treasuries - What We're Reading - StockBuz2024-03-29T09:24:20Zhttp://stockbuz.ning.com/articles/feed/tag/treasuriesDon't Be Fooled The Bond Rally Continueshttp://stockbuz.ning.com/articles/don-t-be-fooled-the-bond-rally-continues2016-08-11T01:08:59.000Z2016-08-11T01:08:59.000ZStockBuzhttp://stockbuz.ning.com/members/1t2xbcvddkrir<div><p><span style="font-size: 16px;"><span style="font-family: times new roman,times,serif;"><a target="_self" href="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/1291344?profile=original"><img class="align-left" src="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/1291344?profile=RESIZE_480x480" width="450"></a>We’ve been bulls on 30-year Treasury bonds since 1981 when we stated, “We’re entering the bond rally of a lifetime.” It’s still under way, in our opinion. Their yields back then were 15.2%, but our forecast called for huge declines in inflation and, with it, a gigantic fall in bond yields to our then-target of 3%.</span></span></p>
<h3><span style="font-size: 16px;"><span style="font-family: times new roman,times,serif;">The Cause of Inflation</span></span></h3>
<p><span style="font-size: 16px;"><span style="font-family: times new roman,times,serif;">We’ve argued that the root of inflation is excess demand, and historically it’s caused by huge government spending on top of a fully-employed economy. That happens during wars, and so inflation and wars always go together, going back to the French and Indian War, the Revolutionary War, the War of 1812, the Mexican War of 1846, the Civil War, the Spanish American War of 1898, World Wars I and II and the Korean War. In the late 1960s and 1970s, huge government spending, and the associated double-digit inflation (<em>Chart 1</em>), resulted from the Vietnam War on top's LBJ’s War on Poverty.</span></span></p>
<p align="center"><img alt="" style="width: 550px; height: 360px;" src="http://ggc-mauldin-images.s3.amazonaws.com/uploads/newsletters/Image_1_20160810_OTB.jpg"></p>
<p><span style="font-size: 16px;"><span style="font-family: times new roman,times,serif;">By the late 1970s, however, the frustrations over military stalemate and loss of American lives in Vietnam as well as the failures of the War on Poverty and Great Society programs to propel lower-income folks led to a rejection of voters’ belief that government could aid Americans and solve major problems. The first clear manifestation of this switch in conviction was Proposition 13 in California, which limited residential real estate taxes. That was followed by the 1980 election of Ronald Reagan, who declared that government <em>was</em> the basic problem, not the solution to the nation’s woes.</span></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: 16px;"><span style="font-family: times new roman,times,serif;">This belief convinced us that Washington’s involvement in the economy would atrophy and so would inflation. Given the close correlation between inflation and Treasury bond yields (Chart 1), we then forecast the unwinding of inflation—disinflation—and a related breathtaking decline in Treasury bond yields to 3%, as noted earlier. At that time, virtually no one believed our forecast since most thought that double-digit inflation would last indefinitely. </span></span></p>
<h3><span style="font-size: 16px;"><span style="font-family: times new roman,times,serif;">Lock Up For Infinity?</span></span></h3>
<p><span style="font-size: 16px;"><span style="font-family: times new roman,times,serif;">Despite the high initial yields on “the long bond,” as the most-recently issued 30-year Treasury is called, our focus has always been on price appreciation as yields drop, not on yields, per se. A vivid example of this strategy occurred in March 2006—before the 2007–2009 Great Recession promoted the nosedive in stocks and leap in Treasury bond prices. I was invited by Professor Jeremy Siegel of Wharton for a public debate on stocks versus bonds. He, of course, favored stocks and I advocated Treasury bonds.</span></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: 16px;"><span style="font-family: times new roman,times,serif;">At one point, he addressed the audience of about 500 and said, “I don’t know why anyone in their right mind would tie up their money for 30 years for a 4.75% yield [the then-yield on the 30-year Treasury].” When it came my turn to reply, I asked the audience, “What’s the maturity on stocks?” I got no answer, but pointed out that unless a company merges or goes bankrupt, the maturity on its stock is infinity—it has no maturity. My follow-up question was, “What is the yield on stocks?” to which someone correctly replied, “It’s 2% on the S&P 500 Index.” </span></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: 16px;"><span style="font-family: times new roman,times,serif;">So I continued, “I don’t know why anyone would tie up money for infinity for a 2% yield.” I was putting the query, apples to apples, in the same framework as Professor Siegel’s rhetorical question. “I've never, never, never bought Treasury bonds for yield, but for appreciation, the same reason that most people buy stocks. I couldn't care less what the yield is, as long as it's going down since, then, Treasury prices are rising.”</span></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: 16px;"><span style="font-family: times new roman,times,serif;">Of course, Siegel isn’t the only one who hates bonds in general and Treasuries in particular. And because of that, Treasurys, unlike stocks, are seldom the subject of irrational exuberance. Their leap in price in the dark days in late 2008 (<em>Chart 2</em>) is a rare exception to a market that seldom gets giddy, despite the declining trend in yields and related decline in prices for almost three decades.</span></span></p>
