Thursday, May 26, 2005

Inflation Concerns Expressed at Fed Meeting

Minutes of the May 3 meeting of the Federal Reserve Board's Federal Open Market Committee were released Tuesday, and the tone indicated broad concern among participants about what the text referred to as "creeping" signs of inflation and, more importantly, expectations of it building into the economy. Although Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan has been quoted as saying that he favors watching inflation measures that exclude the volatile price changes in food and energy, the language in the minutes seemed to indicate that oil prices were on the minds of those in attendance.

The language in the minutes, traditionally very formal and requiring some interpretation, seemed to indicate that at least some policy controllers at the Fed favor backing down from assurances often given over the past year-and-a-half that Fed rate increases would be "measured" to allow the economy to adapt to a higher domestic interest rate environment.
The term "forward looking language (or statements)" means wording, either explicit or implicit, indicating or projecting future actions or events. In corporate finance, it is a formal concept that is even set forth in securities regulations.
 Although there was uniform agreement to continue for the time being to use forward-looking wording in statements issued by the Fed, the minutes went on to note that this current policy of assurances about future Fed aggressiveness in fighting inflation could be dropped if "... either a pause or a step-up in policy" was needed at a later date. Although the sentence containing that phrase included the possibility of a pause in interest rate hikes, few anticipate that the Fed has any intentions of backing down from its fight against inflation, particularly since other wording in the minutes, as noted above, pointed to concerns about inflation not only accelerating, but also embedding itself in the economy. Analysts considered this a first warning shot from the central bank that its current policy of steady, quarter-point increases in key short-term interest rates might have to be abandoned some time in the months ahead.

In other news, stocks fell modestly on Wednesday, partly on concerns about oil prices holding above the $51 level, and partly on vague concerns about the possibility that the Fed may become more hawkish on inflation as the Summer wears on. In early trading Thursday morning, stocks were generally higher, bouyed by an official government report revising the first quarter GDP growth from its initial estimate of 3.1 percent to 3.5 percent.
GDP can be considered the sum of consumption, private investment, government spending, and net exports (exports minus imports). Thus, as net exports rise, GDP rises; and as net exports fall, GDP falls, too.
  The upward revision was due almost entirely to final calculations of the trade deficit, which narrowed somewhat more than the earlier estimate had shown. This closing of the trade deficit was an effect of the historically very weak dollar, which made U.S. exports cheaper overseas and foreign imports more expensive on the shelves here in the U.S. However, as the Federal Reserve continues to push interest rates upward, the U.S. dollar will become stronger again, as it has since the first quarter, and this will cause foreign imports to once again become cheaper, thereby widening the U.S. trade deficit, thus depressing domestic economic growth.

As some economists had pointed out, allowing the dollar to become almost Third World weak would boost GDP by stimulating foreign purchases of cheaper American goods. Although the Bush Administration had said that it supported a strong dollar, it did nothing to turn the weak dollar situation around, and it is clear now that the Administration benefited from that cheap greenback in terms of a strong GDP showing in the first quarter of this year. The longer-term challenge to the White House, though, is to be able to sustain economic growth without relying on currency exchange rates to do the work of keeping the economy from slipping into a recession induced by the twin forces of tight monetary policy and corrosive federal budget deficits both driving interest rates upward, thereby suppressing domestic economic activity of both businesses and households.

<< 25 Comments Total
 PoliShifter blogged...

(OT)
You page is loading much much faster!! Awesome!

Bush is still a NeoCon Pr*ck...

Crusher Out!

Thu May 26, 02:00:00 PM EDT  
 Dark Wraith blogged...

Good afternoon, NeoCon Crusher.

Well, that certainly covered a lot of ground succinctly.


The Dark Wraith appreciates broad commentary.

Thu May 26, 02:03:20 PM EDT  
 PoliShifter blogged...

Sorry Dark Wraith...

I cannot match wits with you in regards to economics...I am still reading your article thus the reason for my lack on quality in my last comment.

But I was so excited about your page load that I had to say something. I thought maybe I was the only one before, but I used to click on Dark Wraith, go get a beer, and go to the restroom, THEN sit down, and still wait a few more seconds for the page to load.

This morning I clikced on the link and ZIP! It popped right up before I could even take a sip of coffee.

I will finish reading your article now but I doubt I will have anything insightful to add except...

Haven't you said before that the Fed is a lagging indicator? Implying that if they are only now worried about inflation then perhaps inflation is already here?

I am no economist but I could swear prices at the grocery store have gone up considerably over the last year.

