Showing posts with label 10 yr Treasuries. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 10 yr Treasuries. Show all posts

Monday, February 9, 2009

Yields on US Treasuries are continuing to rise — despite the best efforts of the US to keep them down

From Alphaville:

"
Rescuing banks, then Treasuries

Yields on US Treasuries are continuing to rise — despite the best efforts of the US to keep them down.

Monument Securities’ Stephen Lewis has this to say about it today:
US policymakers need to take the Treasuries market’s behaviour seriously. Each basis point by which the market yields rise nullifies actions that the US Treasury and Federal Reserve are taking in other policy areas to stimulate the economy. If those actions, through their implications for the budget deficit, are the cause of the rise in yields, the US authorities need to be careful how they proceed.

Cue tomorrow’s announcement on the US’s bank rescue/stimulus plan. Any action will likely have an impact on treasury yields as well - and here the US needs to be careful. It could very well end up pushing yields higher — via its implications for the US budget deficit, etc. Back to Lewis:

It is entirely possible that a point might be reached where the loss would exceed the gains. That would set an effective limit to what the US authorities could do to support the economy. Any attempt to reflate the economy beyond that point would be as futile as an attempt to travel faster than the speed of light.

Mr Bernanke and some of his colleagues may believe they can circumvent this constraint by having the Federal Reserve hold down yields in the marketplace. If they initiate a strategy of Fed purchases of Treasuries in such circumstances, they will very likely find plenty of willing sellers. After all, investors will know for sure that, without the Fed’s intervention, yields on Treasuries would be higher, though they will not know how much higher. The Fed’s bid will, therefore, afford investors an opportunity to offload paper at above-market prices.

To keep yields steady, the Fed might well have to increase the scale of its purchases progressively, and eventually wind up holding most of the Treasury debt in issuance. This looks like a route-map to the destruction of financial markets and the establishment of a command economy.

Of course, if we’ve learned anything from the current crisis it’s that the Fed is already targeting asset prices. It’s not a command economy, but supply and demand is being manipulated. In any case, speculation that the Fed may have to start buying longer-term treasuries, as it’s been considering for some time now, is gaining pace.

Bill Gross, the man with the uncanny ability to direct the US asset purchases, has this (self-serving) tidbit to say about it this afternoon, via Reuters:

If the benchmark 10-year U.S. Treasury note is sold at a yield above 3 percent at an auction this week, that would increase the chance the Federal Reserve will buy longer-maturity Treasuries, the manager of the world’s biggest bond fund said on Monday.

Recommended reading for later this week: The prolific Willem Buiter on whether the US can sustain such a course of action.

Related links:
Fed lacks consensus on treasuries as yields rise - Bloomberg
Bond investors call Fed’s bluff - Naked Capitalism
To twist a treasury - FT Alphaville
Après moi, le déluge - John Kemp / LR"

Me:

Don the Libertarian Democrat Feb 9 16:35
Little did I know that when William Gross offered to work for free in Sept. for TARP, he had been taken up on his offer. The government isn't paying him anything and he's telling them what to do. I like and respect Gross, although I find that he is currently, as being noted, essentially trying to make shareholders and owners of bonds and toxic assets whole, at the expense of the taxpayers, which is the opposite of what I believe. That's because he believes that forcing investors to lose money is bad for investing, and, hence, bad for the economy. Much worse than taxpayers getting stiffed. After all, it isn't as if he's hiding this view. He's bellowing it out as loud as he can.

As for the Fed, something is amiss. Just when they were supposed to be making everything clear, they've got everybody wondering what the hell they're going to do about these bond yields, if anything.

Sunday, January 11, 2009

"Longer Treasury bonds are the better bubble candidates. "

From Accrued Interest:

"2009 Forecast Episode II: Deflation Strikes Back

This is Part II of a indeterminate series on the Accrued Interest 2009 Forecast. Here I'll focus on general interest rates and Treasury Bonds.


The question on many lips is are Treasury bonds a bubble? I've already said that fighting deflation will be the major theme of 2009. Deflation will remain the primary concern of the Fed until housing prices start to recover. I don't see that happening until 2010( I DISAGREE ). Until housing prices start to rise, we'll see persistently poor final consumer demand( I DISAGREE ). This in turn keeps the velocity of money low and thus the money supply contracting.