<p align="center"><img alt="" style="width: 550px; height: 360px;" src="http://ggc-mauldin-images.s3.amazonaws.com/uploads/newsletters/Image_2_20160810_OTB.jpg"></p>
<h3><span style="font-size: 16px;"><span style="font-family: times new roman,times,serif;">Treasury Haters</span></span></h3>
<p><span style="font-size: 16px;"><span style="font-family: times new roman,times,serif;">Stockholders inherently hate Treasurys. They say they don’t understand them. But their quality is unquestioned, and Treasurys and the forces that move yields are well-defined—Fed policy and inflation or deflation (Chart 1) are among the few important factors. Stock prices, by contrast, depend on the business cycle, conditions in that particular industry, Congressional legislation, the quality of company management, merger and acquisition possibilities, corporate accounting, company pricing power, new and old product potentials, and myriad other variables.</span></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: 16px;"><span style="font-family: times new roman,times,serif;">Also, many others may see bonds—except for junk, which really are equities in disguise—as uniform and gray. It's a lot more interesting at a cocktail party to talk about the unlimited potential of a new online retailer that sells dog food to Alaskan dogsledders than to discuss the different trading characteristics of a Treasury of 20- compared to 30-year maturity. In addition, many brokers have traditionally refrained from recommending or even discussing bonds with clients. Commissions are much lower and turnover tends to be much slower than with stocks. </span></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: 16px;"><span style="font-family: times new roman,times,serif;">Stockholders also understand that Treasurys normally rally in weak economic conditions, which are negative for stock prices, so declining Treasury yields are a bad omen. It was only individual investors’ extreme distaste for stocks in 2009 after their bloodbath collapse that precipitated the rush into bond mutual funds that year. They plowed $69 billion into long-term municipal bond funds alone in 2009, up from only $8 billion in 2008 and $11 billion in 2007.</span></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: 16px;"><span style="font-family: times new roman,times,serif;">Another reason is that most of those promoting stocks prefer them to bonds is because they compare equities with short duration fixed-income securities that did not have long enough maturities to appreciate much as interest rates declined since the early 1980s.</span></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: 16px;"><span style="font-family: times new roman,times,serif;">Investment strategists cite numbers like a 6.7% annual return for Treasury bond mutual funds for the decade of the 1990s while the S&P 500 total annual return, including dividends, was 18.1%. But those government bond funds have average maturities and durations far shorter than on 30-year coupon and zero-coupon Treasurys that we favor and which have way, way outperformed equities since the early 1980s</span></span>.</p>
<h3><span style="font-size: 16px;"><span style="font-family: times new roman,times,serif;">Media Bias</span></span></h3>
<p><span style="font-size: 16px;"><span style="font-family: times new roman,times,serif;">The media also hates Treasury bonds, as their extremely biased statements reveal. The June 10 edition of <em>The Wall Street Journal</em> stated: “The frenzy of buying has sparked warnings about the potential of large losses if interest rates rise. The longer the maturity, the more sharply a bond’s price falls in response to a rise in rates. And with yields so low, buyers aren’t getting much income to compensate for that risk.” Since then, the 30-year Treasury yield has dropped from 2.48% to 2.21% as the price has risen by 8.3%.