Saturday, October 30, 2010
Tuesday, October 26, 2010
TIPS: Understanding Negative Yields - MarketBeat - WSJ
EXCERPTS:
"We all know interest rates are low, but this is ridiculous.
The Treasury Department had no problem whatsoever selling $10 billion in five-year Treasury Inflation-Protected Securities today at a yield of -0.55%. That’s not a typo: the TIPS bonds sold with a negative yield. First time that’s ever happened.
This suggests investors are so terrified of inflation that they’re willing to pay the government money every year to buy insurance against it.
As with everything in the Treasury market, it’s a little more complicated than that. The negative yield owes partly to the fact that plain-vanilla five-year Treasurys yield just 1.16%, which is barely higher than consumer price inflation for the past year.
The spread between the regular Treasury yield and the negative TIPS yield gets you what investors expect inflation to be in the next five years, and that’s a not-horrifying 1.68%.
Still, yields in both TIPS and Treasurys are low partly because the Federal Reserve is expected to buy a truckload of both as part of its drive to fend of deflation. Investors have front-run the Fed, driving bond prices higher and yields lower, some through the looking glass into negative territory.
If negative TIPS yields represent tremors of inflation anxiety, then the Fed is probably thrilled: Inflation expectations make deflation less likely. But those on deflation watch, including some Fed policy makers, say inflation-adjusted yields on longer-dated bonds are still fairly high given the weakness in the economy. QE2 is still coming, possibly meaning more negative TIPS yields.
"We all know interest rates are low, but this is ridiculous.
The Treasury Department had no problem whatsoever selling $10 billion in five-year Treasury Inflation-Protected Securities today at a yield of -0.55%. That’s not a typo: the TIPS bonds sold with a negative yield. First time that’s ever happened.
This suggests investors are so terrified of inflation that they’re willing to pay the government money every year to buy insurance against it.
As with everything in the Treasury market, it’s a little more complicated than that. The negative yield owes partly to the fact that plain-vanilla five-year Treasurys yield just 1.16%, which is barely higher than consumer price inflation for the past year.
The spread between the regular Treasury yield and the negative TIPS yield gets you what investors expect inflation to be in the next five years, and that’s a not-horrifying 1.68%.
Still, yields in both TIPS and Treasurys are low partly because the Federal Reserve is expected to buy a truckload of both as part of its drive to fend of deflation. Investors have front-run the Fed, driving bond prices higher and yields lower, some through the looking glass into negative territory.
If negative TIPS yields represent tremors of inflation anxiety, then the Fed is probably thrilled: Inflation expectations make deflation less likely. But those on deflation watch, including some Fed policy makers, say inflation-adjusted yields on longer-dated bonds are still fairly high given the weakness in the economy. QE2 is still coming, possibly meaning more negative TIPS yields.
Bernanke Asset Purchases Risk Unleashing 1970s Inflation Genie - Bloomberg
EXCERPTS:
"For the second time since he became chairman in 2006, Ben S. Bernanke is leading the Federal Reserve into uncharted monetary territory.
Bernanke next week is likely to preside over a decision to launch another round of large-scale asset purchases after deploying $1.7 trillion to pull the economy out of the financial crisis, comments from policy makers over the past week indicate. This time, with interest rates already near zero, the Fed will be aiming to increase the rate of inflation and reduce the cost of borrowing in real terms. The goal is to unlock consumer spending and jump-start an economy that’s growing too slowly to push unemployment lower.
Estimates for the ultimate size of the asset-purchase program range from $1 trillion at Bank of America-Merrill Lynch Global Research to $2 trillion at Goldman Sachs Group Inc., with economists at both firms agreeing the Fed will likely start by announcing $500 billion after the Nov. 2-3 meeting. The danger is that once the Fed kindles price increases, inflation will be difficult to control.
“By reducing real interest rates and trying to break the psychology of ‘Why spend today when I can buy goods cheaper tomorrow,’ they are hoping to drive growth that would be more commensurate with a pickup in employment,” said Dan Greenhaus, chief economic strategist at Miller Tabak & Co. in New York. “The risk is a late 1970s type of scenario where the inflation genie gets out of the bottle.”
The U.S. Treasury Department yesterday sold $10 billion of five-year Treasury Inflation Protected Securities at a negative yield for the first time at a U.S. debt auction as investors bet the Fed will be successful in sparking inflation. The securities drew a yield of negative 0.55 percent.
QUESTIONS:
1. How can the yield on a security be negative?
2. What is it about the current economic environment that is causing this yield to be negative right now?
"For the second time since he became chairman in 2006, Ben S. Bernanke is leading the Federal Reserve into uncharted monetary territory.
