UHND.com - Notre Dame Football, Basketball, & Recruiting

And almost two years ago when, it was 26,600+

So, yes. I've smelled 27,000 for years. Glad it finally happened.

(no message)

All too reminiscent of a certain poster's frequent 'Scoreboard!' posts during the past administration. Dumb then, dumb now.

......let me have my fun.

(no message)

(no message)

That's a good one.

I just read he wants the Fed to drop interest rates to 0, or into negative territory.

means? We are at a disadvantage with global money flooding into the US. It’s an economic war we must fight daily. Why can’t you guys get this?

less compounding effect. So during Obama's time the debt rose 100% and only did not rise more because of very low or zero interest rates. During Trump's almost 3 years it has gone from 20 to 23 trillion or a rise of 15% and was hurt by interest rates rising. Hmmmm sounds like Trump is getting way more for less, when you consider lower unemployment and rising blue collar wages. You have the idea right though. Trump way much more to overcome statistically yet way more effective. Don't forget the timeline for 100% payout of social security has increased by two years 2034 to 2036 after two years of Trump job growth and lower unemployment. Trump policies are doing AOK in my eyes. I know you agree.

Any attempt to discuss the rise in debt under Obama without acknowledgement of the recession is extremely uninformed, and really not helpful, unless you like masturbating to conjured up Trump achievements.

In the US, we have low interest rates engineered by the Fed (1.7 percent on the 10-year T-bill, the last I looked). The low yield would seem to suggest that people seeking income would not purchase government bonds -- right? Instead, they would be likely to purchase equities, particularly equities with a decent yield. But if income investors are forsaking government bonds for equities, wouldn't that have the effect of driving up the price of equities, under simple supply-and-demand principles? Add in fund managers who, I think, don't want to be caught with high-priced, low-yield bonds in their portfolios, because a 1.7 percent return doesn't look very good. Again, it would seem they would be inclined to put money into equities, again increasing demand (and price). Wouldn't it follow, then, that ultra-low interest rates are fueling a stock market bubble? If that's the case, how long can it go on? I'm not a hedge fund manager or an economist or anyone else with any sense at all when it comes to macroeconomics, but it seems to me that ultra-low interest rates for extended periods of time could be dangerous.

What about European central banks with negative interest rates? What are, for example, German income investors and fund managers doing with their money right now? Are they investing in German bonds? US Treasuries, for the better yield? Or do they also think 1.7 percent is not sufficient, and therefore gravitate toward equities? I really don't know, so I throw out these questions to the board.

internationally. The rates are impacted by other factors beside supply and demand. You are right, why buy treasuries at just under 2% when you can buy a high dividend stock that is kicking off 5%. Some people don’t like risk and feel safer in US bonds and treasuries.

There are a couple issues here. The US is the world’s reserve currency. All commodities are bought and sold in dollars. So every country must buy dollars to maintain their currency balances. Secondly, a lot of EU countries at in or close to a recession. So they will swamp Europe with Euros that will lower Bund rates in Germany and others making US treasuries more attractive.

Trump wants the Fed to response since a stronger dollar weakens US exports. Imagine paying Germany to buy 47% Bunds.

So with the highest interest rates being paid and the dollar so strong it’s hard for the US to compete against other countries that are manipulating their currencies.

(no message)

I will note that I think you mixed up yields and rates in your post. Rates are lower in other countries than in the US, and in some countries (last I looked), there are actually negative rates. So, for example, a corporation can buy German bonds at a negative rate (guaranteed loss if they keep until maturity) or US bonds at a positive rate (guaranteed very low gain if they keep until maturity. So, some transfer their money from euros into dollars (driving up the value of the dollar on the market) and buy US bonds. (Some people are still buying German bonds at negative rates, but I admit I don't get it. I suppose they think that is a safer form of wealth than money deposited in a private bank.)

When the dollar goes higher, Americans can buy more imported products, but it is harder for American businesses to sell abroad. A lower dollar helps American businesses marketing around the world. So, lower rates are good for that. Also, lower rates make borrowing easier...which is good in the short term (so the US markets and presidents of both parties love it) but potentially (almost certainly) bad in the long run.

Yields are a different matter. They are more an indication of confidence in the US, I think? I'll let someone else comment on that.

I think ultra-low rates do fuel a market bubble. I hope the bubble lasts through the next election. Obama was a beneficiary of the housing bubble popping before the 2008 election. Bush didn't make the bubble; both parties allowed it to happen; the timing of the pop possibly affected the election, though. But, make no mistake, any bubble is bad if it gets too big. We had a major money supply bubble build up under Obama (Supported by McCain & Bush), and that has still not been undone.

The Fed sets the overnight interest rate that is the base of the whole yield curve. The Federal Funds Rate. This is what they have recently dropped and what Trump wants them to drop to zero.

Government bonds (and corporate bonds) have a coupon rate that is set at the time of issue. At the time of issue, the bond’s rate and its yield are essentially equal. So, you might issue a ten year note with a coupon rate of 2.25% and a price of par (100-00). It’s yield to maturity would basically be 2.25% at that time (+/- some minor adjustments related to when it pays its coupons, etc). Over time, the market’s view of economic prospects, etc could cause the price of the note to rise (for example), which would then lower the yield on the note. If the price goes to 101-00, the coupon rate stays the same, and so the yield to maturity drops. This is because the bond will mature at 100-00.

It is fair to ask why people would buy 10 year German Bunds at negative yields. They do because there is really no alternative. Banks won’t accept large deposits at even 0% interest because they have no way to invest those deposits. There is effectively no way for Siemens to just hold cash in a vault. So, they are stuck buying the Bunds. It really is a crazy situation.

(no message)

....you'd still be way up.

Now, it you combine hanging in there on the money already invested with a cash reserve to buy additionally when the market dumps....well that is a winning strategy.

People can get laid off when a bubble bursts.

I met with a financial advisor recently. She noted we are in a "mature market" which means she expects short term declines. But, she said it is not bad to continue to buy the market, because I have enough time before I retire that the cycle will be on an upswing again before that point.

(no message)

(no message)

(no message)

(no message)

(no message)

(no message)

(no message)

(no message)

I've said it before and I will say it again: I would cut every spending program by 20% tomorrow...even my favorite programs. Will you agree with me on that?

Unfortunately, political partisans only care when the other party is in power, and when you get into power, you want to spend on your favorite programs. We KNOW the Democrats would increase spending over what Trump and the GOP are spending, so you cannot criticize any conservative on this board with regard to deficit spending. Try criticizing on an issue regarding which the Dems provide a good alternative.

I could probably be sold on a 20% across the board cut.

I celebrate our common ground (yours and mine, individually) that deficit spending is bad.

The two major parties obviously also have common ground: paying lip service to the issue of deficit spending when the other party is in charge.

When every leading Dem candidate would spend more than what we are spending now (just on different things), it seems hypocritical to hear a person who will vote for one of them criticizing the Right for deficit spending. But, if your point is that the Right pays lip service to deficit spending but violates their own principles, then I accept your point...and then add, "So does the Left."

I certainly wish our parties would cut our spending. But, they won't. Thus...Fasten your seatbelt!

...but we'll never know...

They have a lot of nerve. They managed the US economy during the Bush administration which created a meltdown with millions losing their jobs and homes. Now they are the experts. Fuck them.

We all knew it was a pyramid scheme and doomed to collapse as soon as they could not make the payments.

If the Dems were lucky enough to have that blow up sooner, Bush might not have been a two term president.

(no message)