Negative Yields are Not Crazy

How much would you pay to lend money to the government? Most of us have this arrogant idea that the government should pay us to borrow our money. And yet, last week a Treasury auction of $10 billion in 5-year bonds resulted in a price that will yield negative 0.55% to their new owners.1977 Treasury Bond

It is not quite as crazy as it sounds. These are Treasury Inflation Protected Securities (or TIPS) that will yield inflation plus some stated interest rate. So these bonds are set to return to their owners inflation minus 0.55% over five years. Given that normal unprotected five year bonds are currently paying only 1.18%, this implies a five year average inflation rate of 1.73%.

Annual inflation over the past five years has averaged 1.83% and over the past twenty five it has been 2.82%. If you think inflation over the next five years will be higher than 1.73%, then the TIPS, negative interest and all, are a better bet than the regular Treasurys.

So it is not crazy after all.

Or is it? Locking in the rate of inflation as an investment return ought not to be much of a challenge. All you need to do is create a portfolio of real stuff, that is, things that are neither dollars nor denominated in dollars. Commodities, real estate, foreign currencies and/or bonds, collectibles, and even equities count. The things you buy do not even need to produce any return, i.e. make any income. All you ask is that they retain real value.

At the risk of giving away a brilliant idea, I am wondering why there isn’t an inflation ETF available. (You can get pretty close with a few of them, though.) If a person can get inflation as a return, why would anybody settle for inflation minus 0.55%? Indeed, owning actual things for five years has considerable tax advantages over getting bond income.

There turns out to be a good answer to that question, but before I unveil it permit me to digress a little to point out how unhelpful the business media was when reporting and discussing the negative yield auction result. Useless financial commentary is the main topic of this blog, after all.

Many outlets reported the negative yields as, of all things, a vote of confidence in the Fed. Bloomberg told us that it was a “bet the Federal Reserve will be successful in sparking inflation.” The Washington Post echoed that with only a hint of uncertainty, sneaking a question mark into their headline Sign of faith in Fed? Yield on inflation-protected Treasurys dips below zero. The Wall Street Journal was more obviously ambivalent, subheading its story “Big Demand for Bonds Suggests Fed Is Winning Deflation Battle” but then in the first sentence citing “growing fears of rising prices.”

For those of us who have been conditioned over many decades to think of the Fed as an institution that exists primarily to fight inflation, the idea that they are now purposefully trying to cause it, and indeed might not succeed, takes some getting used to. It is like reading that observers are now confident that the fire department will be able to burn down a few houses after all.

Then there was the passel of reports and blog posts seeking to calm those unnerved by this development, as if it were a headline grabbing disaster. Larry Swedroe gave us Why the Concern over Negative TIPS Yields Is Overblown, which seemed to imply more anxiety than was immediately visible.

Swedroe makes the not unreasonable point that unless you expect particularly low inflation in the coming years, the real rate on Treasurys has been pretty obviously negative for a while now. He even argues that, everything else equal, TIPS are probably a better bet than regular Treasurys because he expects inflation to be higher than the implied 1.73% prediction.

Okay, but he ignores what I consider to be a relatively obvious objection to locking in inflation minus 0.55% as a return, that you can relatively easily lock in inflation minus nothing instead.

An article in the Wall Street Journal a few days after the auction almost, but not quite, raised this objection. Mostly, it demonstrated how mysterious TIPS are to WSJ reporters.

Investors might want to consider other options for inflation protection.

That is because Treasury Inflation-Protected Securities, or TIPS, tend to have a low "correlation" to the consumer-price index, the main inflation gauge. The correlation between the two from 2002 to 2009, for example, was just 0.21%. A correlation of 1 means two assets move in perfect lockstep, a correlation of -1 means they move in opposite directions, and a figure of zero means they are uncorrelated.

Why the quotes around correlation? Is it meant ironically? Without running the numbers myself, I am guessing that the correlation between the CPI and the secondary market prices for TIPS is 0.21. (Not 0.21%.) And that should not be surprising or worrisome. Although the face value of TIPS goes up with inflation, the market price of the bond, like any bond, goes up and down with changing interest rates. Further, TIPS will go up and down as inflation/deflation expectations for the future wax and wane.