Thu May 26, 02:28:16 PM EDT  
 Dark Wraith blogged...

Good afternoon, NeoCon Crusher.

Actually, your statement that the page is loading so much faster brings joy to my heart. It's one thing when I see a desired change take effect, but it's quite another when the users of the blog see it. Auntie Roo said she had seen the improved load time, and now you're telling me the same thing. That's the beginning of an indication that different computers—possibly using different operating systems, browsers, and other components—are all being affected.

Now, it's funny that you should say that the Fed is a lagging indicator of inflation. I'm sure that Chairman Greenspan would take umbrage at the prospect that his enormous salary is to the purpose of him and his fellow Governors and District Bank Presidents being a confirmation signal rather than a leading signal of inflation. Despite his advanced age, Mr. Greenspan probably wouldn't care much for the suggestion that he cannot stay in front of something as easily manageable as the U.S. economy. Heck, I mean, old Paul Volker used to just scowl, and the whole economy would run for cover.

I agree with you: prices are rising. For months, I've been seeing it at the grocery store. But wait! That's the "food sector" of the economy, so that's one of those sectors where prices are too "volatile" from month to month for Mr. Greenspan to be interested in them.

Nevertheless, even though the personal experience of seeing rising prices would be dismissed by any reputable academic as merely "anecdotal," it is the accumulation of such "unreliable," personal observations that points to what's really going on.

You might have followed the thread of (I think it was) last week, where I launched into another of my hissy-fits about how the government economists are manipulating raw price changes to diminish the full quantitative impact of inflation. I suspect Mr. Shakes knew very well that he was going to bunch my briefs when he mentioned "hedonic prices": our good economists at the Commerce Department are adjusting price rises downward to correct for that component of the price rise that reflects improved quality. In other words, NeoCon Crusher, those economists are saying that, even though the price of, say, toilet paper has risen, we're getting more value, so the price increase really wasn't as much as consumers think it was by merely looking at the price of the Charmin.

Now, before I have a small stroke about this topic, I need to brew myself a pot of coffee and take an anti-coagulent in case the subject gets brought up again.


The Dark Wraith puts the CPR electro-paddles within easy reach.

Thu May 26, 03:15:48 PM EDT  
 PoliShifter blogged...

Thanks Dark Wraith for your insights.

To be blunt, a rose by any other name is still a rose...

Or sh*t still stinks if you call it flowers.

It seems to me that economics has become more about psycology and perception. It seems economists want to keep the perception of the economy rosey. By doing so I guess they think the economy will be rosey.

You can't stand in front of an elephant, fwail your hands wildly, and scream "there's no elephant here!" and expect people to believe you...

Can you?

FWIT, my OS at work is Windows 2000 with IE

At home I have Windows ME with IE
Both have 500MB ram and 1 Ghz processors.

Thu May 26, 03:37:54 PM EDT  
 My Pet Goat blogged...

Do you Mr. Wraith independently calculate, or know of watchdog group (for lack of better word) that independently calculate the varioius economic indicators? I mean you hear about how the number excludes the volatile energy or food prices, etc., but is anybody calculating it with these prices included and tracking the trend.

For example, like your Wall St. calcs where you see X.X% gain over time but with inflation you see -Y.Y% (that nobody talks about except Wraiths and other unconventionals).

Thu May 26, 04:46:47 PM EDT  
 oldwhitelady blogged...

I agree with neoconcrusher - the page loaded quickly!

Thu May 26, 05:49:44 PM EDT  
 elf blogged...

seems leke the "value" added is just like getting a smaller bag of chips or something which now costs more but claims how New and Improved it is !!

Thu May 26, 08:01:41 PM EDT  
 Paradigm Shifter blogged...

Hey Elf,

Or like 40% more bag and only 3% more chips.

Thu May 26, 08:38:21 PM EDT  
 PeterofLoneTree blogged...

My Pet Goat,
http://tinyurl.com/84b4d might provide you with at least a partial answer.

Thu May 26, 11:27:25 PM EDT  
 oldwhitelady blogged...

So, really, all we can look forward to, is more of the same! Gas has gone down a bit, but I look for it to go back up when the main vacation time arrives. Food prices are up. At my day job, we, every so often, go to buffets within walking distance. The pizza place has raised their prices, twice, in the last 6 or 7 months. The Chinese place has raised theirs, once. Granted, they haven't raised them, outrageously, all at once, but it still affects the pocket book. Luckily, my parents and sister give me eggs and vegies, during the summer. What sweeties!