</span></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: 16px;"><span style="font-family: times new roman,times,serif;">Then, the July 1 <em>Journal</em> wrote: “Analysts have warned that piling into government debt, especially long-term securities at these slim yields, leaves bondholders vulnerable to the potential of large capital losses if yields march higher.” Since then, the price of the 30-year Treasury has climbed 1.7%. </span></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: 16px;"><span style="font-family: times new roman,times,serif;">While soft-pedaling the tremendous appreciation in long-term sovereigns this year, <em>Wall Street Journal</em> columnist James MacKintosh worries about the reverse. On July 28, he wrote, “Investors are taking a very big risk with these long-dated assets....Japan's 40-year bond would fall 15% in price if the yield rose by just half a percentage point, taking it back to where it stood in March. If yields merely rise back to where they started the year, it would be catastrophic for those who have chased longer duration. The 30-year Treasury would lose 14% of its value, while Japan's 40-year would lose a quarter of its value.” </span></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: 16px;"><span style="font-family: times new roman,times,serif;">The July 11 edition of the <em>Journal</em> said, “Changes in monetary policy could also trigger potential losses across the sovereign bond world. Even a small increase in interest rates could inflict hefty losses on investors.” </span></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: 16px;"><span style="font-family: times new roman,times,serif;">But in response to Brexit, the Bank of England has already eased, not tightened, credit, with more likely to follow. The European Central Bank is also likely to pump out more money as is the Bank of Japan as part of a new $268 billion stimulus package. Meanwhile, even though Fed Chairwoman Yellen has talked about raising interest rates later this year, we continue to believe that the next Fed move will be to reduce them.</span></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: 16px;"><span style="font-family: times new roman,times,serif;">Major central banks have already driven their reference rates to essentially zero and now negative in Japan and Europe (<em>Chart 3</em>) while quantitative easing exploded their assets (<em>Chart 4</em>). The Bank of England immediately after Brexit moved to increase the funds available for lending by U.K. banks by $200 billion. Earlier, on June 30, BOE chief Mark Carney said that the central bank would need to cut rates “over the summer” and hinted at a revival of QE that the BOE ended in July 2012.</span></span></p>
<p align="center"><img alt="" style="width: 550px; height: 359px;" src="http://ggc-mauldin-images.s3.amazonaws.com/uploads/newsletters/Image_3_20160810_OTB.jpg"></p>
<p align="center"><img alt="" style="width: 550px; height: 359px;" src="http://ggc-mauldin-images.s3.amazonaws.com/uploads/newsletters/Image_4_20160810_OTB.jpg"></p>
<h3><span style="font-size: 16px;"><span style="font-family: times new roman,times,serif;">Lonely Bulls</span></span></h3>
<p><span style="font-size: 16px;"><span style="font-family: times new roman,times,serif;">We’ve been pretty lonely as Treasury bond bulls for 35 years, but we’re comfortable being in the minority and tend to make more money in that position than by running with the herd. Incidentally, we continue to favor the 30-year bond over the 10-year note, which became the benchmark after the Treasury in 2001 stopped issuing the “long bond.” At that time, the Treasury was retiring debt because of the short-lived federal government surpluses caused by the post–Cold War decline in defense spending and big capital gains and other tax collections associated with the Internet stock bubble.</span></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: 16px;"><span style="font-family: times new roman,times,serif;">But after the federal budget returned to deficits as usual, the Treasury resumed long bond issues in 2006. In addition, after stock losses in the 2000–2002 bear market, many pension funds wanted longer-maturity Treasurys to match against the pension benefit liability that stretched further into the future as people live longer, and they still do.</span></span></p>
<h3><span style="font-size: 16px;"><span style="font-family: times new roman,times,serif;">Maturity Matters</span></span></h3>
<p><span style="font-size: 16px;"><span style="font-family: times new roman,times,serif;">We also prefer the long bond because maturity matters to appreciation when rates decline. Because of compound interest, a 30-year bond increases in value much more for each percentage point decline in interest rates than does a shorter maturity bond (<em>Chart 5</em>).</span></span></p>
<p align="center"><img alt="" style="width: 550px; height: 360px;" src="http://ggc-mauldin-images.s3.amazonaws.com/uploads/newsletters/Image_5a_20160810_OTB.jpg"></p>
<p><span style="font-size: 16px;"><span style="font-family: times new roman,times,serif;">Note (<em>Chart 6</em>) that at recent interest rates, a one percentage point fall in rates increases the price of a 5-year Treasury note by about 4.8%, a 10-year note by around 9.5%, but a 30-year bond by around 24.2%. Unfortunately, this works both ways, so if interest rates go up, you’ll lose much more on the bond than the notes if rates rise the same for both.</span></span></p>
<p align="center"><img alt="" style="width: 403px; height: 278px;" src="http://ggc-mauldin-images.s3.amazonaws.com/uploads/newsletters/Image_6_20160810_OTB.jpg"></p>
