Yesterday, 3-month T-bills traded slightly negative, while 4-week bills traded at 0.0% interest. In other words, investors were willing to accept a small negative return rather than risk larger losses elsewhere. This is good news for the government's balance sheet, but what does it mean for investors? A few things:
1. Confidence is exceptionally low.
2. Investors alluvasudden have a negative time preference for money.
3. Expectations about future inflation indicate that investors expect a dollar to be worth more in the future than it is today. In other words, bond markets expect deflation.
1 is definitely true, 2 is definitely false. i've been harping on 3 recently but even if it is true, why not just hold cash? Anybody got a better explanation? Is this being driven by large investment institutions who have to balance budget sheets and cash (for some reason) won't suffice? I'm really at a loss.
IPE @ UNC
IPE@UNC is a group blog maintained by faculty and graduate students in the Department of Political Science at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. The opinions expressed on these pages are our own, and have nothing to do with UNC.
Bookshelf
Tags
Academia Adjustment Afghanistan Africa AIG America Argentina Austerity Bailout Banking Bargaining Basel Bernanke Bias Blogging Business cycle; recession; financial crisis Cap and Trade capital controls capital flows central banks; moral hazard Chavez China China Trade Climate Change Contentious Politics Cuba Currencies Currency Crises; financial crisis Current Account Data Debt Debt; China; United States; Decession Politics Decoupling Deflation democracy Democrats; Trade policy development Diplomacy Dollar; China; Currency Manipulation; Exchange Rates dollar; exchange rate policy ECB ECB; Fed; Monetary Policy Economic Growth Economics Egypt election EMU; monetary union Environment EU; Agriculture; Common Agricultural Policy Euro Europe; labor; immigration European Union Exchange Rates Farm Bill; Agriculture FDI Fed; Monetary Policy finance financial crisis financial crisis; subprime Fiscal Policy; monetary policy; elections Fiscal Stimulus Foreign Aid Foreign Policy France Free Trade Agreements G-20 G20 Summit Game Theory Germany global recession globalization Grand Theory Great Britain Greece health care reform Hegemony Human Rights Iceland imbalance IMF immigration Incentives income distribution income inequality; globalization India Inequality inflation institutions Interests international finance International Law International Monetary System International Relations Investment IPE Iran Iraq Ireland ISA Italy Japan labor markets Latin America Libya Macroeconomics Marxism Mexico Microfinance Miscellany monetary policy Monetary policy; Federal Reserve moral hazard Narcissism Networks Nobelist Smackdown North Korea Obama Oil PIGS Pirates Political Economy Political Methodology Political Science Political Survival Political Theory Power Protectionism Protests Public Choice Public opinion Rational Choice regulation Research Review Russia Sanctions Security Dilemma security threats Soccer Social Science Sovereign Debt Spain Sports Statistics stock markets Systems Tariffs TARP Taxes TBTF Technocracy technology terrorism Trade trade policy UNC Unemployment United States US-South Korea Venezuela WTO WTO; Doha
Blog Archive
-
▼
2008
(134)
-
▼
December
(30)
- All Is Full of Growth Potential
- ... And Out Come the Wolves
- How Has India Avoided the Financial Crisis?
- The End of the United States of America
- Mexican Beauty Drug Trafficker?!
- That's Great, It Starts With an Earthquake
- R.I.P. Samuel P. Huntington
- Round-Up
- The Break-Up of Chimerica
- Detroit Gets Their Bailout (kind of)
- The Great Adjustment, or The Way Things Oughtta Be
- Remember When Europe Was Going to Lead the Way?
- Isn't It Ironic?
- Who Says IPE Is Boring?
- An Easily-Answered Question
- Italy is so Cheesy!
- Not looking pretty for tomorrow...
- It's Not All Work here on the Hill
- The Great Adjustment (a continuing series)
- World Bank Report
- Treasuries Go Negative
- Who Adjusts, II
- Revisiting Microfinance
- How Iceland Imploded
- Europe Coordinates
- Lagged Effects of the International Credit Crunch ...
- How Low Will It Go?!
- Who Adjusts?
- Happy Birthday!
- Fixing the Food Shortage in Malawi
-
▼
December
(30)
Tuesday, December 9, 2008
Treasuries Go Negative
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
I don't know Will, but here's a guess. Maybe a lack of confidence in banking sector? If you're coming out of the market, where are you going to park big chunks of cash (many times more than FDIC coverage)--in a commercial bank? Seems T-bills are the best bet for short term parking.
i thought of that, but the FDIC recently expanded their coverage limits, and also moved to guarantee money market accounts (IIRC).
my best guess right now is that this is driven by corporations who a.) have a bunch of extra cash around and are forced by law or charter to purchase extra-safe assets; or b.) by corporations who have end-of-the-year reviews coming up and want to show safe assets on the sheet next to counteract any trash that still there.
or, it could be SWFs who will take a small loss in dollars rather than risk greater losses in their local currencies.
just guessing.
It would be the sovereign wealth funds, the hedge funds, the mutual funds, the insurance companies, and some banks who would a) have a ton of cash and b) need to guarantee that it will not decrease in value. They are worried about continued fund redemptions and policy loans.
The FDIC has a limit of $100,000 per account (temporarily raised for about 12 months to $250,000), but the entities above will need to park millions of dollars, not a hundred thousand dollars.
A.D
Post a Comment