Fri May 27, 12:27:35 AM EDT  
 My Pet Goat blogged...

Thanks Peteroflonetree. That "relative importance" number would make an interesting discussion point, starting with how is it defined.

BLS publishes what is called a "relative importance" for each commodity and commodity grouping. The relative importance of an item represents its basic value weight, including any imputations, multiplied by the relative of price change from the weight date to the date of the relative importance calculation, expressed as a percentage of the total value weight for the "all commodities" category.

Fri May 27, 02:05:45 AM EDT  
 Dark Wraith blogged...

Good evening, Mr. Goat.

Yes, the "relative importance" number is what might be called a potential talking point. Another issue that I've mentioned before is that housing costs are no longer included in the monthly analysis because, supposedly, people don't buy a house every month. As I noted previously, to anyone trained in basic economics, this argument is full of baloney. I need to explain the concept of "opportunity cost" at some point in the near future because the refutation of the government economists' argument against including monthly changes in housing costs has a lot to do with the opportunity cost of living in a dwelling, be it in owner-occupier or renter status.

Also, the Bureau of Labor Statistics does publish the CPI and the PPI both with and without the food and energy prices included. There is also data published, although not discussed by the mainstream media, breaking down changes in the CPI and PPI in various ways according to geography and other dimensions.

The main problem is, though, that none of this is reliable because of the manipulation that is being done to price data before any of the CPI and PPI numbers are published. It seems to me that just about anyone who does any kind of shopping at all knows that prices at the consumer level are rising, and they are doing so at a troubling rate. Business owners with whom I speak are describing the same thing about their costs, and a number of them are saying quite honestly that they are not passing all of their cost increases along to consumers.

Most notable in this regard is that it's not direct wage and salary labor costs that are causing the problems for most businesses. One thing I'm hearing quite a bit is that the cost of health insurance for workers has been rising dramatically, and to some extent I believe that is true, although my training in other subjects leads me to believe that there is at least some aspect of folklore at play in such declarations.

All of that having been said, it troubles me that I have become so cynical about the quality and trustworthiness of data being provided by the government. One of my field specializations was econometrics, and at some point I should be able to use my training and skills on real data to get meaningful information that can inform politicians, media personnel, and average people. It is a bad situation when I have no interest in doing statistical analysis because the data has a taint that is more than simply my over-active, paranoid imagination. Moreover, when I see "results" published in academic journals, I have to ask myself whether or not the data was in any way reliable enough for core econometric assumptions to be met so that the statistical methods yield meaningful results.

It's like being blinded by cynicism in a world where blindness is the last thing the cynic needs.

I need to devote some blog posts to what the government is doing with price data these days, but I need to lay good foundation before getting into the issues at hand. There are several principles of microeconomics that have to be set forth to get the ball rolling, and I have to figure out a way to lay those principles down without driving people away in droves like most economists do when they get technical.

It's just one more project assuring that this blog will have to stay in business for a long time to come.


The Dark Wraith wonders, though, how many of the regulars here these days will still be visiting in fifty years.

Fri May 27, 03:13:27 AM EDT  
 My Pet Goat blogged...

It seems like the entire process is open to manipulation, so the cynical view is understandable. Probably a good defensive measure as well to keep from being tempted by the kool-aid.

Moreover, when I see "results" published in academic journals, I have to ask myself whether or not the data was in any way reliable enough for core econometric assumptions to be met so that the statistical methods yield meaningful results.

Of course they do, it just depends on the story you want to justify. In my own version of cynicism I would call it creationist economics.

Fri May 27, 10:16:08 AM EDT  
 PoliShifter blogged...

(OT) NeoCon Crusher has let.

Polishifter has taken his place.

Fri May 27, 12:42:30 PM EDT  
 Dark Wraith blogged...

Good afternoon, SB Gypsy.

Below, I am going to re-post your comment from above under an "Other" with your handle because of a long URL in the comment that caused the thread to "rip" the comments column.

Not a problem, though: all I have to do is turn the super-long text string URL (which has to be the longest one I've ever seen!) into a hyperlink using an <a href="http://..."> tag; then I can get down to work on answering the question you posed, which struck me as being such an obvious problem with the market logic of an inverted yield curve that I should have addressed it before now.

Anyway, your original post will show "Deleted by Administrator," and the same post will show up just below this message.


The Dark Wraith does some tune-up.

Fri May 27, 04:29:50 PM EDT  
 elf blogged...

well Wraith ..if not still reading this in fifty years will be here in spirit !!