I have a very simplistic mental model for Treasury rates. Real interest rates should reflect the opportunity cost of money. Thus a short-term Treasury rate should be the opportunity cost plus an inflation premium. Longer-term rates should reflect both opportunity cost, inflation, and a term premium. When economic growth is weak, opportunities are less, and thus interest rates should fall.


If we have negative inflation, then short-term Treasury rates should be extremely low. Near zero makes sense for T-Bills (although negative yields is questionable at best). Less than 1% makes sense for the 2-year. So I see no bubble on the front end of the Treasury curve. Not that there is a ton of upside on the 2-year at 0.75%, but could it go to 0.50%? Sure.


Longer Treasury bonds are the better bubble candidates. One might be able to argue that in the short term, both growth and inflation will be negative, thus the equilibrium nominal short-term rate should probably be negative. But longer term, we'll eventually have both growth and inflation, and thus long-term Treasuries should not be approaching Japanese-like levels( I AGREE ).

So when the 10-year was pushing 2%, it felt bubbly. But still I resist the bubble label. To me, Treasury rates are clearly below "fair value" but given the extreme liquidity and economic circumstances, I doubt the 10-year can move above 3% until at least 4Q 2009. I think long-term Treasuries remain over-valued until its obvious that inflation is going to eventually become a problem.( A FAIR POINT. I BELIEVE PEOPLE WILL PULL OUT BEFORE THAT. )

What about Treasury supply you ask? Won't the massive debt load eventually push rates much higher? While acknowledging that supply is an obvious negative for prices always and everywhere, as it is, Treasury supply is clearly not overwhelming demand. The 3-year and 10-year auctions from last week went quite well.

Besides the theory that government debt crowds out private investment doesn't hold water right now. Private lending ain't happening in areas where the government isn't subsidizing. In essence, the Treasury is leveraging because the private sector can't.( TRUE. MULLIGAN DOESN'T SEE IT. )

Eventually, the Fed's programs will result in much higher inflation, and thus Treasury rates will rise substantially( I AGREE ). But I think this is a year or more away, too far away to recommend a short.

The problem for real money investors is that Treasury yields are so low, that you pretty much have to own something else. The yield advantage on short-term Agencies versus short-term Treasuries is so large that there isn't any logical scenario where the Treasury outperforms. Therefore I'm playing this by remaining underweight Treasury bonds, but owning stuff that can appreciate if Treasury rates fall. This includes bullet agencies, and some very high quality corporates( THESE MAKE SENSE. )."

He could well be right. I don't want to see another bubble burst, even in my bathtub.

Tuesday, January 6, 2009

"Bernanke is making a time-inconsistent promise to hold interest rates low for an extended period."

From Alphaville:

"Battle of the bears

“An investment operation is one which, upon through analysis, promises safety of principal and a satisfactory return. Operations not meeting these requirements are speculative( I AGREE ).””

That’s a quote from legendary value investor Benjamin Graham and it features prominently in James Montier’s first strategy piece of 2009.

Titled “Bonds - speculation not investment”, the SocGen strategist reveals he has fallen out with colleague and uber bear Albert Edwards for the first time in eight years.

The reason for the row is, as you might have guessed, about the current state of the government bond market.

From my perspective as a long-term value-orientated investor, bonds simply don’t offer any value. They already price in the US slipping into Japanese-style prolonged deflation. However, they offer no protection at all if (and it may be a big if) the Fed can succeed in reintroducing inflation (what Keynes described as the “euthanasia of the rentier”). There may be a ‘speculative’ case for continuing to hold bonds, but there isn’t an investment case.( I AGREE )

To my mind, in principle, government bond valuation is relatively simple. I see the value as the summation of three components: the real yield, expected inflation, and an inflation risk premium. The market tells us the real yield for ten-year US government bonds is around 2%. Given that the nominal yield is also around 2% at the moment, the market is implying that inflation will be around 0% p.a. over the next ten years.( SILLY )

As regular readers will know Mr Edwards thinks differently. This from his final note of 2008.

