Rising bond yields could spell trouble for the economy and the markets
GOVERNMENT bond markets are supposed to be the accountants of the financial world: calm, steady and rational. They are not supposed to frighten the horses. But in the days following June 7th, bond investors had a traumatic experience. The yield on the ten-year Treasury bond rose from 4.96% that day to reach 5.33% during trading on June 13th before closing just below 5.2%.
What makes the slump in bond prices all the odder is that Treasury bonds are normally regarded as the risk-free asset, the one that investors buy when they are really worried. What could have prompted the sell-off?
One thing that could cause investors to flee government bonds would be an unexpected rise in inflation. Higher inflation devastates the value of fixed-income assets, as investors found to their cost in the 1970s. But this does not look like an inflation scare. Real yields have caused the vast bulk of the move; inflation expectations have moved up by only around a tenth of a percentage point. And gold, the classic inflation hedge, has fallen in price.
Investors may well have decided that American growth will be stronger than they had previously expected. But, in the absence of inflation, faster growth need not be bad for government bonds; higher tax revenues will make it easier for the government to service the debt. Alternatively, unexpectedly strong growth ought to be good news for equities, yet the stockmarket has also fluctuated wildly.
Another potential explanation is that the markets have given up on rate cuts from the Federal Reserve this year. But the futures market suggests this hope has been dwindling for some time. Global monetary policy is generally being tightened (see article). However, this should not necessarily be bad news for long-dated bonds, if investors believe (as they seem to) that central banks will be successful in containing inflation.
This suggests that economic fundamentals may not be the primary cause for the sell-off. Big market moves like this tend to occur when investors shift their positions in a hurry. In this case, it looks as if some bond bulls decided to throw in the towel. Figures from the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, the Chicago regulator, suggest that, before the sell-off, speculators were betting heavily on lower yields. One of the most prominent bond bulls, Bill Gross of Pimco, an investment-management firm, has just publicly changed his mind.
The hedging policies of mortgage issuers may also have played a part. Because most Americans have fixed-rate mortgages, issuers find they tend to get repaid early when bond yields fall; they hedge this risk by buying Treasury bonds. When rates rise, borrowers are far less likely to repay; that causes mortgage issuers to sell their bonds. The effect can be to exacerbate short-term moves in bond prices.
The big question, however, is whether Asian central banks have lost their appetite for American Treasuries. Part of the reason for the rise in yields was a disappointing auction of ten-year bonds, with foreign investors buying just 11% of the issue. Asian central banks had been buying Treasury bonds with their foreign-exchange reserves in an attempt to prevent their currencies from appreciating too rapidly against the dollar. Some analysts have estimated that these purchases had pushed bond yields between a half and a full percentage point below the level they would otherwise have reached.
The result was that yield curves were “inverted”—long yields were below short-term rates. When he was Fed chairman, Alan Greenspan described this state of affairs as a “conundrum”: such curves had traditionally been a harbinger of recession, but perhaps Asian central bank policies meant this signal was no longer valid.
Asian central banks may now be turning their attention to other assets. The establishment of China's sovereign-wealth fund and its purchase of a stake in Blackstone, a private-equity group, indicate that the Beijing regime may be looking for more exciting returns. Still, if this move is all about the Asian central banks shifting their reserves away from American bonds, it is odd that it has been accompanied by a rise in the dollar against the euro and the yen. True, Blackstone's shares will be denominated in dollars, but it is hard to see a change in reserve policy that would increase the appetite for dollar assets.
Whoever has been selling Treasury bonds, the result is that the conundrum has disappeared; yield curves are now sloping upwards. Sometimes a steepening of the curve can be benign, when central banks cut rates to try to stimulate the economy. But Richard McGuire of RBC Capital Markets points out that this is a “bear-market steepening”, caused by bond yields rising faster than short rates.
A higher risk-free rate will eventually raise the financing costs for everyone, from American homeowners fixing their mortgages, through hedge funds using leverage, to private-equity groups planning bids for quoted companies. It should also bear down (eventually) on economic growth.
This means that, provided that inflation is not getting out of control, higher bond yields will eventually sow the seeds of their own destruction. Slower growth and a loss of appetite for riskier assets will make government bonds look more attractive once more. But with analysts talking about yields breaking out of a 17-year downtrend (see chart), that might not happen for a while.
Jun 14th 2007 From The Economist
Tuesday, September 11, 2007
Not so risk-free
The latest attempt to fix the immigration system is stuck
FOR only the second time since he became president, George Bush went to lunch with Senate Republicans on Capitol Hill on June 12th. They entertained him frugally: he had a peanut-butter and jam sandwich. And when he tried, strenuously and politely, to persuade them to revive his stalled immigration-reform plan, they gave him more peanuts.
The bill, a compromise drawn up by a small group of liberal and conservative senators, looked close to death last week when its supporters came 15 votes short of the 60 votes (out of 100) they needed to end debate and bring it to a vote. The Senate majority leader, Harry Reid, a Democrat, pulled the bill until, as he put it, the Republicans get their act together.
Both parties are divided on the issue, but the split is bitterest among Republicans. The party's pro-business wing favours easier immigration, so it supported provisions to allow in 400,000 guest workers a year and award more green cards to foreigners with useful skills. But its support is only lukewarm. The bill's points system substitutes the government's judgment for that of employers when assessing which immigrants the country needs. And an amendment slashing the guest-worker programme to 200,000 means that there will not be enough of them to meet the demand for their labour in America's fields and restaurants.
The Republicans' nativist wing is hotly opposed to the bill because it allows the estimated 12m illegal aliens already in the United States to become legal straightaway, and offers them a path (albeit a long one) to citizenship. This, the nativists wail, is an “amnesty” that will attract another surge of illegals across the border.
Mr Bush is trying to placate this group with promises of tougher border security. The bill calls for miles of fences, thousands of new border guards, a secure identity card for immigrants and a new obligation for employers to verify that anyone they hire is legally entitled to work. Employers resent the burden of doing the immigration service's job for it. Nativists, meanwhile, don't believe that Mr Bush is serious about enforcing the law. Nine Republican senators sent him an open letter demanding that he secure the border first before worrying about anything else. Another two bemoaned the fact that after the last big immigration reform in 1986, similar promises of enforcement were broken. Even blatant employers of illegals are rarely punished and almost never jailed.
Mr Bush has responded with a public-relations offensive to convince conservatives that he is as tough as he says he is. He said he would consider a separate emergency funding bill for border security. Two of his cabinet, Carlos Gutierrez, the commerce secretary, and Michael Chertoff, the homeland security chief, are appearing on television and talk radio to make the case for immigration reform. Lowlier officials are making their case on conservative blogs. Immigration agents are feeding lists of those who have ignored deportation orders into the FBI's crime database in the hope that the police will identify and collar them if they stop them for traffic offences. Some will, but others will doubtless prefer to pursue dangerous criminals.
The White House insists that the status quo is unacceptable. But the opponents of reform are more passionate than its supporters, the compromise bill before the Senate has parts that rile everyone and the Democrats are in no hurry to help Mr Bush win a domestic victory. So the bill's chances look dim. Getting past thousands of border patrol agents is easy, but 41 senators can block anything.
Jun 14th 2007 | WASHINGTON, DC