Showing posts with label treasuries. Show all posts
Showing posts with label treasuries. Show all posts

Thursday, April 26, 2012

More on that Treasury Blood Bath

Just about a month ago when everyone was calling the end of the 30 year bond rally, I noted.
While any sell-off has the potential to become the large sell-off EVERYONE has been waiting for (economic data is improving, yields are very low, inflation is ticking higher), I am not yet convinced it's the sure thing these "experts" want you to believe.

But, I guess if you keep making the same prediction, eventually it will come true.
Apparently, we need to keep waiting.

A weak (and deteriorating) Europe, low inflation, low growth, an uptick in risk-asset volatility, and continued piling into the asset class by investors (mutual fund flows remain positive), businesses (looking for yield on cash), and government entities (QE) have not only supported the asset class, but made it one of the top performing asset classes month-to-date.



Source: Barclays Capital

Wednesday, March 14, 2012

About that Treasury Blood Bath

Pundits, bloggers, experts, etc... have been calling for a Treasury sell-off going on 3-4 years now (here is a post of mine from January 2009 on that exact subject.... and one from October 2010...and one from January 2012) so it is no surprise that the recent sell-off has brought the bears back out.


Global Macro Monitor even says we may be starting what it refers to as the Bond Market Arab Spring.

Wow... that's bold. Let's see the beginning stage of the massive sell-off they are referring to.


Yeah... I don't see it (yet) either.

While any sell-off has the potential to become the large sell-off EVERYONE has been waiting for (economic data is improving, yields are very low, inflation is ticking higher), I am not yet convinced it's the sure thing these "experts" want you to believe.

But, I guess if you keep making the same prediction, eventually it will come true.

Wednesday, January 25, 2012

The Impact of Low Rates Through 2014

Bloomberg details the latest from the Fed:

Chairman Ben S. Bernanke said the Federal Reserve is considering additional asset purchases to boost growth after extending its pledge to keep interest rates low through at least late 2014.
Policy makers are “prepared to provide further monetary accommodation if employment is not making sufficient progress towards our assessment of its maximum level, or if inflation shows signs of moving further below its mandate-consistent rate."
The immediate market reaction was a risk asset rally, a huge rally in gold (per Calculated Risk: Bernanke made it clear that even if inflation moved above the target - and unemployment was still very high - the Fed would only slowly pursue policies to reduce the inflation rate), and a rally at the belly of the yield curve (the yield curve flattened out to five years... shorter rates couldn't fall as they are already at or near zero). Why? The "late 2014" date is much later than the June 2013 date previously projected by Bernanke last summer.

The impact of this announcement (and the previous projected rates) can be seen in the chart below that shows the Fed Funds rate curve (implied by EuroDollar futures) for March 2013 through December 2014, as of various dates over the past year.


What do we see? We see an initial drop between March and June of last year as Bernanke indicated low yields for the foreseeable future, then a huge drop (mid-summer) after Bernanke stated rates would remain zero through June 2013. Today's announcement really did nothing through June 2013 (that was already projected), but was felt further out along the curve.

The key question is what is the Fed trying to accomplish?

In "normal" times, low yields = cheap financing = increased consumption (it creates an incentive for individuals to borrow and banks to lend), but in today's zero-bound world the impact is minimal. Increased consumption is limited as individuals are trying to rebuild their own balance sheets and those that might benefit most from borrowing, don't necessarily have the credit to qualify for a loan. In terms of impact on unemployment, GYSC (of Economic Disconnect fame) states:
Unemployment is a structural problem, not a cyclical one, but the FED is still stuck in the past.
In addition, there are some theories that consumption may actually be negatively impacted by zero bound rates. As I outlined over the summer, I think it is possible that negative real interest rates may actually cause individuals to save more, while Kid Dynamite outlined yesterday that low rates forecasted may cause individuals to hold off from making a loan fueled purchase:
Let me explain: right now, one appealing factor of home buying/selling decisions is that interest rates are very low – you can afford to buy more house. If I think that interest rates are going to remain low for a long period of time, I will be in no hurry to lock in this low rate on the debt I’m borrowing – I will be in no hurry to go out and buy a house.
So what is it then? Corporations!

