1387 year?_老虎社区_美港股上老虎

yung
2021-06-19

1387 year??? How many cycle of life.[惊讶] [惊讶] [惊讶]

Investors Leap at Chance to Double Their Money in 1,387 Years

Want to know how sensitive investors are to tiny differences in interest rates? Look at what happene

Investors Leap at Chance to Double Their Money in 1,387 Years

免责声明：上述内容仅代表发帖人个人观点，不构成本平台的任何投资建议。

推荐
最新

暂无评论

热议股票

关于我们·老虎社区守则·老虎社区账号管理规范·老虎社区服务协议·老虎社区隐私政策

公司名称：北京至简风宜信息技术有限公司

违法和不良信息投诉：010-5681-3562（工作时间9:30-18:30）

邮箱：service@laohu8.com

营业执照：91110105MA01A4U55R

ICP备：京ICP备18016422号

网安备：京公网安备11010502036490

关注我们

{"i18n":{"language":"zh_CN"},"data":{"magic":2,"id":162348036,"tweetId":"162348036","gmtCreate":1624036662825,"gmtModify":1631890689430,"author":{"id":3574639331964090,"idStr":"3574639331964090","authorId":3574639331964090,"authorIdStr":"3574639331964090","name":"yung","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/9824f99b3f3aafd5e3bbacc77ffee02d","vip":1,"userType":1,"introduction":"","boolIsFan":false,"boolIsHead":false,"crmLevel":2,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"individualDisplayBadges":[],"fanSize":8,"starInvestorFlag":false},"themes":[],"images":[],"coverImages":[],"extraTitle":"","html":"<html><head></head><body><p>1387 year??? How many cycle of life.<span>[惊讶]&nbsp;</span><span>[惊讶]&nbsp;</span><span>[惊讶]&nbsp;</span></p></body></html>","htmlText":"<html><head></head><body><p>1387 year??? How many cycle of life.<span>[惊讶]&nbsp;</span><span>[惊讶]&nbsp;</span><span>[惊讶]&nbsp;</span></p></body></html>","text":"1387 year??? How many cycle of life.[惊讶] [惊讶] [惊讶]","highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":1,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"favoriteSize":0,"link":"https://laohu8.com/post/162348036","repostId":1111305468,"repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"1111305468","kind":"news","pubTimestamp":1624025497,"share":"https://www.laohu8.com/m/news/1111305468?lang=&edition=full","pubTime":"2021-06-18 22:11","market":"us","language":"en","title":"Investors Leap at Chance to Double Their Money in 1,387 Years","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=1111305468","media":"Bloomberg","summary":"Want to know how sensitive investors are to tiny differences in interest rates? Look at what happene","content":"<p>Want to know how sensitive investors are to tiny differences in interest rates? Look at what happened after the Federal Reserve decided June 16 to raise&nbsp;the rate it pays on its overnight reverse repurchase facility to 0.05% from 0.00%.&nbsp;You’d need&nbsp;1,387 years to double your money at that puny rate. Still, it was enough to draw in $756 billion in funds on June 17, a 45% increase from when the Fed was paying a flat zero.</p>\n<p>That’s “just another affirmation of the glut of cash seeking any positive return,”&nbsp;Jonathan Cohn, a strategist at Credit Suisse Group AG, told Bloomberg.</p>\n<p>The massive flows of short-term money are mostly invisible to the general public, but they’re vital to big players such as money market mutual funds and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the two giant companies&nbsp;in government conservatorship whose purchases of mortgage loans affect rates for homebuyers. Fannie, Freddie, and the money funds are believed to be among the big players that poured their spare cash into the Fed’s&nbsp;reverse repurchase facility—a kind of overnight parking lot for money—on June 17.</p>\n<p>There are differences of opinion over whether the Fed’s rate increase was necessary or wise. Zoltan Pozsar, the global head of short-term interest rate strategy for Credit Suisse, says the hike—as small as it might seem to a layperson—was too big. “I was arguing that there is no need to adjust anything,” Pozsar says. For the big players that are taking advantage of the Fed’s facility, he says, “It’s like Christmastime in the middle of summer.”</p>\n<p>Pozsar argues that the previous rate of zero was high enough because it ensured that the federal funds rate would not fall below the Fed’s target range of&nbsp;zero to 0.25%:&nbsp;Presumably&nbsp;no bank&nbsp;would lend federal funds at less than zero if it&nbsp;could earn zero&nbsp;by stashing money at the Fed’s reverse repurchase facility. Raising the overnight reverse repurchase rate to 0.05%, Pozsar says, makes it too much of a lure for money. “They basically turned an innocent facility that was serving as a floor to something more menacing that’s sucking money out of the system,” he says.