Bonds


Print This Post Print This Post

Tim Bond, head of asset allocation at Barclays Capital, discusses in the video clips below the outlook for Chinese growth, as well as government bond yields and when the Federal Reserve Board will start raising rates. FT’s investment editor John Authers conducts the two-part interview that also covers a number of other topical issues.

Part 1:
Will Chinese domestic growth be the saviour of the global economy?

Click here or on the image below to view the interview.

tim-bond-240609-pica

Part 2:
Are bond yields normalising? When will the Fed start raising rates?

Click here or on the image below to view the interview.

tim-bond-240609

Source: John Authers, Financial Times, June 22 and June 23, 2009.

Did you enjoy this post? If so, click here to subscribe to updates to Investment Postcards from Cape Town by e-mail.

The Financial Ad Trader
The Financial Ad Trader - banner ads

 Email  Digg  Del.icio.us  Technorati  Stumble  Reddit  Facebook
Print This Post Print This Post

I have been bearish on government bonds since March this year and have repeatedly warned that they were an overpriced asset class, saying at the time: “… one should be cognizant of the fact that an investment in a 10-year Treasury Note will by definition lock in a total return of 3.5% over the next 10 years. This sounds unsustainable and I find it difficult to see the long-term investment merit of such an investment. Long-dated bond prices could be hit hard once yields adjust to more realistic levels.” (See “Long Bonds in Injury Time”, March 28, 2008.)

Although rising bond yields have been given a reprieve as a result of the deteriorating outlook for economic growth and commensurate safe-haven buying, I maintain that the medium-term outlook remains negative owing to valuation levels still being stretched, especially in the light of mounting inflationary pressures.

The chart below shows the long-term pattern of US ten-year Treasury bond yields and specifically the low of 3.14% reached on March 17 and the subsequent turnaround.

2-july-b1.jpg

Source: StockCharts.com

A very apt and well-reasoned summary of the various factors impacting the outlook for government bonds appeared in The Economist a few weeks ago. This article is greatly complementary to my previous posts on bonds and is therefore republished in full in the paragraphs below.

“The yield of Treasury bonds is arguably the single most important indicator in financial markets. Since the American government is unlikely to default, the bond yield sets the risk-free rate against which other assets are measured. It also serves as a barometer of investors’ feelings about economic variables like inflation and recession.

“But precisely because it does so many things, the Treasury bond can send out conflicting signals. Consumers have been grumbling about the inflationary impact of higher oil and food prices for a while. But bond investors have only recently taken fright, pushing the yield on the 10-year Treasury bond above 4% on May 28, for the first time since the start of the year. Even now, however, the breakeven inflation rate (the difference between yields on conventional and inflation-linked bonds) on five-year Treasury issues is just 2.4%, within the range it has occupied for the past four years; compare that with the 7.7% inflation rate that American consumers expect over the next 12 months.

“One possibility is that the ‘bond-market vigilantes’ have been asleep. ‘We sometimes wonder if Treasury-bond investors enjoy losing money,’ muses Tim Bond, a strategist at Barclays Capital, as he ponders the logic of owning ten-year Treasuries yielding close to 4% when headline inflation is heading (on his view) for more than 5% by August.

“Bill Gross of Pimco, a bond-market investor, argues that inflation is understated in the official American figures because of statistical adjustments made over the past 25 years. The result may be that investors have been fooled into buying Treasury bonds on unrealistic expectations of real (after-inflation) yields.

“Another possibility is that breakeven rates are not an effective measure of investors’ inflation expectations. That is the view of Jack Malvey, a strategist at Lehman Brothers. He argues that yields on inflation-linked bonds have been distorted over the past decade by demand from pension funds, which see the bonds as an ideal way to match their liabilities.

“A third option is that bond investors think today’s inflation rates are a blip. ‘Inflation may be an issue now but it likely won’t be over the next ten years,’ says Pavan Wadhwa, head of European rates strategy at JPMorgan Chase. Optimists argue the anti-inflation credibility of central banks is stronger than in the 1970s. And they note that high oil prices, although they push up inflation in the short term, ultimately tend to act as a tax on growth.

“The credit crunch may also be having lingering effects. Bond yields reached their low in mid-March when the Bear Stearns crisis was in full swing. At that point, the ten-year Treasury bond yielded just 3.31%, the lowest level in five years. Investors were fleeing the riskier debt of bank and other corporate borrowers for the safety of government paper.