John Kemp, a Reuters columnist wrote an interesting article yesterday entitled “Fed unleashes greatest bubble of all”. He stated, “Bernanke is making a time-inconsistent promise( THIS MIGHT BE WHY HE'S NOT CALLING HIS POLICY QUANTITATIVE EASING, WHICH WOULD DEFINITELY BE A TIME-INCONSISTENT PROMISE, AND SO HE'S AVOIDED THAT BY NOT TARGETING AN INFLATION RATE, HOPING TO KEEP THEM DOWN. IT'S ALSO A WAY TO GIVE A SIGNAL TO INVESTORS THAT INFLATION COULD BE AHEAD, WITHOUT CAUSING A PANIC TO SELL TREASURIES. ) to hold interest rates low for an extended period.” For if the policy is successful, investors buying bonds at current levels will incur “massive losses”.( TRUE ) I have been debating this very subject with my colleague James Montier recently. After all how much lower can bond yields go (see chart below)? But for now I retain my bias towards government bonds. Investors, I believe, underestimate how very close the global economy is to getting trapped in outright deflation( COULD BE ). We expect panic( I DON'T ) to grip the markets at some point in the first half of next year, sending both equity prices and bond yields substantially lower.( THAT'S WHAT COULD HAPPEN )

In fact, Montier says the divide between himself and Edwards is not as wide as it first might seem. He says both men could be right just at different times.
I tend to view the world through the lens of a long-term valueorientated absolute-return investor. Albert is often more willing to tolerate momentum driven shorter term positions (believe it or not!). Perhaps it is these differences in approach that have lead to us to adopt different positions on the merits of holding government bonds.

Of course, there maybe a speculative case for buying bonds. If the market is myopic (which is almost always is) then poor short-term economic data, and the arrival of outright deflation could easily see yields dragged even lower. Thus riding the news flow may be a perfectly sensible but nonetheless ‘speculative’ approach. However, I am an investor not a speculator (as I have proved myself to be appalling at the latter), thus government bonds have no place in my portfolio.

So what happens next? Montier says he does not have a clue. But he does have a nice a pay off line.

If the alternative scenario comes to pass and the Fed successfully reintroduces inflation (leading to what Keynes so vividly described as the ‘euthanasia of the rentier’2) then bonds look distinctly poor value, thus the risk is exceptionally high and skewed in one direction. As Jim Grant so elegantly put it government bonds may well end up being “return free risk” (as opposed to their more normal nomenclature of risk-free return). If yields were to rise from 2% to 4.5% investors would stand to suffer a capital loss of nearly 20%.

Return-free risk - marvelous!"

Monday, January 5, 2009

"The recent surge in the market for US government bonds has several characteristics of a classic bubble."

I mentioned recently that it was pretty funny how we're reading quite a bit about stopping bubbles, while a Treasury Bubble might be right in front of people's eyes and they're missing it. Via Alia, from the FT:

"
Another bubble is brewing – bonds

By Edward Chancellor

Published: January 4 2009 18:27 | Last updated: January 4 2009 18:27

Central bankers around the world have promised to pay more attention to the dangers posed by asset price bubbles. Yet they seem unable to refrain from inflating new ones. The recent surge in the market for US government bonds has several characteristics of a classic bubble.( I AGREE )

A bubble is defined by extreme overvaluation. Ten-year Treasuries with yields at half-century lows meet this description. The current yield of little more than 2 per cent provides no protection against the return of inflation any time over the next decade. In normal times, there would be no argument that Treasuries are overpriced( I AGREE ). These are not normal times, however.

Another essential attribute of a bubble is that it should be sold with a great story. A decade ago, overblown expectations for internet commerce fuelled the technology boom.

Today’s great hype is deflation( I AGREE ). Tales of global recession and collapsing financial markets are embroidered with lurid narratives from the 1930s and Japan in the 1990s. This bubble is motivated by fear( YES. THE FLIGHT TO SAFETY. ) rather than greed. Investors are seeking to protect themselves against deflation and declining stock markets by blindly acquiring “risk-free”( GOVERNMENT GUARANTEED ) government bonds.

The behaviour of institutional investors also contributes to the bond bubble. Pension funds, insurers and others have sold off toxic securitised triple-A rated bonds and replaced them with Treasuries. Government bonds are also attractive for diversification purposes since they have held up while just about everything else in their investment portfolios has collapsed. Many of the more sophisticated bond bulls are playing a “greater fool” game. Like dotcom speculators of the late 1990s, they know there is a danger the market will sell off at some time in the future. Nevertheless, they are staying for the ride and hope to bail out before it is too late( THIS EXPLAINS WHY BUBBLES LAST SO LONG ).

A common feature of great bubbles is that they enjoy the support of the authorities. In 1720, the public acquired shares in the South Sea Company secure in the knowledge that the bubble was promoted by the government of the day.

