happened-todays-crazy-and-biggest-ever-window-dressing-reverse-repo Bank of New York Fail Federal Reserve Federal Reserve Bank Federal Reserve Bank of New York fixed Goldman Sachs goldman sachs Monetary Policy New York Fed Reverse Repo in Share 28 Back in the day, when the sophisticated deep thinkers who effuse deep economic thought, were deeply contemplating whether the Fed's IOER was a better tool to assist if and when (hint: never) the Fed begins to hike rates, or whether the relatively new (conceived about a year ago) Reverse Repo was the better candidate to help push liquidity out of America's bloated financial institutions, we made it very clear that the entire debate is completely irrelevant, as the only purpose of the Reverse Repo was to assist banks in pretending ( with the Fed's explicit knowledge ) that they have a better balance sheet than they represent. We did this first in January in " Window Dressing On, Window Dressing Off... Amounting To $140 Billion In Two Days", then in April in " Month-End Window Dressing Sends Fed Reverse Repo Usage To $208 Billion: Second Highest Ever ", then in June " WTF Chart Of The Day: "Holy $340 Billion In Quarter-End Window Dressing, Batman ", then in July " Record $189 Billion Injected Into Market From "Window Dressing" Reverse Repo Unwind ." Of course, the abovementioned deep thinkers ignored this because it would mean that all the argumentation about the Reverse Repo facility as a means to assist the rate hiking cycle was irrelevant, and that instead of hiking rates the Fed was far more concerned with the collateral shortage that the TBAC loudly complained about in the summer of 2013... just months before the RRP was unleashed (recall " Desperately Seeking $11.2 Trillion In Collateral "). Pure coincidence, right? Well, the argument largely became moot when two weeks ago, following the Fed's recent announcement Reverse Repo would be capped at $300 billion , leading even the deepest of pundits to realize they have been fooled all along, and the RRP facility was never meant to be a rate hike-facilitating mechanism, the Fed released this: Statement to Revise the Time of Day of the Overnight Reverse Repurchase Agreement Operation for September 30, 2014 As noted in the September 17, 2014, Statement to Revise the Terms of the Overnight Reverse Repurchase Agreement Operational Exercise, the Open Market Trading Desk (the Desk) at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York (New York Fed) has been working internally and with market participants on operational aspects of tri-party reverse repurchase agreements (RRPs) to ensure that this tool will be ready to support the monetary policy objectives of the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC). Regarding the operation to be conducted on Tuesday, September 30, 2014, the Desk will conduct the operation several hours earlier than usual, from 8:00 to 8:30 a.m. (Eastern Time). All other terms of the exercise will remain the same. This change only applies to the operation conducted on September 30, 2014. The operations conducted from Monday, September 22, to Monday, September 29, and those conducted on and after Wednesday, October 1, will be conducted at the previous time of 12:45 to 1:15 p.m. Any future changes to these operations will be announced with at least one business day’s prior notice on the New York Fed’s website. Wait, why did the Fed explicitly warn that just one reverse repo operation would be temporally-adjusted, namely that of September 30, i.e., today? Simple: what is today? Why quarter end, "window dressing" day of course. In other words, the Fed ripped off the mask that RRP was anything more than a way for the Fed to allow banks to appear more palatable to... drumroll... Fed regulators. Regulators such as Carmen Segarra, who once again made the news , not only for being fired for daring to ask probing questions about the Fed's "close" relationship with Goldman Sachs, but for providing 48 hours of recording confirming that the NY Fed is merely a branch of Goldman Sachs. So fast forward to today at 8:30 am when the Fed announced the result of today's "special" window-dressing Reverse Repo operation. What was unveiled blew our socks right off, because not only was the Reverse Repo an absolutely whopping $407 billion, but the low rate on the auction was an unprecedented -0.20%! And here is what today's operation looks like in historical context: That's right: at $407 billion, it far exceeded