There is one sector that I think will be positively impacted by the latest announcement.... corporations. Don't let their record profits as a percent of GDP (while personal income is at record lows) fool you into thinking they don't need help at the populations expense. Seriously though... my initial reaction upon hearing that rates would be held down near zero through 2014... buy credit... WITH duration out to around ten years (the secondary impact is positive for equities, as explained below).

While Treasury yields are at all-time lows, corporate spreads remain at elevated levels (when yields fell during the summer when we had to deal with the US downgrade and Europe, spreads widened significantly).


In "normal" times, when markets calm these spreads would be expected to narrow, which I still believe is the case. One would also "normally" expect Treasury yields to rise as investors shift out of Treasuries, causing the hard interest rate component of corporate yields (rate + spread = yield) to rise, but this risk has been removed for the foreseeable future out to around ten years. The result is that corporate bonds seem like a very safe investment. This decreased risk should mean even cheaper financing for longer dated maturity corporate bond issuance.

So will this finally set off a round of corporate fueled expansion? If they don't see aggregate demand improving, then I don't see how this will impact the underlying economy. But, with the cost of equity high (i.e. what I perceive as fair to cheap equity valuations) and cost of debt low (i.e. these lower yielding corporate bonds), we may see significant change in capital structures (perhaps via private equity).

Source: Barclays Capital

Wednesday, January 18, 2012

China Still Buying Treasuries

I feel like a broken record, but once again the mainstream media and fear-mongering finance blogs get the Chinese Treasury holdings data wrong. Here's Zero Hedge:

Today's TIC data confirmed what Zero Hedge readers have now known for quite some time: namely that foreigners are selling US paper. And while we have used contemporaneous Custody Account data from the Fed to present that in the past 7 weeks foreigners have sold a record amount of bonds, we now get confirmation via TIC that in November the selling continued, especially at the biggest non-Fed holder of US paper, China, which saw its holdings down to $1,132.6 billion, the lowest in the past year.
As EconomPic readers know, China's purchases are just flowing through the United Kingdom (and are later revised to China... see here, here, and here for a few examples).



I did note last month that:
The pace of growth in Chinese purchases of Treasuries has declined rather dramatically (in percentage terms). This may prove to be a smaller issue for the U.S. in terms of Treasury demand (the smaller percent is off a larger base, so in $$ terms the growth is still significant), but it may reflect the difficulty China may have growing their export driven economy at the scale required to prevent social unrest, as global aggregate demand has waned.
Source: Treasury

Sunday, January 15, 2012

The Treasury Rally that Keeps on Trucking

The WSJ reports on the Treasury Rally that Won't Die:

According to investment-research firm Morningstar, a portfolio of U.S. Treasurys with an average maturity of 20 years—the quintessential safe haven—rose 28% last year, even better than its 26% jump in 2008. You would have to go back to 1995 to find a better year.

More confusing still: Last year's surge came in the 30th year of a historic rally. Since 1981, long-term Treasury bonds have returned 11.03% annually, 0.05 percentage point better than the Standard & Poor's 500-stock index.
This comes a full year and a half after the WSJ said Treasuries weren't only overpriced, but that we were experiencing The Great American Bond Bubble (my rebuttal 'Bond Bubble Blasphemy' is here, while my rationale for the value of Treasuries at the time can be found here).

One of the charts outlined in my post back then (and updated below, but brought back to 1941 using data from Shiller) shows the takeaway... treasury rates have been a reflection of the historical growth of nominal GDP going back 50 years. Before that there was a huge disconnect following the Great Depression (when nominal GDP dropped by ~50% between 1929 and 1934... yes 50%!) and World War II, which conveniently allowed the U.S. to grow out of the massive amount of debt the nation had accumulated.