Today’s bond buyers place their faith in Ben Bernanke. The Fed chairman has long made it clear he sees low long-term rates as a tool for combating deflation. In December, the Fed announced it was considering purchasing government bonds. Just as the “Greenspan put” emboldened stock speculators a decade ago, the “Bernanke put” has placed an apparent floor under the market for Treasuries.( TRUE )

The deflation story that drives the current bond bubble is more plausible than the dotcom pipe-dreams of yesteryear. Deflation is sparked by a combination of bank losses and tighter lending standards, increasing risk aversion( THE MAIN CAUSE ) and a rise in the demand for money, falling household consumption and higher savings, together with mounting unemployment and a widening output gap. All these conditions pertain today. If this crisis were left to its own devices, the result would likely be a pronounced and prolonged decline in the price level as occurred in the early 1930s.( I AGREE )

However, the authorities are not standing by idly. Instead, the Fed is bolstering the credit markets in numerous ways and has cut short-term rates to near zero. Some $7,200bn (£4,930bn, €5,150bn) has been pledged to support the US financial system, of which $2,600bn has already been spent. Although bank lending is currently stagnant, the monetary base climbed by 775 per cent in the year to November.

Broader monetary aggregates are also expanding. The St Louis Fed’s MZM measure climbed 11.2 per cent over the past year. Nor is there evidence of widespread deflation in the economy. Although, the consumer price index has started to fall, only transportation has showed a pronounced decline( TRUE ). There is also the fiscal response to consider. Morgan Stanley projects that in 2009 the gross US fiscal deficit, including asset purchases from the private sector, will exceed 10 per cent of GDP.

Mr Bernanke gained his moniker “Helicopter Ben” after his famous November 2002 speech in which he outlined the various ways by which the authorities could combat deflation. “The US government can also reduce the value of a dollar in terms of goods and services, which is equivalent to raising the prices of those goods and services,” stated the former Princeton economist and future Fed chairman.( I WISH HE'D MOVE FASTER )

“We conclude that, under a paper-money system, a determined government can always generate higher spending and hence positive inflation.” Investors who purchase long-dated Treasuries at current prices are betting that a determined man with the dollar printing press will fail in his battle against deflation.( IT'S A BAD BET )


Edward Chancellor is a member of GMO’s asset allocation team"

Monday, December 15, 2008

"“You still have a massive paranoia in the marketplace and you’ve got that safety-at-any-cost mentality,”

You can see the following behavior as sensible or over the top. From Bloomberg:

"By Matthew Benjamin and Liz Capo McCormick

Dec. 15 (Bloomberg) -- Bill Clinton was forced to abandon spending initiatives to boost the economy at the start of his presidency when advisers warned him that the borrowing needed to fund the programs would push interest rates higher. President- elect Barack Obama may not have the same problem.

While the total amount of U.S. government debt outstanding rose to $10.7 trillion in November from $9.15 trillion a year earlier, the amount of interest paid in the last two months fell by $10 billion, according to the Treasury Department.

Instead of shunning the U.S., where losses on subprime mortgages in 2007 triggered a global seizure in credit markets that led to the downfall of securities firms Bear Stearns Cos. and Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc., investors can’t get enough Treasuries. Even as estimates of Obama’s stimulus package and the budget deficit rise to a record $1 trillion, demand continues to increase as investors flee risky assets around the world and put their cash into U.S. bonds paying, in some cases, nothing in yield just to ensure the return of their principal.

“You still have a massive paranoia in the marketplace and you’ve got that safety-at-any-cost mentality,” said Jay Mueller, who manages about $3 billion of bonds at Wells Fargo Capital Management in Milwaukee. “People are not buying Treasury bills because they think the yields are attractive. They are buying them because they are afraid to put money anywhere else.”

This Fear and Aversion To Risk and the accompanying Flight To Safety are not driven but fundamentals and clear analysis. Could these investments prove sensible? Of course they could, but the Flight To Safety appears overdone.

Why to the US?

"Foreign central banks and other institutions are accumulating Treasuries at the fastest pace since 1988, boosting their holdings 12 percent since September, compared with a 7.7 percent increase last quarter, according to the Federal Reserve.

Purchases accelerated even as the yield on the benchmark two-year Treasury note tumbled to 0.76 percent last week from this year’s peak of 3.11 percent on June 13. Rates on three- month bills turned negative on Dec. 9 for the first time. The same day, the U.S. sold $30 billion of four-week bills at a zero percent rate. Yields on two-, 10- and 30-year Treasuries last week all fell to lowest since the U.S. began regular sales of those securities.

