I did some number-crunching... For mutual/pension and money-mkt funds (which would include household purchases), as well as insurance cos, I used some proprietary data (you have to pay a subscription fee) that provides a time-series of estimated aggregate treasury holdings of these institutions. For banks/dealers, I looked at a few financial statements and extrapolated. Lather, rinse, repeat... As I keep telling you, these are estimates. I didn't personally witness Joe Sixpack giving Tim Geithner a suitcase of cash in exchange for some govt bonds. If that's the only proof you'd accept, I'm afraid disappointment awaits you. Now, back to Britney... Can you or can you not prove, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that she's not an alien?
I won't spend too much time with this, but here is an example of where Grayson came up with it: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=armOzfkwtCA4 I can't make myself read further than the past 2 paragraphs when it mentions "New pledges from the Fed, the Treasury Department and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. include $1 trillion for the Public-Private Investment Program, designed to help investors buy distressed loans and other assets from U.S. banks." Perfect example. Public-Private never got off the ground. The latest count was 12T in committments according to that article. This is spin journalism. It attracts clicks. That's it. I wouldn't be surprised the # is much less than 9T right now as a lot of these programs have already wound down. Look at my medicare argument for thoughts on committments vs actual fund flows. I conclude they are immaterial. My thoughts on that lady who did Fed oversight... who knows what the whole story was.
Ok so you instantly analyzed the entire mechanism of world money flows and have come to the conclusion that cnbc is wrong. Do you not see how ridiculous that is?? You care to commment on the Grayson video??
This is actually kind of comical. I never actually heard anyone cite CNBC as a reputable source so aggressively. Seriously. Its like writing a PhD thesis and citing wikipedia.
So are you claiming that the Fed is not buying treasuries, agency debt, MBS etc or are you just disputing the amount of buying?
Agreed. 99 times out of 100, this poster would likely be bashing what CNBC commentators say. (but since it backs up his theory) It must be 100% true if it was said on CNBC.
Why instantly? I already mentioned in this thread that I am a mkt participant. My livelihood depends on my ability to perform exactly this type of analysis. It's part of my job to stay on top of what issues are likely to be held where, since it often affects how the bonds trade in repo. What do you want me to say regarding the Grayson video? I have already said that the Fed's 2009 financial statements are being audited by an independent public accountancy firm. The FRB OIG is conducting a review of Fed's various special facilities. Grayson demanding an explanation while these are in progress is absurd. Generally, I dislike politicians. Grayson is the worst kind of politician. Moreover, I mean no disrespect, but his questions here, as well as during Bernanke's recent Humphrey-Hawkins testimony, lead me to conclude he's not too bright. That's just my personal opinion.
No, but the point is that I seriously doubt that you consider CNBC to be infallible in their reporting and analysis.
The Fed is not audited to the extent to uncover the activites discussed here. This lack of oversight has been discussed frequently by members of Congress. Read up on Grayson. He is very bright.