Bernanke next week is likely to preside over a decision to launch another round of large-scale asset purchases after deploying $1.7 trillion to pull the economy out of the financial crisis, comments from policy makers over the past week indicate. This time, with interest rates already near zero, the Fed will be aiming to increase the rate of inflation and reduce the cost of borrowing in real terms. The goal is to unlock consumer spending and jump-start an economy that’s growing too slowly to push unemployment lower.
Estimates for the ultimate size of the asset-purchase program range from $1 trillion at Bank of America-Merrill Lynch Global Research to $2 trillion at Goldman Sachs Group Inc., with economists at both firms agreeing the Fed will likely start by announcing $500 billion after the Nov. 2-3 meeting. The danger is that once the Fed kindles price increases, inflation will be difficult to control.
“By reducing real interest rates and trying to break the psychology of ‘Why spend today when I can buy goods cheaper tomorrow,’ they are hoping to drive growth that would be more commensurate with a pickup in employment,” said Dan Greenhaus, chief economic strategist at Miller Tabak & Co. in New York. “The risk is a late 1970s type of scenario where the inflation genie gets out of the bottle.”
The U.S. Treasury Department yesterday sold $10 billion of five-year Treasury Inflation Protected Securities at a negative yield for the first time at a U.S. debt auction as investors bet the Fed will be successful in sparking inflation. The securities drew a yield of negative 0.55 percent.
QUESTIONS:
1. How can the yield on a security be negative?
2. What is it about the current economic environment that is causing this yield to be negative right now?
Sunday, October 24, 2010
Saturday, October 23, 2010
Explaining Income Inequality
EXCERPTS:
"The highest-income quintile has four times more people working per household than the lowest quintile (2.08 earners vs. 0.48), and individuals in those households are far more likely to be well-educated, married and working full-time in their prime earning years. In contrast, those individuals with low incomes are far more likely to be less-educated and working part-time, and either very young or very old living in single-parent households. Given these significant differences in household characteristics, it's not too surprising that there are huge differences in incomes among American households. It's also very likely that those individuals in the highest quintile were once in the lower quintiles before they acquired job experience and education, and they'll likely be in a lower quintile again when they retire.
Understanding the factors explaining income inequality would also help explain why income inequality changes over time. For example, compared to previous years, in 2009 there were both: a) more single-parent households, and b) more married, dual-earner households, following trends going back to the 1960s, and both of those trends would explain rising income inequality over time.
"The highest-income quintile has four times more people working per household than the lowest quintile (2.08 earners vs. 0.48), and individuals in those households are far more likely to be well-educated, married and working full-time in their prime earning years. In contrast, those individuals with low incomes are far more likely to be less-educated and working part-time, and either very young or very old living in single-parent households. Given these significant differences in household characteristics, it's not too surprising that there are huge differences in incomes among American households. It's also very likely that those individuals in the highest quintile were once in the lower quintiles before they acquired job experience and education, and they'll likely be in a lower quintile again when they retire.
Understanding the factors explaining income inequality would also help explain why income inequality changes over time. For example, compared to previous years, in 2009 there were both: a) more single-parent households, and b) more married, dual-earner households, following trends going back to the 1960s, and both of those trends would explain rising income inequality over time.
China Bashing is for Losers - Shikha Dalmia - Uncommon Sense - Forbes
EXCERPTS:
"The idea that selling abroad creates jobs at home and buying abroad destroys jobs at home is an old mercantilist fallacy that Adam Smith handily refuted more than 200 years ago. Back then it at least had intuitive plausibility, but today it is obviously false given that the manufacturing chain spans the whole globe. Indeed, under the intricate global division of labor that currently exists, the whole idea of “Made in China” is largely a bureaucratic fiction.
Think about the IPod, for instance. It is designed in America and its 451 parts are made in dozens of different countries. But just because it is finally assembled in China, it officially counts as a Chinese import and therefore a contributor to America’s trade deficit — never mind that the Chinese add only $4 to the IPod’s $150 final value. Imposing duties on IPods to slash the deficit, then, won’t just cost Chinese jobs in Beijing assembly plants, but American jobs in Cupertino (Apple’s headquarters) computer labs.
"The idea that selling abroad creates jobs at home and buying abroad destroys jobs at home is an old mercantilist fallacy that Adam Smith handily refuted more than 200 years ago. Back then it at least had intuitive plausibility, but today it is obviously false given that the manufacturing chain spans the whole globe. Indeed, under the intricate global division of labor that currently exists, the whole idea of “Made in China” is largely a bureaucratic fiction.
Think about the IPod, for instance. It is designed in America and its 451 parts are made in dozens of different countries. But just because it is finally assembled in China, it officially counts as a Chinese import and therefore a contributor to America’s trade deficit — never mind that the Chinese add only $4 to the IPod’s $150 final value. Imposing duties on IPods to slash the deficit, then, won’t just cost Chinese jobs in Beijing assembly plants, but American jobs in Cupertino (Apple’s headquarters) computer labs.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)