The two-year note yielded 0.73 percent as of 2:32 p.m. in New York, according to BGCantor Market Data, after falling as low as 0.66 percent on Dec. 12.

The drop in yields drove bond prices higher, pushing returns to 12.4 percent on average this year, the best performance since they gained 13.4 percent in 2000, according to New York-based Merrill Lynch & Co.’s U.S. Treasury Master Index. The returns compare with a drop of 41 percent in the Standard & Poor’s 500 Index and average losses of 15 percent in Merrill Lynch’s broadest corporate bond index."

If you had purchased bonds with higher yields, then you would be doing quite well now, which is why William Gross wishes that he had done so.

“This is not about return and yield and value; investors are functioning out of raw fear,” said Barr Segal, a managing director at Los Angeles-based TCW Group Inc., which oversees $90 billion in fixed-income assets. At the same time, “this is fabulous for the Treasury because they are borrowing at virtually nothing,” he said.

Japan’s bond market suggests that low yields may remain for a sustained period. In an effort to revive sagging growth in the 1990s, the world’s second largest economy ran its national debt to 1.5 times of gross domestic product. Yields on Japanese bonds are near the lowest in three years, with the country’s benchmark 10-year bond paying 1.40 percent, compared with 2.59 percent in the U.S. The national debt in the U.S. is 72 percent of GDP.

“It’s good news,” said James Horney, director of federal fiscal policy at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities in Washington. “Even though we’re borrowing larger amounts of money, the total amount we’re going to pay in interest is going to be somewhat lower.”

Why aren't the people who claim that buying Toxic Assets during this crisis and Spending Money On Infrastructure now because wages and other costs are lower, recommending that we borrow freely now for no interest?

"Interest was $92.5 billion from August through November 2007 on the $9.15 trillion in total debt outstanding, resulting in interest expense of 1.01 percent. In the same period a year later, interest was $87.5 billion on $10.66 trillion in total debt, dropping the expense to 0.8 percent.

While the median estimate of 49 economists and strategists is for 10-year Treasury yields to end 2009 at 3.65 percent, that’s still below the average of 6.91 percent paid on the securities since 1962. The security helps determine corporate and consumer borrowing rates.

Obama plans an economic stimulus package that may approach $1 trillion, in addition to a middle-class tax cut and universal health care, which may add $4 trillion or more to the national debt over 10 years, according to the Tax Policy Center in Washington and health-care economists."

So we will borrow for less?

"The U.S. already posted a record $401.6 billion budget shortfall for the first two months of fiscal 2009, which began Oct. 1, according to a Treasury report last week. The largest postwar budget deficit by the U.S. was $412.7 billion in 2004.

“The role of the deepening economic slump in this deterioration coupled with the escalating size of the likely fiscal stimulus puts the deficit on course to exceed $1 trillion,” Edward McKelvey, a senior economist in New York at Goldman Sachs Group Inc., wrote in a Dec. 8 report to clients. “This implies upside risk to our $2 trillion figure for Treasury supply.”

Clinton’s proposals to spur the economy early in his administration in 1993 were stymied by concern how bond investors would react, according to James Carville, a Clinton consultant during the 1992 presidential campaign.

“Early in the Clinton days, the hallmark of policy was if you did this, how would it affect the bond market,” Carville said in an interview last year. “Every time I would talk to someone they would say ‘you can’t do that, it will freak the bond market out.’ I said ‘goddamn, whoever the bond market is, these bastards are powerful.’”

The potential for massive deficits has done nothing to damp demand for government debt as the U.S. prepares to spend $8.5 trillion to bailout financial institutions, homeowners and the economy. The biggest deficit as a percentage of the economy was 6 percent in 1983. A trillion-dollar 2009 gap would top that.

To prevent yields from rising, Fed policy makers indicated that the central bank may buy Treasuries. Fed Chairman Ben S. Bernanke suggested in a Dec. 1 speech that he would consider such a measure, saying one option is to buy “longer-term Treasury or agency securities on the open market in substantial quantities.”

“If there is a whiff of anything getting worse, the Fed can just go downstairs and start that printing press,” said Kevin Gaynor, head of economics and interest-rate strategy at Royal Bank of Scotland Group Plc in London. “They can easily stop targeting the federal funds rate and start targeting a two- or five-year Treasury yield.”