<p><span style="font-size: 16px;"><span style="font-family: times new roman,times,serif;">If you really believe, as we have for 35 years, that interest rates are going down, you want to own the longest-maturity bond possible. This is true even if short-term rates were to fall twice as much as 30-year bond yields. Many investors don’t understand this and want only to buy a longer-maturity bond if its yield is higher.</span></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: 16px;"><span style="font-family: times new roman,times,serif;">Others only buy fixed-income securities that mature when they need the money back. Or they'll buy a ladder of bonds that mature in a series of future dates. This strikes us as odd, especially for Treasurys that trade hundreds of billions of dollars’ worth each day and can be easily bought and sold without disturbing the market price. Of course, when you need the cash, interest rates may have risen and you’ll sell at a loss, whereas if you hold a bond until it matures, you’ll get the full par value unless it defaults in the meanwhile. But what about stocks? They have no maturity so you’re never sure you’ll get back what you pay for them.</span></span></p>
<h3><span style="font-size: 16px;"><span style="font-family: times new roman,times,serif;">Three Sterling Qualities</span></span></h3>
<p><span style="font-size: 16px;"><span style="font-family: times new roman,times,serif;">We’ve also always liked Treasury coupon and zero-coupon bonds because of their three sterling qualities. First, they have gigantic liquidity with hundreds of billions of dollars’ worth trading each day, as noted earlier. So all but the few largest investors can buy or sell without disturbing the market.</span></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: 16px;"><span style="font-family: times new roman,times,serif;">Second, in most cases, they can’t be called before maturity. This is an annoying feature of corporate and municipal bonds. When interest rates are declining and you’d like longer maturities to get more appreciation per given fall in yields, issuers can call the bonds at fixed prices, limiting your appreciation. Even if they aren’t called, callable bonds don’t often rise over the call price because of that threat. But when rates rise and you prefer shorter maturities, you’re stuck with the bonds until maturity because issuers have no interest in calling them. It’s a game of heads the issuer wins, tails the investor loses.</span></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: 16px;"><span style="font-family: times new roman,times,serif;">Third, Treasurys are generally considered the best-quality issues in the world. This was clear in 2008 when 30-year Treasurys returned 42%, but global corporate bonds fell 8%, emerging market bonds lost 10%, junk bonds dropped 27%, and even investment-grade municipal bonds fell 4% in price.</span></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: 16px;"><span style="font-family: times new roman,times,serif;">Slowing global economic growth and the growing prospects of deflation are favorable for lower Treasury yields. So is the likelihood of further ease by central banks, including even a rate cut by the Fed, as noted earlier. </span></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: 16px;"><span style="font-family: times new roman,times,serif;">Along with the dollar (<em>Chart 7</em>), Treasurys are at the top of the list of investment safe havens as domestic and foreign investors, who own about half of outstanding Treasurys, clamor for them.</span></span></p>
<p align="center"><img alt="" style="width: 550px; height: 358px;" src="http://ggc-mauldin-images.s3.amazonaws.com/uploads/newsletters/Image_7_20160810_OTB.jpg"></p>
<h3><span style="font-size: 16px;"><span style="font-family: times new roman,times,serif;">Sovereign Shortages</span></span></h3>
<p><span style="font-family: times new roman,times,serif;">Furthermore, the recent drop in the federal deficit has reduced government funding needs so the Treasury has reduced the issuance of bonds in recent years. In addition, tighter regulators force U.S. financial institutions to hold more Treasurys. </span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: times new roman,times,serif;">Also, central bank QE has vacuumed up highly-rated sovereigns, creating shortages among private institutional and individual buyers. The Fed stopped buying securities in late 2014, but the European Central Bank and the Bank of Japan, which already owns 34% of outstanding Japanese government securities, are plunging ahead. The resulting shortages of sovereigns abroad and the declining interest rates drive foreign investors to U.S. Treasurys.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: times new roman,times,serif;">Also, as we’ve pointed out repeatedly over the past two years, low as Treasury yields are, they’re higher than almost all other developed country sovereigns, some of which are negative (<em>Chart 8</em>). So an overseas investor can get a better return in Treasurys than his own sovereigns. And if the dollar continues to rise against his home country currency, he gets a currency translation gain to boot.</span></p>
<p align="center"><img alt="" style="width: 550px; height: 358px;" src="http://ggc-mauldin-images.s3.amazonaws.com/uploads/newsletters/Image_8_20160810_OTB.jpg"></p>
<h3><span style="font-size: 16px;"><span style="font-family: times new roman,times,serif;">"The Bond Rally of a Lifetime"</span></span></h3>