</p>\n<p>Not everyone sees things&nbsp;that way. The rate hike certainly made life easier for money funds, which strive not&nbsp;to “break the buck”—that is, give investors back less money than they put in. It was&nbsp;hard to meet that commitment when the funds were earning zero and had to cover salaries and other expenses.</p>\n<p>The fear that the Fed’s facility will suck too much money out of the banking system (which Iwrote aboutlast week) is theoretical for now because banks are actually trying to shed deposits for various reasons, including regulations that make it costly for them to take in deposits and stash the money in Treasury securities or reserves at the Fed. If banks did decide they were losing too much in deposits to the Fed, they could simply raise deposit rates and pull the money back.</p>\n<p>Lorie Logan, an executive vice president of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, who runs the bank’s trading desk, said in an April 15speechthat fears that the overnight reverse repurchase facility would suck too much money from the financial system “have not materialized in the intervening years, even through various periods of market stress.”</p>\n<p>Meanwhile, anyone stashing $1 billion&nbsp;in the facility can look forward to taking out $2 billion—in the year 3,408.</p>","source":"lsy1584095487587","collect":0,"html":"<!DOCTYPE html>\n<html>\n<head>\n<meta http-equiv=\"Content-Type\" content=\"text/html; charset=utf-8\" />\n<meta name=\"viewport\" content=\"width=device-width,initial-scale=1.0,minimum-scale=1.0,maximum-scale=1.0,user-scalable=no\"/>\n<meta name=\"format-detection\" content=\"telephone=no,email=no,address=no\" />\n<title>Investors Leap at Chance to Double Their Money in 1,387 Years</title>\n<style type=\"text/css\">\na,abbr,acronym,address,applet,article,aside,audio,b,big,blockquote,body,canvas,caption,center,cite,code,dd,del,details,dfn,div,dl,dt,\nem,embed,fieldset,figcaption,figure,footer,form,h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6,header,hgroup,html,i,iframe,img,ins,kbd,label,legend,li,mark,menu,nav,\nobject,ol,output,p,pre,q,ruby,s,samp,section,small,span,strike,strong,sub,summary,sup,table,tbody,td,tfoot,th,thead,time,tr,tt,u,ul,var,video{ font:inherit;margin:0;padding:0;vertical-align:baseline;border:0 }\nbody{ font-size:16px; line-height:1.5; color:#999; background:transparent; }\n.wrapper{ overflow:hidden;word-break:break-all;padding:10px; }\nh1,h2{ font-weight:normal; line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:.6em; }\nh3,h4,h5,h6{ line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:1em; }\nh1{ font-size:24px; }\nh2{ font-size:20px; }\nh3{ font-size:18px; }\nh4{ font-size:16px; }\nh5{ font-size:14px; }\nh6{ font-size:12px; }\np,ul,ol,blockquote,dl,table{ margin:1.2em 0; }\nul,ol{ margin-left:2em; }\nul{ list-style:disc; }\nol{ list-style:decimal; }\nli,li p{ margin:10px 0;}\nimg{ max-width:100%;display:block;margin:0 auto 1em; }\nblockquote{ color:#B5B2B1; border-left:3px solid #aaa; padding:1em; }\nstrong,b{font-weight:bold;}\nem,i{font-style:italic;}\ntable{ width:100%;border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:1px;margin:1em 0;font-size:.9em; }\nth,td{ padding:5px;text-align:left;border:1px solid #aaa; }\nth{ font-weight:bold;background:#5d5d5d; }\n.symbol-link{font-weight:bold;}\n/* header{ border-bottom:1px solid #494756; } */\n.title{ margin:0 0 8px;line-height:1.3;color:#ddd; }\n.meta {color:#5e5c6d;font-size:13px;margin:0 0 .5em; }\na{text-decoration:none; color:#2a4b87;}\n.meta .head { display: inline-block; overflow: hidden}\n.head .h-thumb { width: 30px; height: 30px; margin: 0; padding: 0; border-radius: 50%; float: left;}\n.head .h-content { margin: 0; padding: 0 0 0 9px; float: left;}\n.head .h-name {font-size: 13px; color: #eee; margin: 0;}\n.head .h-time {font-size: 11px; color: #7E829C; margin: 0;line-height: 11px;}\n.small {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.9); -webkit-transform: scale(0.9); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.smaller {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.8); -webkit-transform: scale(0.8); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.bt-text {font-size: 12px;margin: 1.5em 0 0 0}\n.bt-text p {margin: 0}\n</style>\n</head>\n<body>\n<div class=\"wrapper\">\n<header>\n<h2 class=\"title\">\nInvestors Leap at Chance to Double Their Money in 1,387 Years\n</h2>\n\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n\n\n2021-06-18 22:11 GMT+8&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href=https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-06-18/investors-leap-at-chance-to-double-their-money-in-1-387-years><strong>Bloomberg</strong></a>\n\n\n</h4>\n\n</header>\n<article>\n<div>\n<p>Want to know how sensitive investors are to tiny differences in interest rates? Look at what happened after the Federal Reserve decided June 16 to raise the rate it pays on its overnight reverse ...