“Yields have moved up by more than half a percentage point since then, as investors have started to move money out of government bonds and back into the equity market. But recessionary fears still linger, especially when investors are bombarded with statistics such as the continued fall in American house prices and the decline in consumer confidence. It may still be worth holding Treasury bonds yielding around 4% as a hedge against a sharp economic downturn.

“In short, the bond market is caught in an awkward compromise, with worries about the financial and economic outlook balancing concern about inflation.

“In the medium term, however, it is hard to argue with Lehman’s Mr Malvey when he says that he expects yields in some government-bond markets to rise by two to three percentage points over the next two or three years. Although the world may not be about to return to the excesses of the 1970s, the Goldilocks era is tapering off: the trade-off between growth and inflation has deteriorated.

2-july-b2.jpg

“Nor have Treasury-bond investors exactly been coining it in recent years. According to Barclays Capital, the annualised real return since the start of 2003 has been a meagre 1%. Will the Chinese, with a domestic inflation rate of 8.5%, really want to hold bonds yielding 4% in a currency they expect to depreciate against the yuan? Is the anti-inflationary credibility of the Federal Reserve really that convincing when it is clear that its rate decisions can be driven by concern for the health of the banking sector? Indeed does it make sense for German ten-year bonds to yield more than Treasuries when the inflationary rhetoric of the European Central Bank looks much more hawkish?

“Veteran investors may recall 1962, when the Treasury-bond yield was less than 4%. Those who bought bonds then earned negative real returns over the succeeding five-, ten- and 20-year periods. They should be very careful about making the same mistake again.”

 

Did you enjoy this post? If so, click here to subscribe to updates to Investment Postcards from Cape Town by e-mail.

 

The Financial Ad Trader
The Financial Ad Trader - banner ads

 Email  Digg  Del.icio.us  Technorati  Stumble  Reddit  Facebook
Print This Post Print This Post

I have alerted readers in two recent posts (US Long Bonds in Injury Time and Watch the Stock/Bond Ratio) that I was of the opinion that US long-dated bonds were topping out.

The following chart of the US 10-year Treasury Note yield indicates that we have now arrived at an important point of resolve regarding an upward break of both the trendline and 50-day moving average:

16-april-4.jpg

Source: StockCharts.com

Whereas safe-haven buying has driven long bond yields sharply lower ever since the advent of the sub-prime crisis, investors now seem to have started focusing more strongly on the inflation outlook rather than on economic growth considerations. And rightly so, as the latest batch of statistics points to rising inflation around the globe.

It would appear that financial markets currently face three potential price pressures, as succinctly summarized by GaveKal:

“1. Soaring food and energy prices
Whatever the reason may be, elevated food and energy prices are becoming a real concern. The price of rice, for example, has simply gone parabolic this year. In Bangkok, white rice is now up +120% YTD.

Meanwhile, oil reached yet another record high yesterday, closing at US$113.8/barrel. On that topic, we note with some concern that … world expenditure on oil, as a percentage of global GDP, is back to 7% - a level not seen since 1980. Given the severity of the global recession that followed in the early 80s, this data point does not instil confidence.

16-april-1.jpg

2. Rising export prices from Asia
According to BLS data from March, import prices from China are now rising +4% YoY, highlighting a rise from negative growth only one year ago. Moreover, US producer prices are now rising faster than expected, up +6.9% in YoY in March. These are all signs that we are indeed witnessing a significant shift in the terms of trade between the East and the West, and all of this does not bode well for the US consumer, whose spending is already waning.

16-april-2.jpg

3. Excessive monetary easing by central banks
Two months ago, the Fed was under great pressure to ‘get back on the curve’. With a couple of significant rate cuts and a series of other easing measures in mid-March, some say the concern is now that the Fed is easing too much – and that it could now be creating the next bubble, this time in commodities. However, we are hesitant to criticize the Fed in this respect when M1 growth remains non-existent (as it has been for the last couple of years) and monetary base growth is at a 7-year low.”

16-april-3.jpg

Although long bond yields may not yet skyrocket given the poor economic outlook, it seems prudent not to be exposed to an investment that will by definition lock in an unattractive total return of 3.7% over the next 10 years. As a matter of fact, it may not be a bad proposition to buy a few out-of-the-money put options on long-dated bonds.

 

Did you enjoy this posting? If so, click here to subscribe to updates to Investment Postcards from Cape Town by e-mail.