More to the point, if you buy a TIPS for the $1000 face value when issued and hold it to maturity, and if the CPI has been up 10% in the meantime, you will get $1100. Guaranteed.

Even better, TIPS have an odd feature that is often overlooked. No matter what happens to the CPI, the face value of the bond, what the government will pay to redeem it when it matures, will never be less than the $1000 issue price. So if the CPI goes up 10%, you get $1100, but if it goes down 10%, you still get your $1000 back, not $900. Thus, the inflation protection in TIPS is of the form of a call option on the CPI. You get paid if prices go up, but do not suffer if they go down.

And this is why TIPS are, arguably, much better than owning a portfolio of real things whose value tracks the CPI. Should you be wrong in your prediction of inflation, and deflation rears its ugly head, the real things will decline in price. Not so with the TIPS. Indeed, the $1000 the government will return to you will be more valuable than the $1000 you gave it years before.

Does this mean that TIPS with a yield of –0.55% are a good deal? Is 55bps a good price to pay for this one-sided inflation protection?

Probably not. Personally, I think the likelihood of deflation over a five year period is close to nil. 1970s style inflation is also unlikely to materialize, but deflation is, for all the buzz, a rare beast on these shores. The last time the CPI was down for a single calendar year was 1954. (2008 was +0.1%.) The CPI has not been down on a five year basis since we abandoned the gold standard.

Fundamentally, what is weird here is the elephant in the room this discussion ignores. Interest rates are implausibly low. The negative TIPS yield is just the natural result of reasonable inflation expectations, algebra, and Treasury yields that just a few years ago would have been assumed to be a typo. If you are looking for crazy, look there.

No Comments

  • By Craig, November 1, 2010 @ 1:36 pm

    “Locking in the rate of inflation as an investment return ought not to be much of a challenge. All you need to do is create a portfolio of real stuff…”

    Well, yuck. Gold, for instance, tracks inflation seemingly very well over the last few centuries, but there’s no telling what it’s going to do in any particular decade. Real estate, too, runs hot or cold for twenty or thirty years at a go. So the attraction of TIPS is not hard to see looking through that kind of lens–what is going to protect you from inflation in _this_ decade?

    I don’t have much money in TIPS, and I might have even less next year. Honestly, I wish we were seeing some more inflation–underwater mortgages are killing us. The story of America was supposed to be that everyone can move from Michigan to Texas when the economy takes a hit. Not so today.

  • By Neil, November 1, 2010 @ 3:26 pm

    @Craig – Gold isn’t “real stuff.” It’s a form of currency – its value exists only in its ability to function as a medium of exchange…there’s precious little you can actually use gold for. So while it behaves quite differently from government-backed currencies for a variety of reason, when someone recommends building a portfolio of “real stuff” ignore anything with the word “precious” associated to it. They are simply stand-ins for money.

    Real stuff might include oil, copper, razor blades. Any one of these items will have its own supply/demand dynamic that changes the real price, but a diversified basket should provide inflation protection, but not the downside protection offered by TIPS.

  • By Craig, November 1, 2010 @ 4:47 pm

    Gold isn’t even a currency; you say it’s value is “its ability to function as a medium of exchange,” but this ability, if it exists in this modern world, is only a potential one–I do not think there is any place on Earth that gold actually functions as a common medium of exchange for people trying to buy socks or potatoes or yard work. You may be able to barter for goods and services with gold coins, but you can barter with chickens and crude oil, too.

    But of course it’s “real stuff,” isn’t it? I mean–look! There it is! It’s not a productive asset, except considered as an input to the jeweler’s trade and a bit for electronics, but it’s entirely a real asset. And we can say humans are lunatics, but gold has been a store of value for thousands of years. Unless you’re a fisherman, why would having a house on the beach be worth a higher price? Human beings like what they like.

    Do I own gold? No more than is in my wedding band. At today’s prices, I think it’s crazy. But taking the large picture, gold and real estate are the first asset classes I think of when you say the words “inflation hedge.”