<p><span style="font-size: 16px;"><span style="font-family: times new roman,times,serif;">We believe, then, that what we dubbed “the bond rally of a lifetime” 35 years ago in 1981 when 30-year Treasurys yielded 15.2% is still intact. This rally has been tremendous, as shown in <em>Chart 9</em>, and we happily participated in it as forecasters, money managers and personal investors.</span></span></p>
<p align="center"><img alt="" style="width: 550px; height: 360px;" src="http://ggc-mauldin-images.s3.amazonaws.com/uploads/newsletters/Image_9_20160810_OTB.jpg"></p>
<p><span style="font-size: 16px;"><span style="font-family: times new roman,times,serif;">Chart 9 uses 25-year zero-coupon bonds because of data availability but the returns on 30-year zeros were even greater. Even still, $100 invested in that 25-year zero-coupon Treasury in October 1981 at the height in yield and low in price and rolled over each year maintains its maturity or duration to avoid the declining interest rate sensitivity of a bond as its maturity shortens with the passing years. It was worth $31,688 in June of this year, for an 18.1% annual gain. In contrast, $100 invested in the S&P 500 index at its low in July 1982 is now worth $4,620 with reinvested dividends. So the Treasurys have outperformed stocks by 7.0 <em>times</em> since the early 1980s.</span></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: 16px;"><span style="font-family: times new roman,times,serif;">So far this year, 30-year zero-coupon Treasurys have returned 26% compared to 3.8% for the S&P 500. And we believe there’s more to go. Over a year ago, we forecast a 2.0% yield for the 30-year bond and 1.0% for the 10-year note. If yields fall to those levels by the end of the year from the current 2.21% and 1.5%, respectively, the total return on the 30-year coupon bond will be 5.7% and 5.6% on the 10-year note. The returns on zero-coupon Treasurys with the same rate declines will be 6.4% and 5.1% (<em>Chart 10</em>).</span></span></p>
<p align="center"><img alt="" style="width: 400px; height: 307px;" src="http://ggc-mauldin-images.s3.amazonaws.com/uploads/newsletters/Image_10_20160810_OTB.jpg"></p>
<p><span style="font-size: 16px;"><span style="font-family: times new roman,times,serif;">Besides Treasurys, sovereign bonds of other major countries have been rallying this year as yields fell (<em>Chart 11</em>) and investors have stampeded into safe corrals after Brexit.</span></span></p>
<p align="center"><img alt="" style="width: 550px; height: 360px;" src="http://ggc-mauldin-images.s3.amazonaws.com/uploads/newsletters/Image_11_20160810_OTB.jpg"></p>
<h3><span style="font-size: 16px;"><span style="font-family: times new roman,times,serif;">Finally Facing Reality</span></span></h3>
<p><span style="font-size: 16px;"><span style="font-family: times new roman,times,serif;">Interestingly, some in the media are finally facing the reality of this superior performance of Treasury bonds and backpedaling on their 35-year assertions that it can’t last. The July 12 <em>Wall Street Journal</em> stated: “Bonds are churning out returns many equity investors would envy. Remarkably, more than 80% of returns on U.S., German, Japanese and U.K. bonds are attributable to gains in price, Barclays index data show. Bondholders are no longer patient coupon-clippers accruing steady income.”</span></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: 16px;"><span style="font-family: times new roman,times,serif;">The July 14 <em>Journal</em> said, “Ultra low interest rates are here to stay,” and credited not only central bank buying of sovereigns but also slow global growth. Another <em>Journal</em> article from that same day noted that central banks can make interest rates even more negative and, if so, “even bonds bought at today’s low rates could go up in price.” And in the July 16 <em>Journal</em>, columnist Jason Zweig wrote, “The generation-long bull market in bonds is probably drawing to a close. But high quality bonds are still the safest way to counteract the risk of holding stocks, as this year’s returns for both assets has shown. Even at today’s emaciated yields, bonds still are worth owning.” What a diametric change from earlier pessimism on bonds!</span></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: 16px;"><span style="font-family: times new roman,times,serif;">The July 11 <em>Journal</em> said, “Recently, the extra yield investors demand to hold the 10-year relative to the two-year Treasury note hit its lowest level since November 2007 (<em>Chart 12</em>). In the past, investors have taken this narrowing spread as a warning sign that growth momentum may soon slow because the Fed is about to raise interest rates—a move that would cause shorter-dated bond yields to rise faster than longer-dated ones. Now, like much else, it is largely being blamed on investors’ quest for yield.” Note (Chart 12) that when the spread went negative, with 2-year yields exceeding those on 10-year Treasury notes, a recession always followed. But that was because the Fed's attempts to cool off what it saw as an overheating economy with higher rates was overdone, precipitating a business downturn. That's not li kely in today's continuing weak global economy.</span></span></p>
