Discovery ends sponsorship at end of 2007

On Feb 20, 11:35 am, Curtis L. Russell
wrote:
On 20 Feb 2007 10:52:19 -0800, "SLAVE of THE STATE"
wrote:

What do you mean by "Administrative policy?" Do you mean fiscal
policy? What "market policy" does Congress and the Executive set? If
you could explain the mechanics of whatever you mean, that would be
good.

... any policy set
that impacts a major set of financial players...

Fiscal policy affects everyone (even people not yet born, lol).

and how they do
business, either settlement banks or secondary and tertiary players in
the loan or refinance area, can have an immediate impact on what the
money center banks and the next level down do with cash. All you have
to do is introduce enough uncertainty and the overnight rates will go
up.

Hmmm... I'm not so sure about "uncertainty and overnight rates."
When, for example, the guvmint says it will pass a fiscal stimulus
package, there is always uncertainty about particulars, but it is not
exactly a surprise. Moreover, it is not necessarily implemented on a
continuous basis as the Fed can do with OMO.

If the fiscal policy borrows, for example, and then crowds out private
activity, then I can see how the interest rate would rise (I think I
said that already). But I'm really wondering about the "immediacy"
thing. After all, one of the basic complaints about fiscal policy is
its time lags.

For example, after 911, there was about a 5-month lag for the
compromise "stimulus" package to be passed by Congress and signed by
the Executive. And only after that do we consider the ensuing
operational lag.

What they do with cash impacts how much is available to maintain Fed
margins elsewhere, ...

I do not understand what this means. The Fed is independent. It can,
in effect, create and destroy money at will, whenever it wants. That,
to me, seems a lot more immediate and able to affect the overnight
rates in real-time than fiscal policy.

Is it as permanent as setting the reserve rate?

The main weapon of the Fed is OMO, not setting the reserve
requirements.

"Open market operations--purchases and sales of U.S. Treasury and
federal agency securities--are the Federal Reserve's principal tool
for implementing monetary policy." http://www.federalreserve.gov/fomc/fundsrate.htm

Not usually - maybe never, but it can
be significant over the short haul.

Well nothing in this regard is "permanent" in the long run. Money is
said to be neutral in the long run. (I have some problems with the
neutrality statement, but that is another thing.)

On 20 Feb 2007 19:03:25 -0800, "SLAVE of THE STATE"
wrote:

If the fiscal policy borrows, for example, and then crowds out private
activity, then I can see how the interest rate would rise (I think I
said that already). But I'm really wondering about the "immediacy"
thing. After all, one of the basic complaints about fiscal policy is
its time lags.

The effect is immediate in overnights (well, can be). There are
certain constants, like making reserve margins and payrolls
semimonthly and biweekly (which is in effect weekly). And there are
adjustments to announcements as the central banks decide how much they
will retain over their current. The impact is quick enough that the
rates have doubled in the period of an hour when the bidding for short
money starts (its also why IMO two of the three money guys on the
Paribus desk that I worked with committed suicide - and that was over
less than 18 months, but they were some nasty months in the 70s). If
the money center banks semipermanently take money off by adding a tick
on their reserve amounts, it can keep O/N higher for awhile.

Of course, it isn't just the administration.Have a huge reinsurance
group or secondary loan maker announce that they aren't releasing
financials on time as they make corrections. The Freddie Mac/Fannie
Mae crap had to be nasty when they made their announcements. Everyone
starts sitting down and figuring whether they now have excess loans
that won't be laid off to the normal loan buyers and whether they can
make their current commitments over the next few weeks and whether or
not they need to go long or short or just cut their wrists and get it
over with. The guys that deal in specific loan tranches start
calculating when the shortage will hit their groups. Rings in the
water...

Miss that stuff in a very, very perverse sort of way.

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...

Geez Mike, Trek went from having a nice vanilla bicycle in the early 90's
to
having what can only be described as the best in the field with a
reputation
even greater than that.

maybe biggest $ in field..Any other frame maker would disagree with no
real answer. Specilized, BMC, Scott, C-dale, Ridley, Colnago put name
of frame here.

Going with US Postal was one of the more brilliant marketing ploys for
Trek.

No doubt about that.

And equally without question was the incredibly-bad decision US Postal made
to leave the team. People still think of them as "Postal." It was "branding"
to the max. Even if the requirements had been increased to $20 million, I
still think it would have been one of the best advertising deals going.

--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com

"Mike Jacoubowsky" wrote in message
. ..

Going with US Postal was one of the more brilliant marketing ploys for
Trek.

No doubt about that.

And equally without question was the incredibly-bad decision US Postal
made to leave the team. People still think of them as "Postal." It was
"branding" to the max. Even if the requirements had been increased to $20
million, I still think it would have been one of the best advertising
deals going.

--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles

I think there's a residual value no matter what the situation, and I think
sponsors take that into account. Look at the Colts in the NFL. They moved
out of Baltimore 23 years ago and there was still hype over the Baltimore
vs.Indianapolis playoff game.

You can view it two ways: USPS factored in this residual effect in their
decision to cease sponsoring the team, or at this point the USPS is getting
something for nothing.

In article , "Carl Sundquist"
wrote:

"Mike Jacoubowsky" wrote in message
. ..

And equally without question was the incredibly-bad decision US Postal
made to leave the team. People still think of them as "Postal." It was
"branding" to the max. Even if the requirements had been increased to $20
million, I still think it would have been one of the best advertising
deals going.

I think there's a residual value no matter what the situation, and I think
sponsors take that into account. Look at the Colts in the NFL. They moved
out of Baltimore 23 years ago and there was still hype over the Baltimore
vs.Indianapolis playoff game.

You can view it two ways: USPS factored in this residual effect in their
decision to cease sponsoring the team, or at this point the USPS is getting
something for nothing.

I think they're getting something for nothing by now. I agree with Mike that people
still think of the team as "Postal" but I think that the longer LANCE is away from it
as a rider, the less that association will resonate.

--
tanx,
Howard

Never take a tenant with a monkey.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

Tom Kunich wrote:

Sorry but the Clinton administration HAS to take responsibility for allowing
such preposterous public offerings as "dog-walk.com" - a company whose
business plan was to walk the dogs of busy executives.

Eeek! And you claim to be Republican? Your pitch for goverment
regulation sounds more Communist. As if the government's role was to
stop those evil, stupid capitalists.