Fri May 27, 04:32:32 PM EDT  
 SB Gypsy blogged...

*Re-post by Administrator of Comment at 12:08 p.m. by SB Gypsy*

Good Morning, Dark Wraith,

I also say - thank you so much for the instant-load! Even with DSL, I used to have to wait 30 seconds or more before I could scroll down to the comments. Kudos!

I have a very alarming article to share, and a question.

First, the article:

GOP Tilting Balance Of Power to the Right

. . . which leads me to believe that our govt may be too broke to fix. All of the architecture of our federal government has been corrupted by rigidly partisan tinkering. There may never again be a time when our vote has meaning.



Now for the question:

The inverted yeild curve:

If short term T-bills are still fully guaranteed by the Federal Government, and not about to be renegged upon, then why would anyone want to get lower rates for having their money tied up longer?

If the Fed doesn't honor the short term instruments, why would anyone think the longer term ones were safer?

I don't want to end up like those war-bond holders you mentioned, but it seems like a good deal, to get a higher rate for a shorter time period. What's the downside here?

12:08 PM

Fri May 27, 04:38:09 PM EDT  
 Dark Wraith blogged...

Good afternoon, elf.

So you're saying that I won't be the only other-wordly, perhaps even wraithly entity haunting this blog?


The Dark Wraith will be glad for the spirited company.

Fri May 27, 04:39:56 PM EDT  
 Anonymous blogged...

I have to figure out a way to lay those principles down without driving people away in droves like most economists do when they get technical.

My economics teacher bored me to tears with all with supply and demand curves and "comparative advantage" and such. Almost Ben-Stein-in-Ferris-Bueller's-Day-Off-like.

The Dark Wraith Forums doesn't bore me...

well, at least not to tears.

lowlyredstater

Fri May 27, 05:41:53 PM EDT  
 Dark Wraith blogged...

Good afternoon, SB Gypsy.

Now for a little background knowledge that I'll use in a subsequent post to answer your question about why investors would ever go for lower, long-term rates of return instead of higher, short-term rates of return.

We start with the core interest rate that is embedded in every market interest rate that investors would ever see. This base interest rate is called the risk-free rate of return. It is the pure reward for surrendering current use of a (highly liquid) dollar. In other words, in order to induce an investor to give up consumption right now, something must be paid.

This risk-free rate, which we'll designate by rf, is theoretical: there's always a little bit of risk in any investment, even in a very short-term government debt obligation like a 3-month T-bill. Even though the risk in that short-term T-bill is virtually nothing whatsoever, we have to recognize that the yield on that T-bill is just a tiny, tiny bit above a pure, risk-free rate of return. That having been said, when we actually need to use the risk-free rate in calculations (as, for example, in a corporate finance formula called the Capital Asset Pricing Model), we use the 3-month T-bill yield as the proxy for the risk-free rate, knowing as we do that the T-bill yield is so close to the risk-free rate that the distortions caused by using the T-bill yield are so miniscule that we can't even calculate the error in using the T-bill yield as the proxy.

Okay, before we start building real-world, market interest rates off the risk-free rate, rf, we need to look inside this rate, which actually comprises two pieces, neither one of which can actually ever be seen but each of which is nonetheless important.

The risk-free rate is, itself, built from two, separate rates: the so-called real rate of return, which we'll designate rr, and the expected inflation premium, which we'll designate πe.

Hence, our model says that

rf = rr + πe,

and here's the logic of that equation. The pure reward for surrender the current consumption of a dollar certainly must include a part for how abundant those dollars are. If there are piles of dollars, then surrendering one of them shouldn't be rewarded very much; if, on the other hand, dollars are quite scarce, then the reward for surrendering the use of one of them should be pretty high. That's the real rate of return, rr, component. Now, in addition to the availability of dollars for consumption or investment, there is also the possibility that surrendering that dollar for a little while is going to end up hurting you because, when you get the dollar back, it won't buy as much as it would have were you to have used it right away for consumption. The possibility that the purchasing power of your dollar will be eroded if you don't use it right away must be rewarded; in fact, investors will insist on being compensated for this possibility. And more importantly, they won't be insisting upon the inflation rate that they've already seen, but rather on the inflation rate they'll be expecting over the period when they don't have the dollar to use. In other words, the reward for the possible erosion of purchasing power won't be some actual, historical inflation rate, it will be the expected inflation rate looking forward.