<p align="center"><img alt="" style="width: 550px; height: 360px;" src="http://ggc-mauldin-images.s3.amazonaws.com/uploads/newsletters/Image_12_20160810_OTB.jpg"></p>
<h3><span style="font-size: 16px;"><span style="font-family: times new roman,times,serif;">Persistent Stock Bulls</span></span></h3>
<p><span style="font-size: 16px;"><span style="font-family: times new roman,times,serif;">Nevertheless, many stock bulls haven’t given up their persistent love of equities compared to Treasurys. Their new argument is that Treasury bonds may be providing superior appreciation, but stocks should be owned for dividend yield. </span></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: 16px;"><span style="font-family: times new roman,times,serif;">That, of course, is the exact opposite of the historical view, but in line with recent results. The 2.1% dividend yield on the S&P 500 exceeds the 1.50% yield on the 10-year Treasury note and is close to the 2.21% yield on the 30-year bond. Recently, the stocks that have performed the best have included those with above average dividend yields such as telecom, utilities and consumer staples (<em>Chart 13</em>).</span></span></p>
<p align="center"><img alt="" style="width: 550px; height: 358px;" src="http://ggc-mauldin-images.s3.amazonaws.com/uploads/newsletters/Image_13_20160810_OTB.jpg"></p>
<p><span style="font-size: 16px;"><span style="font-family: times new roman,times,serif;">Then there is the contention by stock bulls that low interest rates make stocks cheap even through the S&P 500 price-to-earnings ratio, averaged over the last 10 years to iron out cyclical fluctuations, now is 26 compared to the long-term average of 16.7(<em>Chart 14</em>). This makes stocks 36% overvalued, assuming that the long run P/E average is still valid. And note that since the P/E has run above the long-term average for over a decade, it will fall below it for a number of future years—if the statistical mean is still relevant.</span></span></p>
<p align="center"><img alt="" style="width: 550px; height: 362px;" src="http://ggc-mauldin-images.s3.amazonaws.com/uploads/newsletters/Image_14_20160810_OTB.jpg"></p>
<p><span style="font-size: 16px;"><span style="font-family: times new roman,times,serif;">Instead, stock bulls points to the high earnings yield, the inverse of the P/E, in relation to the 10-year Treasury note yield. They believe that low interest rates make stocks cheap. Maybe so, and we’re not at all sure what low and negative nominal interest rates are telling us.</span></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: 16px;"><span style="font-family: times new roman,times,serif;">We’ll know for sure in a year or two. It may turn out to be the result of aggressive central banks and investors hungry for yield with few alternatives. Or low rates may foretell global economic weakness, chronic deflation and even more aggressive central bank largess in response. We’re guessing the latter is the more likely explanation.</span></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: 16px;"><span style="font-family: times new roman,times,serif;">Courtesy of <a href="http://www.agaryshilling.com/insight/" target="_blank">A.GaryShilllingsInsight</a></span></span></p></div>Where Money's Been Flowinghttp://stockbuz.ning.com/articles/where-moneys-been-flowing2016-01-18T22:33:10.000Z2016-01-18T22:33:10.000ZStockBuzhttp://stockbuz.ning.com/members/1t2xbcvddkrir<div><p>When first-generation ETFs launched in the 1990s—such as the SPDR S&P 500 Trust (SPY) and the PowerShares QQQ Trust Series 1 (QQQ)—lead this year's outflows, that is a sign that institutional investors are scared. These first-to-market ETFs have the ample liquidity that big institutions tend to love, with many trading more than $500 million in volume a day. While newer ETFs that may do the same thing or more for cheaper have been launched in the intervening years, early ETFs still tend to curry favor with large investors that value liquidity. These investors tend to be more tactical, and thus outflows from these ETF stalwarts are a bearish sign. </p>
<p></p>
<div class="inline-media__unlinked-image"><img style="max-width: 558px;" data-attachment-key="249214948" src="http://assets.bwbx.io/images/iflGxKX2fXJ0/v1/488x-1.jpg" /></div>
<div class="inline-media__credit">Photographer: Balchunas, Eric</div>
<p></p>
<h2><strong>U.S. Treasuries of all maturities are raking in cash</strong></h2>
<p>According to <a href="http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-01-15/there-are-bearish-signs-in-the-billions-of-dollars-flowing-in-and-out-of-etfs" target="_blank">Bloomberg</a>, when U.S. Treasury ETFs are the brightest bright spot, that's not good. They have taken in more than $3 billion in net new cash (while junk bond ETFs have seen $2 billion in outflows). What is especially bearish is that the inflows into Treasury ETFs are spread across all maturities. This signals a flight to quality as opposed to positioning around a Fed move. The table below shows the variety of Treasury ETFs taking in cash to start year.</p>
<p></p>
<div class="inline-media__unlinked-image"><img style="max-width: 557px;" data-attachment-key="249217062" src="http://assets.bwbx.io/images/iF9.gDQKl6G0/v1/488x-1.jpg" /></div>