Policy makers may also cut interest rates again, which may keep bond yields low. The Federal Open Market Committee will reduce its target rate for overnight loans between banks by a half-percentage point, to a record 0.50 percent, when it meets Dec. 15-16, according to the majority of economists surveyed by Bloomberg News.

The U.S. economy has been in a recession for a year, the National Bureau of Economic Research declared on Dec 1. The economy will continue to contract through June, with unemployment rising above 8 percent the end of 2009, from 6.7 percent last month and this year’s low of 4.8 percent in February, according to Bloomberg surveys of economists. That would make the current slump the longest since the Great Depression.

“In some ways it’s ironic,” said Meg Browne, senior currency strategist at Brown Brothers Harriman & Co. in New York. “The U.S. turned down first and the crisis appeared first in the U.S., yet people continue to flock to the U.S. government debt market because it’s the biggest and deepest market in the world and still has a low risk.”

The U.S. will eventually have to commit to balanced budgets, said Alice Rivlin, former Fed vice chairman and founding director of the Congressional Budget office.

“We can’t press our luck,” said Rivlin, now a scholar at the Brookings Institution in Washington. “Eventually, we’ve got to show the world that we are fiscally responsible.”

This post went far and wide, then wider, but the points about printing money and showing that eventually we're going to handle this debt and deficit are correct points to be made.

Friday, December 5, 2008

"An investor I know, repulsed by prevailing government yields, has a timelier description – “return-free risk”.

I'm a big James Grant fan. Here he is in the FT:

"US Treasuries are the investment asset of the year. The less they yield, the more their fans adore them. Then, again, these fearful days, yield seems to have nothing to do with investment calculation. Purported safety is all."

This is what I have called an overreaction, based on an overdone fear and aversion to risk, and the accompanying flight to safety. I don't get it, and it's killing me, because I couldn't invest in this situation even if I wanted to.

“Super-safe Treasuries”, the papers call these emissions of a government that, this year, will take in $2,500bn but spend $3,500bn. “Toxic assets” is how the same papers characterise orphaned mortgage-backed securities—or, for that matter, secured bank loans, convertible bonds, junk bonds or almost any other kind of debt obligation not bearing the US imprimatur.

“There are no bad bonds, only bad prices,” the traders used to say. They should say it again, only louder. In the spring of 1984, long-dated Treasuries went begging at yields of nearly 14 per cent in the context of an inflation rate of just 4 per cent. Those, too, were fearful times, the recollected horror being the great inflation of the 1970s. Inflation was ineradicable, the bondphobes said. Now a new generation of creditors espouses the opposite proposition. Deflation is baked in the cake, they say.

The truth is that no investment asset is inherently safe. Risk or safety is an attribute of price. At the right price, a lowly convertible bond is a safer proposition than an exalted Treasury. Watching the government securities market zoom, many mistake price action for price."

This just seems like basic common sense to me, so I can't really judge the opposing point of view fairly. It's how I feel about Taleb. I just so basically agree with him that I can't really argue the points against him fairly.

"Yes, Treasuries might conceivably redeem the hopes of their besotted admirers. Maybe a deflationary chasm is about to swallow us all. Never before has the US been so leveraged. And—just possibly—never before were lending standards so reckless as the ones that brought joy to so many astonished mortgage applicants in 2005 and 2006."

As you know, I don't believe this scenario is likely.

"In their magnum opus Security Analysis Benjamin Graham and David L. Dodd advise that “bonds should be bought on their ability to withstand depression”. They wrote that in 1934. So far is that rule from being honoured by today’s financiers that not a few bonds—and boxcars full of mortgages – could hardly withstand prosperity. Two urgent questions present themselves. One: does something far worse than recession loom? Two: does that certain something definitely spell much lower interest rates?"

A few months ago, when Megan McArdle did her Depression Reading List, I recommended reading Graham. I got zero positive feedback.

"We can’t know, but we can at least observe. What I observe is a monumental push to reflate. The Federal Reserve is creating more credit in less time than it has ever done before – in the past three months the sum of its earning assets, known in the trade as Reserve Bank credit, has grown at the astounding annual rate of 2,922 per cent. Are the bond bulls quite sure that these exertions will raise no inflationary sweat?"

You know my position. We should reflate, and inflation will result.

"Evidently, they are—at least, forward swap rates betray no such concern. The market’s best guess as to what the 10-year Treasury will yield in 10 years’ time is 2.78 per cent, never mind the famous (and now, as it seems, prophetic) remark of Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke that the Fed could drop dollars out of a helicopter in a deflationary pinch."