</p>\n\n<a href=\"https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-06-18/investors-leap-at-chance-to-double-their-money-in-1-387-years\">Web Link</a>\n\n</div>\n\n\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"","relate_stocks":{".DJI":"道琼斯","FNMA":"房利美","FMCC":"房地美"},"source_url":"https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-06-18/investors-leap-at-chance-to-double-their-money-in-1-387-years","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/e9f99090a1c2ed51c021029395664489","article_id":"1111305468","content_text":"Want to know how sensitive investors are to tiny differences in interest rates? Look at what happened after the Federal Reserve decided June 16 to raise the rate it pays on its overnight reverse repurchase facility to 0.05% from 0.00%. You’d need 1,387 years to double your money at that puny rate. Still, it was enough to draw in $756 billion in funds on June 17, a 45% increase from when the Fed was paying a flat zero.\nThat’s “just another affirmation of the glut of cash seeking any positive return,” Jonathan Cohn, a strategist at Credit Suisse Group AG, told Bloomberg.\nThe massive flows of short-term money are mostly invisible to the general public, but they’re vital to big players such as money market mutual funds and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the two giant companies in government conservatorship whose purchases of mortgage loans affect rates for homebuyers. Fannie, Freddie, and the money funds are believed to be among the big players that poured their spare cash into the Fed’s reverse repurchase facility—a kind of overnight parking lot for money—on June 17.\nThere are differences of opinion over whether the Fed’s rate increase was necessary or wise. Zoltan Pozsar, the global head of short-term interest rate strategy for Credit Suisse, says the hike—as small as it might seem to a layperson—was too big. “I was arguing that there is no need to adjust anything,” Pozsar says. For the big players that are taking advantage of the Fed’s facility, he says, “It’s like Christmastime in the middle of summer.”\nPozsar argues that the previous rate of zero was high enough because it ensured that the federal funds rate would not fall below the Fed’s target range of zero to 0.25%: Presumably no bank would lend federal funds at less than zero if it could earn zero by stashing money at the Fed’s reverse repurchase facility. Raising the overnight reverse repurchase rate to 0.05%, Pozsar says, makes it too much of a lure for money. “They basically turned an innocent facility that was serving as a floor to something more menacing that’s sucking money out of the system,” he says.\nNot everyone sees things that way. The rate hike certainly made life easier for money funds, which strive not to “break the buck”—that is, give investors back less money than they put in. It was hard to meet that commitment when the funds were earning zero and had to cover salaries and other expenses.\nThe fear that the Fed’s facility will suck too much money out of the banking system (which Iwrote aboutlast week) is theoretical for now because banks are actually trying to shed deposits for various reasons, including regulations that make it costly for them to take in deposits and stash the money in Treasury securities or reserves at the Fed. If banks did decide they were losing too much in deposits to the Fed, they could simply raise deposit rates and pull the money back.\nLorie Logan, an executive vice president of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, who runs the bank’s trading desk, said in an April 15speechthat fears that the overnight reverse repurchase facility would suck too much money from the financial system “have not materialized in the intervening years, even through various periods of market stress.”\nMeanwhile, anyone stashing $1 billion in the facility can look forward to taking out $2 billion—in the year 3,408.","news_type":1},"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":885,"commentLimit":10,"likeStatus":false,"favoriteStatus":false,"reportStatus":false,"symbols":[],"verified":2,"subType":0,"readableState":1,"langContent":"CN","currentLanguage":"CN","warmUpFlag":false,"orderFlag":false,"shareable":true,"causeOfNotShareable":"","featuresForAnalytics":[],"commentAndTweetFlag":false,"andRepostAutoSelectedFlag":false,"upFlag":false,"length":48,"xxTargetLangEnum":"ZH_CN"},"commentList":[],"hasMoreComment":false,"orderType":2}