By this measure, the 3.8% annualized nominal GDP growth over the past ten years makes the current sub-2% interest rate seem low, but not as much when you take the following into account:
  • Five year annualized GDP growth is only 2.2% (i.e. we are trending down)
  • The Fed has made it clear they won't be raising short-term rates anytime soon / they have taken significant Treasury supply out of the market with quantitative easing programs
  • Deflationary pressures / potential shocks from Europe remain
  • Investors continue to flee risk assets into "safe" assets
So, does that make me a buyer of Treasuries at these levels? Not necessarily. I'd rather take a barbell approach to investing by allocating to return seeking assets on one side (I'll never tell you where) and cash on the other (for preservation of capital purposes). 2% is just not worth it for me and the beauty of investing for the average investor is we don't have to manage our own investments to a benchmark. That said, I don't think Treasuries are ridiculously priced given the circumstances.

Thursday, December 15, 2011

China's Slowing Treasury Purchases

With almost each Treasury holdings release, the mainstream media claims China is selling Treasuries, when in reality purchases are just flowing through the United Kingdom (and are later revised to China... see here, here, and here for a few examples). So, not a surprise when I read this via the AP:

China bought less U.S. Treasury debt in October and total foreign holdings dipped for the first time since July.
Total foreign holdings of Treasury debt edged down 0.1 percent to $4.66 trillion, the Treasury Department reported Thursday.
China, the largest foreign holder, bought 1.2 percent less to bring its total holdings to $1.13 trillion. China had increased its holdings 1 percent in September after a reduction of 3.1 percent in August.
The small decline in overall holdings still left them at high levels that suggest foreign demand for U.S. debt remains strong.
Details as to why the United Kingdom's holdings should be included can be found here.

BUT, when I looked at the data, something caught my eye. While the month over month level of Treasury holdings actually declined this time when accounting for the United Kingdom, which could simply be noise, the longer term trend is clear. The pace of growth in Chinese purchases of Treasuries has declined rather dramatically (in percentage terms). This may prove to be a smaller issue for the U.S. in terms of Treasury demand (the smaller percent is off a larger base, so in $$ terms the growth is still significant), but it may reflect the difficulty China may have growing their export driven economy at the scale required to prevent social unrest, as global aggregate demand has waned.


Source: Treasury

Friday, September 9, 2011

Unprecedented Times... Treasury Edition

Last August (2010), I outlined why I thought those claiming Treasuries were in a Bubble was Blasphemy, but even I didn't expect how much more room there was for Treasuries to run.

Reuters details:
Treasury debt prices rose on Friday, taking benchmark yields to the lowest in at least 60 years as investors looked for a safe haven on revived worries a European debt crisis could have a significant global impact.
Note the "at least" 60 years. The chart below shows the ten year Treasury yield over the last 110 years combining monthly data from Irrational Exuberance and daily data from the Federal Reserve once available.



The 1.91% reached today appears to possibly have been, a new all-time low (assuming there was no intra-month low pre-1962 lower than the end of month print).

Monday, August 15, 2011

China Still Buying Treasuries, Demand Had Waned Elsewhere

The WSJ details:

Private foreign investors sold a record amount of U.S. Treasurys in June as the U.S. debt-ceiling debate intensified.
While it may be easy to blame selling on the debt ceiling issue, that really wasn't an issue until July. The broader selling likely occurred due to issues that were unrelated to the debt ceiling (supply of debt coming to market, the end of the QEII program, expectations for decent global growth).

That said, the scale of the actual selling is interesting (back to the WSJ).
Private foreign net purchases of long-term Treasury bonds and notes fell by $18.3 billion in June, following a $16.4 billion increase in May, according to the monthly Treasury International Capital report, known as TIC. The previous record drop was set in June 2000, when private foreign investors sold $16.5 billion in Treasuries.
Sales were concentrated in the Caribbean (i.e. insurers / private wealth). The way I would interpret this is that these investors sold Treasuries UNTIL the debt ceiling issue, which combined with concerns over Europe caused the flight back into Treasuries (i.e. if there was no debt ceiling issues, there would have been less demand in July / August).