They're ready to fly, fly, fly. The 10 yr situation is flight to safety well beyond the safe point.

"The non-Treasury departments of the credit markets have crashed. No surprise then that prices and values are deranged. Market makers have closed up shop for the year, while hedge funds cower in fear of redemptions. You’d suppose that professional investors – doughty seekers of value – would be combing through the debris for bargains. Alas, no. Most seem content to lend money to Henry Paulson (subsequently to Timothy Geithner) at 2 per cent or 3 per cent."

I agree. Anyone want to let me try my hand at a Hedge Fund?

"In corporate debt and mortgages, anomalies and non sequiturs abound. They are especially prevalent in convertible bonds. More so than even the average stressed-out fund manager, convertible arbitrageurs have been through the mill. It was they—and almost they alone—who owned convertibles. Now many of these folk must sell them."

Here's another reason I love Grant. He writes things like "anomalies and non sequiturs abound". He's right, and he's just used a phrase that I wish I had written. Every Buiter column makes me feel that way.

"Few buyers are presenting themselves, however, though extraordinary bargains keep popping up. Thus, at the end of October, a Medtronic convertible bond with a 1.5 per cent coupon with the debt maturing in April 2011 briefly traded at 80.75. This was a price to yield 10.6 per cent, an adjusted spread of 1,600 basis points over the Treasury curve (adjusted, that is, for the value of the options embedded in the convert, notably the option to exchange it for common stock at the stipulated rate). Contrary to what such a yield might imply, A1/AA minus rated Medtronic, the world’s top manufacturer of medical devices for the treatment of heart disease, spinal injuries and diabetes, is no early candidate for insolvency. Almost every day brings comparable examples of risks not borne by people who, in this time of crisis, have come to define risk as “anything not guaranteed by Uncle Sam”."

I tell you what. I would buy these Corporate Bonds now if I knew how. Does anybody know?

“Risk-free return” is the standard tag attached to the government’s solemn obligations. An investor I know, repulsed by prevailing government yields, has a timelier description – “return-free risk”.

That's enough. That's another phrase I agree with and wish that I'd written. Return Free Risk.

"I explained that the deflation hype was rather exaggerated"

Emre Deliveli also sees Inflation ahead:

"At my inaugural column last week, I explained that the deflation hype was rather exaggerated, as the two commonly-quoted signs of deflation, U.S. October inflation and yields on American inflation-protected securities, were not accurate indicators at all. However, other market prices such as weakening oil and dividend yields on stocks surpassing yields on 10-year Treasuries have been pointing to deflation as well.

It seems that the market is definitely pricing for Deflationary Inferno even if deflation itself is not very likely. However, the alternative, Inflationary Purgatorio, is still far off the the markets’ radar. While many have learned to trust markets painfully, my overconfidence stems from the ongoing and prospective firefighting. After all, as a reader rightly noted, “numbers are important, but it is government policy that will shape the future”. And both fiscal and monetary policy are pointing towards eventual inflation.

The direction of monetary and fiscal policy

Even though he has been quick to announce his Economics team, you should not expect anything on the fiscal front until Obama settles in. This means that we are not likely to see the effects of fiscal policy on the economy until the second half of 2009 at the earliest. But once the stimulus comes, it is likely to be on the larger side because as this year’s Nobel Prize winner Paul Krugman notes, unlike monetary policy, fiscal policy is inherently asymmetric: It is easier to fix too much of it with contractionary monetary policy than too little of it with another stimulus package. Therefore, when it comes, the fiscal boost is likely to have an inflationary bias.

While fiscal policy is still far away, the Fed has had its hands full for some time now. While traditional monetary easing has not been effective, it has been complemented with more unorthodox tools such as intervening directly in credit markets. As the so-called quantitative easing is now semi-official, we can expect more of such creative policy from the Fed, whose balance sheet is starting to look increasingly like a hedge fund’s. In a similar vein, last week’s announcement that it would purchase USD 100bn in debt obligations from GSEs –government sponsored enterprises- is a first step in the monetization of public debt. With the low money multipliers, Fed’s actions are having a very limited impact on money supply for now. But the mere fact that the Fed is willing to shift to the extreme of policy means that it is not worried about inflation at this point."

This is what I believe is happening as well. Purgatorio is the Mezzanine Tranche of the Afterlife.