<div class="inline-media__credit">Photographer: Balchunas, Eric</div>
<p></p>
</div>Asia Reduced Holdings Of US Treasuries. Unclear What They Holdhttp://stockbuz.ning.com/articles/asia-reduced-holdings-of-us-treasuries-unclear-what-they-hold2014-08-16T18:06:37.000Z2014-08-16T18:06:37.000ZStockBuzhttp://stockbuz.ning.com/members/1t2xbcvddkrir<div><p><a target="_blank" href="http://si.wsj.net/public/resources/images/BN-ED261_ChinaT_G_20140815170356.jpg"><img class="align-left" src="http://si.wsj.net/public/resources/images/BN-ED261_ChinaT_G_20140815170356.jpg?width=276" width="276"></a>The U.S. posted a record cross-border investment outflow in June as China and Japan reduced their holdings of Treasuries and private investors abroad sold bonds and notes.</p>
<p>The total net outflow of long-term U.S. securities and short-term funds such as bank transfers was <span style="color: #ff9900;">$153.5 billion</span>, after an inflow of $33.1 billion the previous month, the Treasury Department said in a report today. The June figure, and $40.8 billion in net selling of Treasury bonds and notes by private investors in June, were the largest on record, the Treasury said.</p>
<p>“Right at the beginning of June, you had a very strong sell-off of Treasuries and that’s what frightened a lot of private investors,” Gennadiy Goldberg, U.S. strategist at TD Securities USA LLC in New York, said by phone. “As yields stayed lower in subsequent months, some of the investors probably resumed their buying.”</p>
<p>China’s holdings of U.S. Treasuries declined by $2.5 billion to $1.27 trillion, while Japanese holdings dropped $600 million to $1.22 trillion, according to a Treasury report today.</p>
<p><a target="_self" href="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/1290812?profile=original"><img class="align-right" src="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/1290812?profile=RESIZE_320x320" width="318"></a>China and Japan’s combined share of total foreign holdings of Treasuries has declined since 2004. It dropped to 41.4 percent in June from 50.9 percent in August 2004, according to data compiled by Bloomberg.</p>
<p>What could also be concerning is at this point is the <a href="http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2014/08/15/us-treasury-unsure-exactly-how-much-us-debt-china-holds/" target="_blank">U.S. Treasury</a> isn't exactly certain just how much U.S. China actually holds. Part of the problem is that some of the data is based on transactions, but doesn’t take into account trades that some institutions do on behalf of other countries. The Major Foreign Holders table is supposed to take into account such proxy trades, reassigning transactions to the appropriate nations.</p>
<p>But not everybody’s abides by Treasury’s requests.</p>
<p>The lack of clarity is one of the reasons U.S. Treasury Secretary <a data-ls-seen="1" href="http://topics.wsj.com/person/L/jacob,-lew/6182">Jacob Lew</a> <a data-ls-seen="1" href="http://www.treasury.gov/press-center/press-releases/Pages/jl2560.aspx">counted a promise</a> by Beijing to be more transparent about its foreign-exchange operations a small triumph at the high-level U.S.-China talks last month.</p>
<p>Beijng left itself a loophole, however. <a data-ls-seen="1" href="http://online.wsj.com/articles/u-s-treasury-secretary-jacob-lew-says-china-to-boost-foreign-exchange-transparency-1404988591">It didn’t offer</a> a timeline.</p>
<p><br> <span class="font-size-4"><strong>Belgian Holdings</strong></span></p>
<p><a target="_blank" href="http://si.wsj.net/public/resources/images/BN-ED170_Belgiu_G_20140815131115.jpg"><img class="align-right" src="http://si.wsj.net/public/resources/images/BN-ED170_Belgiu_G_20140815131115.jpg?width=276" width="276"></a>Meanwhile, holdings in Belgium climbed $1.7 billion last month to $364.1 billion, the report showed. As home to Euroclear Bank SA, a provider of securities settlements for foreign lenders, Belgium probably serves as a custodial holder for many countries, including China, said Jeffrey Young, an interest-rate strategist at Nomura Holdings Inc. in New York.</p>
<p>Private investors and government holders combined were net sellers of $20.8 billion in Treasury notes and bonds in June, the biggest monthly net sales in a year, according to the report.</p>
<p>Treasuries declined in June amid improving economic data, and as reports released that month, from unit labor costs to consumer prices, indicated inflation pressures beginning to build within the economy. Labor Department data released June 17 showed the consumer price index for May unexpectedly rose to 2.1 percent, the highest since October 2012.</p>
<p>Treasuries were bolstered and yields began to decline after Federal Reserve Chair Janet Yellen described the inflation data as “noisy” and stressed the economy’s need for continued accommodation at her June 18 press conference. That followed a meeting at which policy makers held the benchmark interest rate near zero, as they have since December 2008.</p>