Think of it this way, SB Gypsy. If you have negotiating power over the salary you'll receive for the coming year, you'll base your compensation demands upon what you see inflation doing over the next year, not upon what inflation has already done.

This forward-looking aspect of market activity is crucial in understanding finance and economics: markets do not look at history in forming prices; instead, they formulate real-world prices based upon expectations.

So, the risk-free rate of return is the sum of two things at which we can sort of guess and about which we can do some statistical models to estimate. The fact that we cannot see or know for sure what the real rate of return and the expected inflation premium are is not much of an issue, right here; but do recognize that rr and πe do have a certain amount of interplay over a longer period of time: as the Fed pumps money into the economy, rr falls, but eventually, this excess money causes πe to start rising.

Enough about that. We now have the base interest rate that is at the heart of every other interest rate: all investors for any possible investment are going to insist upon getting the risk-free rate of return; and then, they'll want extra premia on top of that to reward them for the particular characteristics of the actual investment under consideration.

For example, government debt is, essentially, free of risk; but no other kind of investment is so blessed. A bank lending money to a home-buyer is going to know that there's a possibility that the home buyer will default. However, because the promissory note the home buyer signs (in other words, the home buyer is issuing a bond that the bank is agreeing to purchase) is backed by a mortgage note (giving the bank the right to seize the property in the event of default by the home buyer on the promissory note), the bank will not assess a large premium for the risk of default on the promissory note. On the other hand, because credit card debt has no hard-asset backing, the default premium banks charge for that kind of "revolving" debt is very high.

So, in addition to the risk-free rate of return, investors will want a default premium, rd, and this will depend crucially upon the character and quality of the investment. As I noted, government debt obligations will not carry a default premium, but private debt instruments of any kind will.

So at this point, we know that any investor is going to want the risk-free rate of return plus a default premium.

Let's go to the next premium, and for this one, I'm going to compare lending money to the government and lending money to our very own Mr. Goat. For the purposes of this example, we'll make the loans due in one year, and each borrower agrees to pay back $1000. The government makes this agreement by exchanging a T-bill for the money I give it. Mr. Goat, on the other hand, gives me an IOU written on a napkin in exchange for the money I lend him.

Now, understand that I am just as sure as I can be that Mr. Goat will pay me what he owes in one year, just like the government will. That means I'm not going to assess hardly any default premium on the Goat (obviously, I'll still assess some little, tiny default premium, but it will be virtually nil).

The problem is that, if I really, really needed to unload these instruments some time before their maturity, I'd have an interesting problem: that government T-bill is just like cash in that I could go into just about any bank or brokerage and turn it into cash money. If, say, in six months, I needed quick greenbacks, I could sell that T-bill right away.

But I couldn't do the same with the IOU Mr. Goat gave me. No one on Earth is going to give me anywhere near what that IOU is worth.

In other words, the Mr. Goat IOU is illiquid, whereas the T-bill is highly liquid. This means I'm going to have to charge Mr. Goat a liquidity premium because of the difficulty I'll have if I need to unload his IOU rapidly before its maturity.

This liquidity premium, which we'll call rl, is different for different types of instruments, and it doesn't exist in government issues because they can be unloaded virtually instantaneously. But other instruments, like private debt and stocks, each carries a specific liquidity premium based upon how easy or how difficult it would be to get rid of them rapidly.

So now we have that a market interest rate is the sum of the risk-free rate, a default premium, and a liquidity premium.

We have one more premium to go, and this is the one that has to do with yield curves. This premium is called the maturity premium, which we'll designate as rm. This premium represents the reward investors demand for extended surrender of consumption now.

If I lend you money that you'll pay back in a year, I know that I must do without the use of that money for a relatively short period of time, and in a relatively short period of time, not a lot could happen that would change my plans or make me wish I hadn't lent you that cash. However, if I lend you money that you don't have to pay back to me for 30 years, a whole lot can happen that might make me wish I'd had that money. For one thing, if I lent you money at a current, going rate of 7%, there's a really good chance that, over the next 30 years, interest rates will go up to, say, 11%, in which case I'm going to kick myself because I don't have the money to lend someone who'd pay me the 11%. Instead, I'm stuck with getting the 7% from you.

This means that, when I lend money on a long-term obligation, I'm going to want an extra reward for all of the risks that I won't be able to get something better down the line. This is the maturity premium, which should normally be larger as the term to maturity of an obligation lengthens.

So, finally, we have the entire structure of a market interest rate, rm, laid out:

rm = rf + rd + rl + rm


And this, SB Gypsy, is the starting point for more technical discussions of all things that have to do with interest rates.