the $300 billion new cap on the program. So yes: everyone can now admit that Reverse Repo was nothing more than Fed-mandated window dressing, no point in covering that up any more. But what about that Low rate of -0.20%? For the answer we go to Stone McCarthy which has done a forensic analysis of precisely what happened in today's "Crazy" (as they call it) Reverse Repo operation. From SMRA : Quarter-End ON RRP Craziness Today's quarter-end ON RRP offering from the Fed included a total of $407.167 bln in submissions, far exceeding the new $300 bln overall cap on the program As such the 5 bps fixed rate was not applicable, and the allocation was decided by an auction mechanism. Bidders (since September 22) are required to include in their submission a rate at which they would be willing to engage in the Fed's RRP operation. Today these bids ranged from a low of -20 bps to a high of +5 bps. The Fed by starting at the lowest rate and working upward was able to do the $300 bln max at a stop-out rate of 0%. All awards were at this stop-out rate. Thus the bidder at -20 bps was probably envisioning a stop out rate well above their -20 bps bid. Today's offering was a test of the program. The Fed conducted this operation at 8:30am this morning in anticipation of quarter-end considerations. Typically the dealine for the operation is 1:15pm. The stop-out rate was even lower than what we envisioned. We were thinking 1 or 2 bps. What this means is that today's offering was done at a rate below the fixed rate of 5 bps, and thus today the floor aspect of the ON RRP program was not effective. This will probably be the situation at most future quarter-end offerings. Oops: this means that the RRP as a mechanism to hike rates will certainly fail due to the discontinuity of collateral requirements, which spike at quarter end. Because try as it might, the Fed simply has no way of hiking rates on all other days except March 31, June 30, September 30 and December 31. Why such a surge in submissions? As quarter-end approaches dealers typically pare positions for balance sheet dressing purposes. They may also be less willing to engage in matched-book RP activities in helping financing their customers. The lull in dealer financing demand means that the MMFs, the primary counterparty party to the Fed offerings, have liquidity to put to work that is redirected to the Fed ON RRP offering. At previous quarter-ends the MMFs have accounted for around 89% of the "take-up" of the ON RRP offerings. This compares to around 82% on non-quarter-end dates. Does this argue for a higher cap than the $300 bln? Not necessarily. The MMFs, of course, wish that cap were higher. If so, such may have provided ample quarter-end investment opportunities with positive interest rates. Indeed, some Treasury bills were trading at negative interest rates in response to the capping of the ON RRP program at $300 bln, previously there wasn't a cap. The cap was imposed because the FOMC was worried that in times of financial distress (not routine quarter-ends) the MMFs would only engage in lending to the Fed with the dealers and other money market borrowers getting cut off. Some worried that the Fed might become too dominate a player in the money markets. The results of today's offering are not really surprising. The Desk probably anticipated something close to what happened here. We think that what we saw in today's offering will be typical of future quarter-ends . Despite that fact that the MMFs would probably prefer a much higher cap, thereby rendering somewhat higher quarter-end returns, what they are earning (0%) is still better than the negative returns on bills that mature early in the new quarter. In other words, the ON RRP program is still a better alternative than what would exist in the absence of this program. And there you have it. A bigger problem, however, emerges, now that it is empirically proven that the Reverse Repo is now meaningless and doomed as a means to allow the Fed to hike rates in a world in which the Fed Funds rates is irrelevant, and a parallel rate corridor somehow has to be established. Which means that only the IOER fallback exists, a rate hike environment fallback which as we wrote back in 2012 is also meaningless as it only controls for one half of the rate increase corridor. So... still betting on a rate hike in mid-2015, when the Fed itself has just admitted, and the market has confirmed , it has no clue how it will hike rates? We'll take the much, much over. Average: 4.955555 Your rating:None Average:5 (45votes)