<p>Coincidentally, Belgium’s ballooning purchases roughly match the period when the U.S. Treasury <a data-ls-seen="1" href="http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/international/exchange-rate-policies/Documents/2014-4-15_FX%20REPORT%20FINAL.pdf">says Beijing was buying</a> major volumes of foreign exchange, including U.S. debt, to keep a lid on the value of its own currency and ensure its exports remained competitive in the global market.</p>
<p>With the Fed's plan to begin raising rates in 2015, big money flows will certainly be interesting to monitor in the months ahead......and see if more volatility lies ahead in equities as a result.</p>
<p>Courtesy of <a href="http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-08-15/u-s-investment-outflow-reaches-record-as-china-sells-treasuries.html" target="_blank">Bloomberg</a> and <a href="http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2014/08/15/us-treasury-unsure-exactly-how-much-us-debt-china-holds/" target="_blank">WSJ</a></p></div>Which Is Wrong? Bonds Or Stocks?http://stockbuz.ning.com/articles/which-is-wrong-bonds-or-stocks2014-08-04T19:15:48.000Z2014-08-04T19:15:48.000ZStockBuzhttp://stockbuz.ning.com/members/1t2xbcvddkrir<div><p><a target="_self" href="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/1290848?profile=original"><img class="align-right" src="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/1290848?profile=RESIZE_1024x1024" height="259" width="750"></a>With so much money flowing into bonds and treasuries (TLT shown) in 2014 while the stock market rose, one must wonder..........which one is going to give? (click chart to enlarge)</p>
<p>Certainly it would seem not everyone believes the economy is strong enough to support future earnings and rising profits.</p>
<p>Is the five-year bull run finally running out of steam?</p></div>TGIF Readshttp://stockbuz.ning.com/articles/tgif-reads-12014-05-02T17:33:38.000Z2014-05-02T17:33:38.000ZStockBuzhttp://stockbuz.ning.com/members/1t2xbcvddkrir<div><ul>
<li>
<p><b>This day in 1896</b>: The Dow Jones Industrial Average is first published. Its 12 initial members are the great industrial giants of the time: American Cotton Oil, American Sugar, American Tobacco, Chicago Gas, Distilling & Cattle Feeding, General Electric, Laclede Gas, National Lead, North American, Tennessee Coal & Iron, U.S. Leather, and U.S. Rubber. The index’s value that day: 40.94.  <i><span class="footer">Source: Phyllis S. Pierce, ed., The Dow Jones Averages 1885-1980 (DowJones Irwin, Homewood, IL, 1982), introduction, not paginated; <a href="http://averages.dowjones.com">http://averages.dowjones.com</a></span></i> <i><span class="footer">and</span></i> <span class="footer"><a href="http://jasonzweig.com" target="_blank">JasonZweig</a></span></p>
</li>
<li><span class="footer"><span class="footer">Very odd the move in treasury yields today on the better than expected NFP number.  Maybe "smart money" is telling us the economy is not as strong as believed?  Extremely interesting to watch.  T</span></span>he Treasury market's reaction hasn't been more negative.  <b>The 10-yr note, which was down 18 ticks shortly after the release, is now down just two ticks and yielding 2.62%</b> (down roughly 40 bps since the end of 2013).  We still recommend caution here.  Let the market show you it's hand (direction) before jumping.  The area to watch most closely, though, is the Treasury market.  A continued recovery trade there could trip up the stock market further, because strength at the back end of the curve doesn't mesh with the economic acceleration argument.</li>
<li><span class="footer">Notes from <a href="http://www.spreecast.com/events/hilsenrath-and-reddy-on-april-jobs-data" target="_blank">Spreecast</a></span> <span class="footer">discussion this morning with Fed whisperer Jon Hilsenrath</span></li>
<li>
<blockquote>
<ul>
<li><em><span class="footer">Better payroll #s = taper to continue</span></em></li>
<li>Continued better than expected #s = Fed may accelerate taper and finish sooner</li>
<li>The closer we get to October and the stronger the #s are, the more intense the debate comes on whether rates will rise sooner rather than later in 2015</li>
<li>The Fed has said bond buying will not stop until 4Q and rate hikes in 2015.  He thinks the market is comfortable of rates not moving until welll into 2015 (but not sooner)</li>
<li>If we continue to see strong job creation and the unemployment rate dropping faster, then we could see rates increase sooner but it's a big *IF*</li>
<li><em><span class="footer">When questioned on why gold/silver are popping on NFP, he smiles, does a tap dance and says the Fed has stressed we have no inflation</span></em></li>
<li>Re:  minimum wage and if a raise could help, he says the Fed economists have studied the effects of a raise in the minimum wage and the Fed's view is fairly conventional.  You get decreased incentive for employers to hire but they're bringing home and spending more in the Fed's view.  It has not risen to the level of debate with them.</li>
<li><span class="footer">He thinks the more interesting action is on the local front where cities/states ARE making the move.  He doesn't see much being done ahead of national front in Congress with mid term elections coming up.</span></li>
</ul>
</blockquote>
</li>
</ul>
</div>