Immune to this whipsaw was China.
China's holdings actually rose in June, by $5.7 billion to $1.166 trillion, following net buying of $7.3 billion in May. Analysts caution the data may not reflect the full spectrum of China's activity in the market, however. The Treasury recently adjusted its estimate of China's holdings based on use of proxies in other countries.
The below shows the combined purchases by China (direct) and the UK (where China purchases indirectly).



Until something drastically changes, expect a continued rise in the above chart regardless of net purchases / sales from other foreign entities.

Source: Treasury

Wednesday, August 10, 2011

Ten Year Yield Approaching Unprecedented Territory

The chart below shows the ten year Treasury yield over the last 100 years combining monthly data from Irrational Exuberance and daily data from the Federal Reserve once available. 17 more basis points away from the all time low of 1.95 (that was a monthly print... not sure how low it got intra-month).




Friday, July 29, 2011

Rewind: On the Value of Treasuries

As ten year yields re-approach 2.7% levels, let us revisit (i.e. pat myself on the back for) a post from last September when yields were 2.7%.


On the Value of Treasuries - September 7th, 2010

In recent weeks, a number of investors I respect have commented that Treasuries are rich and should be avoided (or even outright shorted). Recent examples include Doug Kass and James Montier, both of whom claim current yields put too much weight on expectations of a double dip. I simply don't agree...

While I am not a Treasury bull, it is my view that at a 2.7% yield Treasury bonds are fairly valued when one takes into account the low growth / low inflation outlook, the Fed's extended easing policy, and the potential for capital appreciation rolling down the steep yield curve. Below we'll take a look at these three points in more detail.


Point #1) Nominal Growth Matters

This point was first shown in the following chart a few weeks ago.



In Doug's post he compares historical real GDP to Treasury yields and notes that bonds should be yielding more (he notes that Treasuries have historically yielded ~360 bps more than real GDP). The problem with this analysis outside of an apples (real GDP) to oranges (nominal Treasury yield) approach, is that a large portion of this "spread" was due to the inflation spike seen in the chart above during the late 1970's / early 1980's; a period marked by high nominal Treasury yields and low real GDP.


Point #2) The Importance of Monetary Easing Policy


A bond investor that does not take duration risk can only earn VERY low rates over the next few years as long as the Fed is on hold. If an investor earns VERY low rates for each of the next two years, they will need to earn a much higher return for the remaining 8 years just to break-even with the Treasury investment. The key is that the market is pricing this in.

Example:

Assuming a "zero" interest policy for two years (by zero, lets assume 0.25%), this means that a 2.7% yield can be achieved as follows:

  • The first 2 years at 0.25%
  • The last 8 years at 3.32%
The formula: (1 + 2.7%)^10 / (1 + .25%)^2 = 1.29878^(1/8) = 3.32%
The chart:



The relevance? The market is not forecasting rates will stay as low as they are now (i.e. forward rates are higher... closer to that 3.32% rate than 2.71%), which means capital losses will not happen simply if rates rise from current levels, but rather rise above levels expected by the market going forward.


Point #3) Don't Forget the Rolldown


The yield curve is VERY steep (i.e. upward sloping). This means that the 10 year bond will not only return its yield over the next 12 months if nothing changes (i.e. if the yield curve is exactly where it is today in 12 months), it will return more.

How much more?

Using current figures, the 10 year Treasury is yielding 2.71% while the 9 year Treasury is yielding 2.54% (17 bps difference). Assuming that nothing changes, performance of a 10 year bond over the next 12 months will be made up of the 2.71% yield plus the capital appreciation from moving from a required yield of 2.71% to 2.54% (i.e. a bond with a 2.71% coupon and a required yield of 2.54% will be worth more than par). This specific 17 bp move would add an additional 1.5% (assuming a duration of 8.75 years on a ten year Treasury) over the next 12 months, which means a 4.2% return for the 10 year note if nothing changes.