Markets Are Going Crazy Submitted by Tyler Durden on 11/07/2013 11:27 -0500 Momo NASDAQ Twitter Twitter in Share 0 There is no news as a catalyst here but bonds, FX, commodity, and stock markets are smashing around as Twitter break below its open price. JPY is rushing higher against the USD (as is EUR which has retraced Fib 61.8% of its losses from Draghi). Treasury yields are collapsing. Nasdaq and all the other US equity indices are dumping as momo names suffer the most. Average: 5 Your rating: None Average: 5 ( 6 votes) !-- - advertisements - .AR_2 .ob_empty {display: none;} .AR_2 .rec-link {color: #565656;text-decoration: none;font-size: 12px;} .AR_2 .rec-link:hover {color: #565656;text-decoration: underline;font-size: 12px;} .AR_2 {float: left;width:50%} .AR_2 li {list-style: none outside none !important;font-size: 10px;padding-bottom: 10px;line-height: 13px;margin:0;} .AR_2 .ob_org_header {color: #000000;text-decoration:bold; margin-left: 0px; font-size:14px;line-height:35px;} .AR_3 .rec-link {color: #565656;text-decoration: none;font-size: 12px;} .AR_3 .rec-link:hover {color: #565656;text-decoration: underline;font-size: 12px;} .AR_3 .rec-src-link {font-size: 12px;} .AR_3 li {padding-bottom: 10px;list-style: none outside none !important;font-size: 10px;line-height: 13px;margin:0;} .AR_3 .ob_dual_left, .AR_3 .ob_dual_right {float: left;padding-bottom: 0;padding-left: 2%;padding-top: 0;} .AR_3 .ob_org_header {color: #000000; text-decoration:bold; margin-left: 0px; font-size:14px;line-height:35px;} .AR_3 .ob_ads_header {color: #000000; text-decoration:bold; margin-left: 0px; font-size:14px;line-height:35px;} -- - advertisements - Login or register to post comments 12056 reads Printer-friendly version Send to friend Similar Articles You Might Enjoy: 50 Economic Numbers About The US That Are "Almost Too Crazy To Believe" 14 Crazy Facts About The Current Internet Stock Bubble Tesla Momentum Runs Out Of "Gas", Enters Bear Market SP Futures Plunge Most In Over 4 Months Intraday Desperate HFT Algos To Scour Twitter For Momo Feedback
14 Facts About The Absolutely Crazy Internet Stock Bubble That Could Crash And Burn In 2014 By Michael Snyder, on November 5th, 2013 Shouldn't Internet companies actually "make a profit" at some point before being considered worth billions of dollars? A lot of investors laugh when they look back at the foolishness of the "Dotcom bubble" of the late 1990s, but the tech bubble that is inflating right in front of our eyes today is actually far worse. For example, what would you say if I told you that a seven-year-old company that has a long history of not being profitable and that actually lost 64 million dollars last quarter is worth more than 13 billion dollars ? You would probably say that I was insane, but the company that I have just described is Twitter and Wall Street is going crazy for it right now. Please don't get me wrong - I actually love Twitter. On my Twitter account I have sent out thousands of "tweets". Twitter is a lot of fun, and it has had a huge impact on the entire planet. But is it worth 13 billion dollars? Of course not. When it comes to the Internet, what is hot today will probably not be hot tomorrow. Do you remember MySpace? At one time, MySpace was considered to be the undisputed king of social media. But then something better came along (Facebook) and killed it. It is important to keep in mind that Facebook did not even exist ten years ago. Yes, almost everybody is using it today, but will everybody still be using it a decade from now? Maybe. But the way that the financial markets are valuing these firms can only be justified if they are going to make absolutely massive profits for many decades to come. Will Twitter eventually make a little bit of money? Probably, as long as they get their act together. In fact, Twitter should be making significant amounts of money right now if it was being run correctly. But will Twitter ever make 13 billion dollars? No, that simply is not going to happen. But that is what Wall Street says that Twitter is worth. The utter foolishness that we are witnessing on Wall Street right now is so similar to what we saw back in the late 1990s. It is almost as if we have learned nothing from our past mistakes. These days I keep having flashbacks of the Pets.com sock puppet. For those too young to remember, the following is a brief summary from Investopedia about what