The Dark Wraith backs down for a while to allow his computer keyboard to cool off.

Fri May 27, 06:23:43 PM EDT  
 SB Gypsy blogged...

This post has been removed by the author.

Sat May 28, 10:45:49 AM EDT  
 SB Gypsy blogged...

Good Morning Dark Wraith,

rm = rf + rd + rl + rm

Well, that doesn't look like algebra, it looks to me like programming, where you are updating a variable.

*

Which, obviously, is how interest works - adding a percentage to the principle in increments over time.

But, but but

if you have inflation, it never seems to recede, once the dollar is inflated, the new high tide mark becomes the floor, and (at least in my experience) we never go back to the old mark.

So, inflation would ravage the short term principle, but wouldn't it equally ravage the long term, leaving only the choice of:

- equally bad,
- or worse over time?

This still seems like a bad deal for the long term instruments.

Sat May 28, 10:49:58 AM EDT  
 Dark Wraith blogged...

Good morning, SB Gypsy.

This takes us to the next level.

The expected inflation is embedded in the short-term, risk-free rate, and the risk-free rate is embedded in all interest rates. That means the expected inflation should be embedded in all rates: short-term rates, intermediate-term rates, and long-term rates. As a consequence, we should see an interest rate structure that rises smoothly as the term to maturity of instruments rises (holding other factors constant, of course).

Let's talk "yield curves," here, shall we?

Suppose we look at a series of debt instruments that are the same in just about every way, except with respect to term to maturity. The best series like this is government debt securities: they have no default premium and they have no liquidity premium, regardless of the term to maturity. That means the yield on any Treasury instrument is only the sum of the risk-free rate and the maturity premium.

Now, the risk-free rate is approximately the yield on a very short-term Treasury bill; so at any point in time, the risk-free rate should be constant across Treasury instruments of various maturities. That means a snapshot of the yield curve of Treasury debt should show nothing but the maturity premium the market is assessing on each class of government debt.

Normally, a yield curve should rise smoothly: short-term T-bills should have very little maturity premium, intermediate-term T-notes should have more maturity premium, and long-term T-bonds should have even more maturity premium, all of this term structure reflecting the greater risk for which investors will want compensation as they commit lent funds for longer and longer periods of time.

So how in Heaven's name could the maturity premium be lower on a long-term bond than on a short-term bond? Surely, committing money to a loan for 20 years means more chances of downside risk: as I noted in my previous comment, if I lend someone money for 20 years at 7%, I'm stuck if interest rates jump up to, say, 11%. I don't have that money to lend at 11%. Even worse, if interest rates drop to 5%, that borrower might very well refinance and pay off what he owes me; then I do have my money to lend out again, but at a rate of 5%!

In other words, SB Gypsy, I'm hurt either way; and that's why I charge a premium for longer-term loans: there's no upside to lending long. If interest rates go up, I don't have my money to lend out and take advantage of the higher yields; and if interest rates go down, my borrower's going to pay me off, and then I'll have to re-lend my money at the lower rate.

Again, the maturity premium should be going up as the term to maturity of bonds lengthens.

But we have seen inverted yield curves: the rates on long-term debt actually below the rates on short-term debt.

How could this possibly be?

There are several scenarios that could cause this to happen, a couple of which you might be able to assess with the finance equipment I've given you so far. Another one has to do with something called "forward rates," to which I shall introduce you and everyone else here later today.

And by the way, I don't know whether you've noticed it or not, but what you've been reading here at The Dark Wraith Forums over the past couple of months or so is the essence of economics and managerial finance courses that you'd get at a university. By the time this is over, if you follow what I'm doing here, you'll be able to literally smoke some of the harder coursework you'd encounter in a business major or MBA program.


The Dark Wraith should consider issuing certificates of some kind to the regulars here on this blog.

Sat May 28, 11:28:32 AM EDT  
 SB Gypsy blogged...

Good Morning Dark Wraith,


...The Dark Wraith should consider issuing certificates of some kind to the regulars here on this blog.


That would be a first for me! In 6 years of study - at a two year school ;) - I never received any certification whatsoever. I received scholarships, honors and kudos - they even let me take as many credits as I wanted - but there were just too many interesting threads to follow, and just when I was about to finish one field of study, I would go off on another tangent!

Ahhhh well, sheepskins in frames need dusting, and that's NOT one of my strongpoints!

...the Gypsy goes off to ponder what else could influence long term rates...

Sun May 29, 12:44:09 PM EDT