Source: Federal Reserve / BEA

Wednesday, June 22, 2011

Suppressed Yields?

In a recent post titled Suppressed Volatility, EconomPic posited:
It is simply (in my view) that volatility across ALL sectors and asset classes has been suppressed by the liquidity that has successfully (to date) been finding its way into riskier and riskier asset classes following the combination of unprecedented fiscal / monetary stimulus and a lack of "real" investments (i.e. investments that feed into economic growth and create jobs) for this liquidity to go.
Here is a visual depiction of that mechanism.



That's right. In the first quarter, the Fed purchased $1.4 trillion in Treasury securites or 190% of all net issuance for the quarter (a period in which households reduced Treasury holdings by more than $1 trillion). This $1 trillion went somewhere (think risk assets). Also would seem to explain why Treasuries snapped back sharply in the second quarter when disappointing economic news and a subsequent rebound in demand for Treasuries was met by a reduced net supply.

Source: Federal Reserve

Wednesday, June 15, 2011

Foreigners Still Buying Treasuries

I'm reminded of the quote "Cleanest dirty shirt". Bloomberg details:

China, the largest foreign owner of U.S. government debt, added to its holdings for the first time in six months in April as economic data weakened and the Federal Reserve signaled no extension of its $600 billion purchase plan.
Chinese officials, as well as those in Germany and Brazil had been critical of the Fed’s asset purchase plan when it was first announced in November, said the proposal would be inflationary and could hurt the value of dollar-denominated assets. The Fed became the largest owner of Treasuries through what has become known as its policy of quantitative easing, in which bonds were bought to add cash into the economy and reduce the risk of deflation. The purchases end this month.
Also of note (and outlined previously at EconomPic here):
Even with the increase, the data “underestimates what China’s buying,” said Scott Sherman, an interest-rate strategist at Credit Suisse Group AG in New York, a primary dealer. “China deals through foreign intermediaries” leading to initial tallies counting their purchases as belonging to other holders, such as the U.K.
Hence the China and United Kingdom aggregation below.



Source: Treasury

Tuesday, February 8, 2011

Inflection Point?



Source: Yahoo

Tuesday, January 18, 2011

China Still NOT Selling Treasuries

Back in February of last year I detailed that China was NOT selling Treasuries when the "experts" in the media said they were. TIC December 2009 data initially stated Chinese holdings totalled a bit more than $700 billion, down from summer '09 levels. I made the case that these purchases were actually being made through the United Kingdom (more here). They were. The result is that China's December 2009 holdings were revised upward by $200 billion.

"Experts" in the media would have learned their lesson by now right?

To the Financial Times:

China and Russia were the major sellers of US Treasuries in November as bond yields surged sharply higher that month, according to the latest government data.

The US Treasury reported on Tuesday that private investors sought more dollar-denominated stocks and bonds in November than October, offsetting record sales by foreign governments.

The FT was joined by the WSJ, CNN, and Marketwatch amongst others getting it wrong. Bloomberg got it right here, but wrong here.

Facts:

1) Journalist do not read EconomPic
2) China is NOT selling Treasuries



Source: Treasury

Wednesday, November 17, 2010

The Impact of QEII

On September 21st, the FOMC signalled a new round of quantitative easing with the following:

The Committee will continue to monitor the economic outlook and financial developments and is prepared to provide additional accommodation if needed to support the economic recovery and to return inflation, over time, to levels consistent with its mandate.
An interesting theory from James Bianco (via The Big Picture) as to why we perhaps shouldn't be surprised that the positive impact of QEII has been outside the Treasury bond market (even though they are targeting $600-$900 billion in Treasury purchases).

Over the last several weeks we have repeatedly mentioned the Federal Reserve’s portfolio balance theory. In a nutshell, this theory states it does not matter what securities the Federal Reserve buys with newly printed money (QE2). The market will arbitrage this new money into the market that it thinks will have the most impact.
With that theory in mind, lets take a look at one relationship that seems to have diverged since the announcment of QEII... the rather strong relationship (outlined here) between gold and Treasuries.



