Quote from: mjr on October 24, 2014, 03:44:23 PM

Quote from: QwertyCore on October 24, 2014, 03:37:52 PM

Quote from: mjr on October 24, 2014, 03:21:56 PM

Quote from: sleger on October 24, 2014, 02:28:45 PM

Quote from: mjr on October 24, 2014, 12:34:14 AM

Can we please agree though, because this is basic, that you cannot "improve" something, by making it not exist anymore?

Seriously ? No I do not agree.
As a doctor would you rather have a sick patient with a disease that you are able to control rather than a healthy patient ? I guess maybe it makes sense because you can get more money from the patient, is that maybe what you meant ?

OK, I have a sick patient, I should kill him so he is no longer sick? Or should I treat his disease? That is the analogy here. We said "The calculation of the FRR is not optimal, how can we improve it". People have suggested getting rid of it. That is not improving the FRR, that is "killing the patient".

Wow! Do you really believe this?

Killing the patient is analogous to closing the swap market and no one has suggested that. Removing the FRR is not killing the patient, it is removing the disease.

The patient hosts the disease. Removing the disease does not is any way remove the host.

Again, you are mixing levels. You are seeing the patient as the swap market, you are answering the question "How can I heal the patient?". We are not seeing the patient as the swap market, we see the patient as the FRR. We are asking, "How can I heal the patient?".

The fact that you are having a conversation, that is in no way the same as the conversation that we are having, shows why there is so much confusion.

I understand that that is the question you want to answer, but it is not the question we asked. This is what I have tried to explain, over and over, that you are answering a question, and providing a solution to a question that we are not asking. We asked how we could improve the FRR, not how we can improve the swaps market. I understand that you, and others, may have suggestions on a wide range of topics, and I'm sure they are well-thought out and probably very useful, but in this specific case, we are looking to answer the question "How can we improve the calculation of the FRR?".

So, for example, getting rid of the FRR is not a good answer to the question that we are actually asking. Saying something like, "Weighting it to take into account more recent activity more than past activity." IS a good suggestion, or at the very least, answering the question we asked, and participating in the conversation that we are involved in.

Wow! Just absolutely, unbelievably, freaking WOW!

You win, I give up.