"Market implications, risks, and short-run outlook

Crises are always marked by the breakdown of time-tested relationships, but two interesting anomalies have emerged lately: Stocks have rallied while yields on the long end of the curve have fallen and the well-known positive correlation between dollar and long-dated Treasuries has broken. The scenarios I have explained above might shed some light on what is going on.

The recent flattening of the yield curve hints that quantitative easing is well-understood by markets, but its implications are not: All that liquidity and fiscal stimulus could find its way to inflation, which would in turn raise interest rates. With a huge US and global bond supply, we could even end up with a considerable bond market crash and another recession before the recovery from the current one is completed. While this dreaded W-shaped outlook is unlikely to pose a threat before the second half of 2009, it is in line with the anomalies above and paints a rather confusing outlook for the dollar (to be continued)."

I have already posted that we might have a bond market crash, and you know my theory of why these rates are so low. I believe it has to do with an overreaction based on the fear and aversion to risk, and an accompanying flight to safety.

Tuesday, December 2, 2008

"BlackRock Inc.’s Peter Fisher said the U.S. Treasury should consider selling 100-year bonds"

I just read this, and, well, I should be working on my novel, but I'm terribly excited. It's not a perpetual, but I'll take. From Bloomberg:

"By Thomas R. Keene and Michael J. Moore

Dec. 2 (Bloomberg) -- BlackRock Inc.’s Peter Fisher said the U.S. Treasury should consider selling 100-year bonds to ease the federal government’s borrowing costs as it faces a budget deficit expected to top $1 trillion.

“If you issued a 100-year bond and had principal and interest pay down smoothly over the last 50 years, you create a great borrowing device for the Treasury that would let us move this hump of borrowing over the generational retirement that’s coming up,” Fisher, managing director and co-head of fixed income at BlackRock in New York, said in a Bloomberg Radio interview."

Please God, yes.

"The Treasury last month tripled its estimate of planned debt sales in the final three months of the year to a record $550 billion as it attempts to fund bailouts for banks and fiscal stimulus programs to jump start economic growth. Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson told a conference in Washington Nov. 17 that the U.S. will issue some $1.5 trillion worth of Treasury securities in the fiscal year that began Oct. 1.

Fisher, Treasury undersecretary from August 2001 to October 2003, eliminated 30-year bond auctions in 2001 to reduce government borrowing costs after four years of federal budget surpluses. The U.S. hasn’t been in the black since. The government revived sales of the security in February 2006.

Treasury yields have plummeted as investors have flocked to the safety of U.S. government debt during the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression. Bonds rallied for a fourth day yesterday, sending yields on two-, 10- and 30-year debt to the lowest since the Treasury began regular sales of the securities."

You've seen the 10 year tumble on the Bespoke Graphs.

"100-Year Bonds

Federal Reserve Chairman Ben S. Bernanke said yesterday that he may use less conventional policies, such as buying Treasury securities, to revive the economy.

The 30-year Treasury bond, the U.S. government’s longest maturity debt, has higher borrowing costs because of the uncertainty caused by a lump-sum payment of the bond’s principal at the maturity date, Fisher said. He said the Treasury would have to eliminate that volatility on a 100-year bond by paying down the principal over time.

In 1993, Walt Disney Co. became the first company since at least 1954 to issue 100-year bonds. In 1997, Ford Motor Co. sold $500 million of 100-year bonds, exploiting a decline in Treasury yields. Demand for the Ford bonds, priced to yield 7.81 percent, was so high that it sold out within 25 minutes of the start of the sale.

“There are a lot of investors, pension funds, endowments, who would love to get a long-term annuity like that,” Fisher said. “They love to get an interest-only stripped off the 30- year, and they’d love to get something even longer. I think there would be a lot of demand from investors for that.”

Okay. Here's the plan:

1) I want to buy 100-year bonds

2) I want to buy British Perpetuals

3) I'm calling, here and now, for US Perpetuals

Who's with me? Or, at least, can anybody tell me if I can buy those British Perpetuals? I want to do my part in defeating The Hun.

Monday, December 1, 2008

"10-Year Treasury Yield Lowest Since 1955"

From Bespoke:

"
10-Year Treasury Yield Lowest Since 1955

At 2.81%, the yield on the 10-Year Treasury Note has fallen to its lowest level since 1955. Below we highlight two charts of 10-Year Yields from 1900-1962 (monthly) and 1962-present (daily). While 2.81% is low compared to the last 50 years, the yield was actually lower than that from about 1935 to 1955.

10year1962present

10year19001962