 

The Financial Ad Trader
The Financial Ad Trader - banner ads

 Email  Digg  Del.icio.us  Technorati  Stumble  Reddit  Facebook
Print This Post Print This Post

Since the advent of the credit crisis, stock markets, real estate and the US dollar have been the subject of investors’ angst. However, two markets – commodities and long bonds – have remained in bullish trends. That, at least, is the way it looked until recently.

The Reuters/Jeffries CRB Index hit a peak on March 13, and I argued in a subsequent post that although a correction was overdue, the long-term trend was still upwards.

But what about the outlook for US bonds, especially as yields have edged up since the recent lows of 3.314% (March 17) and 4.165% (March 20) for the 10-year and 30-year Treasury Note respectively?

The graph below shows the long-term movement of the yield on the US 10-year Treasury Note, indicating that long-dated US bonds have experienced a multi-year bull market and are trading at levels last seen more than 40 years ago as far as nominal yields are concerned and 28 years ago in real terms. Thinking of which, the only investors who first-hand experienced the last major bear market in bonds (from 1971 to 1980) are now all on the wrong side of 50!

usa-govt-1o-yr-bnd.jpg

Source: I-Net Bridge

Let’s now turn to a shorter-term graph of the 10-year Treasury Note yield in order to see the recent action.

10-year-treasury-note.jpg

Source: StockCharts.com

The chart illustrates the sharp fall in the yield over the past few months as investors scrambled for safe-haven investments as the subprime fallout intensified. Although the yield has bounced off the bottom Bollinger Band (bottom green line), no sell signal as such has been given. However, the positive divergence of the Stochastic Oscillator is of some significance as it often acts as leading indicator of the yield graph. Although the 50-day moving average (off-blue line) could provide a short-term barrier, the real test will be the February high of 3.917%, which also coincides with the top Bollinger Band (top green line).

It would be remiss not to also show the weekly chart of the 30-year Treasury Note yield, and specifically to point out the triple bottom that has formed over the past five years, providing particularly strong support in the 4.15% to 4.20% area.

30-yr-treasury-bond.jpg

Source: StockCharts.com

Why would long bond yields be breaking upwards (i.e. why would long bond prices be topping out) from a fundamental perspective? Bonds could be discounting better business prospects a few quarters down the line, or they could be discounting rising inflation ahead, or perhaps both. Quite a likely scenario is that we could see a continued base formation for a while longer as the forces of inflation versus deteriorating/improving economic prospects play themselves out.

Time will tell when bond yields will hit a secular low, but in the meantime one should be cognizant of the fact that an investment in a 10-Year Treasury Note will by definition lock in a total return of 3.5% over the next 10 years. This sounds unsustainable and I find it difficult to see the long-term investment merit of such an investment. Long-dated bond prices could be hit hard once yields adjust to more realistic levels.

Be careful – we’re in injury time.

 

PS: South Korea pension fund shuns US debt

I have just been alerted to a very topical article that recently appeared in the Financial Times. The relevant paragraphs are republished below:

“The world’s fifth-largest pension fund will no longer buy US Treasuries because yields are too low. The move signals what could be a big shift by financial institutions away from US government debt into higher-yielding assets.

“South Korea’s National Pension Service, which has $220 billion in assets, said on Wednesday it wanted to broaden its range of overseas investments.

“’It is difficult to buy more US Treasuries because the portion of our Treasury investment is already too big and Treasury yields have fallen a lot,’ said Kwag Dae-hwan, head of global investments at the NPS. ‘We need to diversify our portfolio away from US Treasuries and we find asset-backed securities and corporate debt more attractive because of wider credit spreads.’

“A manager at the NPS’s overseas investment team said: ‘The Fed continues to cut interest rates. We are still making profits from the Treasuries that we bought in the past but we think we’d better dispose of them and had better buy higher-yielding European-government debt.’

“Central banks from 16 Asian countries said last weekend at a meeting in Jakarta that they might invest more of their $1,000 billion of official reserves in one another’s sovereign bonds instead of US Treasuries, given the dollar’s volatility.”

Source: Financial Times, March 26, 2008.

Did you enjoy this posting? If so, click here to subscribe to updates to Investment Postcards from Cape Town by e-mail.

The Financial Ad Trader
The Financial Ad Trader - banner ads

 Email  Digg  Del.icio.us  Technorati  Stumble  Reddit  Facebook

Next Page »