> On the contrary, March 2020
I'm talking about credibility going forward. I said I agree with you for past events, and you again cite past events. The consequences of that intentional choice going forward are what matters.
> There is equity and also dividends, you just don't see it your portfolio because it's impossible to split the ownership of a bridge or an airport or a port.
Splitting the ownership of things like that to share in profits is literally how equity financing works. I'm not entitled to any profits that the government earns, should it ever actually have profits. Sure, I get to use the publicly owned land and airports, but to call that a dividend or equity is ridiculous. Your analogy would be like saying that since I am a google user, I therefore am a google shareholder. Similarly, a foreign citizen can also use our airports, it doesn't make them a shareholder of the nation.
> so again it's not just the Fed
You are reading past what I'm saying. I never said it was just the fed, what I meant is that the fed at that time was probably the largest market participant and the force that kept rates low, manipulating the entire market despite there being other participants. That's the point of QE-- to entice people to take debt in an environment when the free market can't provide sufficient lending. Note also as I said, many of the 60-40 portfolios are forced-- managers contractually must keep a 40% allocation of bonds.
I'm talking about credibility going forward. I said I agree with you for past events, and you again cite past events. The consequences of that intentional choice going forward are what matters.
> There is equity and also dividends, you just don't see it your portfolio because it's impossible to split the ownership of a bridge or an airport or a port.
Splitting the ownership of things like that to share in profits is literally how equity financing works. I'm not entitled to any profits that the government earns, should it ever actually have profits. Sure, I get to use the publicly owned land and airports, but to call that a dividend or equity is ridiculous. Your analogy would be like saying that since I am a google user, I therefore am a google shareholder. Similarly, a foreign citizen can also use our airports, it doesn't make them a shareholder of the nation.
> so again it's not just the Fed
You are reading past what I'm saying. I never said it was just the fed, what I meant is that the fed at that time was probably the largest market participant and the force that kept rates low, manipulating the entire market despite there being other participants. That's the point of QE-- to entice people to take debt in an environment when the free market can't provide sufficient lending. Note also as I said, many of the 60-40 portfolios are forced-- managers contractually must keep a 40% allocation of bonds.