happened to Pets.com... It's impossible to think of the first Internet era without thinking of the Pets.com sock puppet. He was everywhere and was nearly as well-known as the Geico gecko is today. That familiarity, in part, persuaded many investors to lay down money in the company's February 2000 IPO (which was backed by Amazon.com). Pets.com raised $82.5 million – but nine months later it folded, due to major recurring losses. Part of the reason for that was aggressive advertising, but the company also lost money on virtually every item it sold. In the third quarter of 2000, Pets.com reported negative gross margins of $277,000. (The second quarter had seen a $1.7 million margin loss.) That same quarter (its last full quarter as an operating entity), the company lost $21.7 million on $9.4 million in revenue. As for the puppet, he went on to shill for BarNone, which helps people with bad credit histories get car loans. He's still there today, front and center on that website. Everyone loves to laugh at the poor little sock puppet, but the truth is that the tech bubble that is inflating right now is far worse than the Dotcom bubble of the late 1990s. The following are 14 facts about the current tech bubble that will blow your mind... #1 In just a few days, the Twitter IPO is expected to raise close to 2 billion dollars even though Twitter actually lost 64.6 million dollars last quarter and has a long history of not being profitable. #2 It is being projected that after the IPO Twitter could have a market valuation of more than 13 billion dollars . #3 Twitter is not expected to make a profit until 2015 at the earliest. #4 According to CNBC, Pinterest is currently valued at 3.8 billion dollars even though it has never earned a profit. #5 Yahoo paid more than a billion dollars for Tumblr even though Tumblr's revenues are so small that Yahoo is not even required to report them on financial statements. #6 Snapchat, an Internet service that allows people to send out messages that "self-destruct", is supposedly worth 4 billion dollars . But it actually has zero revenue coming in, and many believe that it is essentially worthless as a money making enterprise. For one extensive analysis by a tech blogger, please see this article . #7 The stock of Rocket Fuel, an online advertising company, is trading at about 60 dollars a share and it has a market valuation of about 2 billion dollars even though it has never made a profit. #8 The stock of local business review website Yelp is up 241 percent this year even though it has never earned a quarterly profit. #9 Fab.com just raised 165 million dollars from investors even though it recently laid off 44o employees. #10 LinkedIn stock has risen in price by 136 percent since the 2011 IPO, and it is now supposedly worth more than 18 billion dollars . #11 The head of engineering at Twitter, Chris Fry, got a 10.3 million dollar pay package when he joined Twitter last year. #12 Facebook's VP of engineering, Mike Schroepfer, earned 24.4 million dollars in 2011. #13 Office rents in San Francisco (where many of these tech companies are based) are now 23 percent higher than they were at the peak of the real estate market in 2008. #14 Facebook stock is up close to 140 percent over the past 12 months and the company is now worth more than 120 billion dollars . And I am certainly not the only one that is concerned that we are repeating the mistakes of the late 1990s... “When you look at valuations and look at the lack of earnings and revenue, it seems to me much like the dot-com bubble,” said Matt McCormick, a money manager at Cincinnati-based Bahl Gaynor Inc. who helps oversee $10.2 billion. “This market looks a little frothy and Twitter is the personification of a risky trade.” In fact, as the Wall Street Journal recently noted , we have seen some of these tech stocks crash more than once during the Internet age... "It's fascinating to me that today's mini-mania includes shares of Amazon, Netflix and Priceline that have previously peaked and crashed before—in some cases they've peaked and crashed twice before," says Darren Pollock, portfolio manager at Cheviot Value Management. "Stocks like these have again captured the imagination of speculators. We're skeptical that there is enough underlying intrinsic value to many of the highfliers to support today's prices." So how long will it be until the current tech bubble implodes?
标签: CRAZY经管大学堂：名校名师名课
京公网安备 11010802022788号
论坛法律顾问：王进律师
知识产权保护声明
免责及隐私声明