Source: Yahoo

Thursday, November 11, 2010

Is it a Bubble if a Reversal is Already Priced into the Market?

Below is a chart of the 10 year Treasury yield and what the market is pricing in for the 10 year yield, ten years forward (along with the five year average of each).



What we see is that the current yield is well below the five year average (bringing up concerns there is a "bond bubble"), but we can also clearly see that the market is already pricing in the yield to rise to a level that is higher than its five year average in ten years.

If a reversion from these lows is already priced in (past its five year average), I don't see how we are in a bubble (i.e. "bubbles" are not supposed to be priced into the market).

Source: Federal Reserve

Wednesday, November 3, 2010

Front-End Loves... Long-End Hates... QEII

Quantitative Easing II that is. The WSJ details:

The Treasury market delivered a vote of confidence to the Federal Reserve Wednesday as the price of the 30-year bond plummeted, a signal the market believes the Fed's big bond buying will eventually spur inflation.

"The market appears to be pricing in the likelihood that [quantitative easing] will eventually succeed, and is positioning itself ahead of the inflation that may materialize in years ahead as a result of a successful reflation program," said Kevin Giddis, president of fixed income capital markets at Morgan Keegan + Co. in Memphis.



Source: WSJ

Monday, October 18, 2010

China Hearts US Treasuries

Maybe they don't heart Treasuries, but with a soaring trade deficit they don't have much of a choice if they want to keep the Yuan cheap. The FT details the broader demand for Treasuries:

Foreign investors scooped a near record amount of US debt in August and sharply increased their holdings of Treasury bonds, according to the latest Treasury International Capital report.

August was marked by fears that the US economy faced a possible double dip recession and yields on Treasury bonds fell sharply as bond investors priced in a move by the Federal Reserve to start another round of quantitative easing. The Fed announced in August that it would start reinvesting principal payments from its agency debt and agency mortgage-backed securities in longer-term Treasury securities.
And China is by far the biggest foreign buyer. Over the last 12 months, China has purchased more than 40% of the marginal increase in foreign Treasury holdings assuming that purchases of the United Kingdom are in fact simply Chinese purchases (see here for more on why the bulk of the UK jump is in fact Chinese purchases).



Source: Treasury

Thursday, September 16, 2010

China is NOT Selling Treasuries

Peter Boockvar (via The Big Picture) doesn't read EconomPic:

Within the July TIC data where $61.2b of net US assets were bought by foreigners, above expectations of $47.5b, the Japanese continued to close the gap with China in terms of their holdings of US Treasuries. Japan was the biggest buyer in July, purchasing a net $17.4b and taking their holdings to $821b.

Mainland China (as opposed to Hong Kong where there was net selling in July) bought $3b of Treasuries but only $873mm of it was in notes and bonds with most of it going into short term bills. The net inflow from China follows net selling of a total of $56.5b in the prior two months. Mainland China’s holdings now total $846.7b after peaking at $900.2b in April. Hong Kong’s holdings of US Treasuries peaked in Feb at $152.4b and now total $135.2b.

If he did, he would know that China buys Treasuries through the United Kingdom (and the figures get revised later... see here), thus the picture changes.



Source: Treasury

Friday, August 27, 2010

BOOM!!! Goes the Treasuries

Reuters details:

U.S. Treasuries prices fell sharply on Friday after Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke signaled no new bond buying by the U.S. central bank was imminent, triggering the biggest sell-off in three months.

Although Bernanke did mention such purchases as a possibility, investors found nothing in his comments to indicate the Fed has any immediate plans to stimulate the slowing economy through an expansion of current bond buying.

For a market already at rich levels, this was an important nuance that further fueled a sell-off ignited after data earlier on Friday showed a revised picture of U.S. economic growth was not quite as weak as expected in the second quarter.


Source: Bloomberg