www.transicionestructural.NET es un nuevo foro, que a partir del 25/06/2012 se ha separado de su homónimo .COM. No se compartirán nuevos mensajes o usuarios a partir de dicho día.
3 Usuarios y 16 Visitantes están viendo este tema.
¿En vuestros entornos, qué se entiende por liquidez?]
Excess Liquidity: Where Art Thou?The graph below, courtesy of the St. Louis Fed, charts the amount of money in the Fed’s overnight reverse repurchase agreement (ON RRP) facility. To understand why the current lack of a meaningful balance in the program could become concerning, let’s revisit the Fed’s response to the Pandemic. During the pandemic and global economic shutdown, the Fed flooded the financial system with abundant liquidity. Accordingly, the Fed needed to absorb the excess liquidity; otherwise, its Fed Funds rate and other money market rates would have fallen well below zero percent. The competitive investment rates on the ON RRP facility incentivized banks and government agencies (FHLB, FNMA, FMAC) to invest their excess liquidity in the Fed’s ON RRP. The facility provided a home for the excess liquidity and maintained overnight rates at the Fed’s target.A further benefit to the ON RRP facility was that it gave investors a gauge of excess liquidity in the system. As the graph shows, the facility has dwindled to near zero. Said differently, after years of having a sizeable store of liquidity, the financial system now lacks excess liquidity. This doesn’t mean a liquidity crisis is imminent. It simply means the financial system has returned to its pre-pandemic liquidity status. However, if liquidity demands increase, there is no liquidity in the proverbial bank as we have grown accustomed to. Thus, in the future, the Fed will likely be much quicker to act on a liquidity run today than it was when the ON RRP program had large balances.
Hamas leader declares end of war, permanent ceasefireOne of Hamas' top leaders and the head of its negotiation team Khalil al-Hayya announced on Thursday that the military group reached an agreement with Israel to end the war in Gaza and to implement a permanent ceasefire."I am happy to announce that we have reached a deal for a ceasefire, to put an end to the aggression and also proceed to a permanent ceasefire, as well as the withdrawal of the army. We have also reached an agreement to allow the aid to enter Gaza and open the Rafah crossing from both sides," al-Hayya stated.Moreover, the Hamas chief shared that the agreement includes the release of "all jailed Palestinian women and children," adding that the group received guarantees from the United States and other mediators that the war has ended permanently.
First Brands shrapnel is spread widely and unevenlyCollateral, equity cushions, hedging and litigation will all play into the outcome for each investorAutolite spark plugs are among the car parts products owned by First Brands © BloombergThe blow-up of car-parts maker First Brands is a tale of big names, and big numbers. The US company collapsed owing about $12bn across various kinds of loans. For those affected, that’s clearly unpleasant. How unpleasant, exactly, will depend on three things.Jefferies is one that has been drawn into the blast radius. On Wednesday it revealed that one of its asset management subsidiaries is owed $715mn, after buying some of First Brands’ customer IOUs. Then there is UBS: funds linked to the Swiss lender have $500mn of nominal exposure to the ill-fated company.For any involved party the first question, after the size of the exposure, is whether the impact is purely financial or reputational too. As well as any potential lending losses weathered by its funds, Jefferies also had a separate investment banking relationship with First Brands; its share price has fallen by 15 per cent in the past month, wiping off $2bn of value.The second question is “whose money?” There is a big difference between asset managers that deploy capital on behalf of others and players that put their own balance sheet dollars on the line. At UBS, exposure came through a fund managed by its O’Connor subsidiary. In Jefferies’ case, it’s a bit of both: an affiliated asset manager itself contributed 6 per cent of the fund’s $1.9bn of equity.The third question is how deep the entanglement went compared with the size of the institution. For both Jefferies and UBS, the numbers are so far small; Jefferies has $10bn of book equity, a proxy for its ability to absorb losses. The same is not true for smaller, previously little-known groups that have emerged in the First Brands saga. Those would include Raistone and Onset, both speciality supply chain financiers. A majority of Raistone’s revenue is linked to First Brands, the FT has reported. As it happens, a UBS hedge fund unit was also one of Raistone’s investors.For these smaller firms, the many uncertainties of First Brands’ financial condition could prove existential. Raistone has asked for an independent investigation, arguing that $2.3bn of cash is, by First Brands’ advisers’ own admission, simply unaccounted for.The deceptive thing about big numbers in debt blow-ups is that investors can end up recovering money later, a process that can take years. Collateral, equity cushions, hedging and litigation all play into the eventual outcome for each investor concerned.As lawyers and investors pick through the wreckage of First Brands, what will emerge is a study in how byzantine modern debt markets have become, how shrewd companies are at spreading their risk and how clever they are at utilising the law to get their money back.
En este artículo de El País se pretende mostrar un mapa que muestre como las zonas de clase media alta y media "bien" han dejado de lado el trabajo como fuente de riqueza en favor del rentismo aproductivo¿Barrios de trabajadores, barrios de rentistas? Consulte el origen de los ingresos por código postal | Economía | EL PAÍS https://share.google/KN33nyJW4PwucoIpS