  • By Chris, November 1, 2010 @ 5:29 pm

    These “negative return” TIPS are just more evidence of a completely crazy bond bubble. I’ll be waiting patiently for it to implode….

  • By Stagflationary Mark, November 1, 2010 @ 6:17 pm

    For those interested in 5-Year TIPS, there is a better solution.

    I-Bonds currently pay 0.0% over inflation which is a better rate.

    They also offer other advantages.

    1. They are tax deferred up to 30 years. You choose how long you wish to hold them.
    2. They can be cashed out without penalty after just 5 years and with a modest 3 month interest penalty after just one year.
    3. They can never deflate (even month to month). If deflation strikes they are every bit as good as cash. Any inflationary gains that have accumulated are permanently locked in.
    4. If interest rates rise dramatically at some point, you will not take a loss. You can simply cash them out. They therefore do not require a “greater fool” to sell them to.

    They were a better deal last week though. They paid 0.2% over inflation and I was offering a “last chance” warning on my blog.

    http://illusionofprosperity.blogspot.com/2010/10/i-bond-rate-prediction-for-november-1st.html

  • By Dink Singer, November 1, 2010 @ 7:13 pm

    It is not true that “if the CPI goes up 10%, you get $1100, but if it goes down 10%, you still get your $1000 back, not $900. Thus, the inflation protection in TIPS is of the form of a call option on the CPI. You get paid if prices go up, but do not suffer if they go down.”

    According to TreasuryDirect.gov, the website where TIPS are auctioned directly to the public:

    “The principal of a TIPS increases with inflation and decreases with deflation, as measured by the Consumer Price Index.”

    In addition, the interest on TIPS is calculated on the CPI-U adjusted principle so interest payments rise with inflation and fall with deflation.

    One other correction, the TIPS issued on October 29 have a 4 year, 6 month term, not 5 years.

  • By Stagflationary Mark, November 1, 2010 @ 7:28 pm

    Dink Singer,

    You are mistaken about TIPS not having deflation protection.

    http://www.treasurydirect.gov/indiv/research/indepth/tips/res_tips_faq.htm

    “What happens to TIPS if deflation occurs?

    The principal is adjusted downward, and your interest payments are less than they would be if inflation occurred or if the Consumer Price Index remained the same. You have this safeguard: at maturity, if the adjusted principal is less than the security’s original principal, you are paid the original principal.”

    You missed the safeguard part.

    As long as you buy TIPS directly from the government in an initial auction, then you will get the original principal back at maturity.

    This auction was not an initial auction but was merely a reopening. However, since there has been very little inflation over the last 6 months they still offer relatively good deflation protection.

    As a side note, I bought these 5 year TIPS back in April. I had to hold my nose when I did it. In hindsight, it was a good idea though.

    The larger 30 year TIPS purchase I made back in February was definitely a good idea so far though. Wow. That thing is on fire.

  • By mc, November 1, 2010 @ 10:53 pm

    In the middle of the column you briefly mention an “inflation ETF” presumably representing a diverse set of commodities and types of property.
    I think an inflation ETF is a great idea and could easily metamorphose into an inflation-proof, non-government-issued medium of exchange.
    Much better than gold bars, which are just one of many commodities, and a rather unimportant and atypical one at that.

  • By Andrew Stevens, November 2, 2010 @ 12:24 pm

    Craig and Neil: Gold actually has a whole bunch of uses. It conducts electricity, it doesn’t tarnish, and is the most malleable and ductile metal. It’s not used for many things where it would be the vastly superior choice to other metals only because it’s so expensive. Gold is far more useful than copper, but it’s not actually used nearly as much because gold is so much rarer than copper. Gold is a precious metal for many, many reasons and its utility is one of them. Having said all that, I don’t think much of investing in gold, but it’s a serious error to think that its intrinsic value is less than copper. Gold is far more valuable than copper.

  • By Rob Bennett, November 2, 2010 @ 2:59 pm

    Considered in isolation, I’d say that a negative rate is irrational. But I don’t believe that investment returns are determined independently. Relative to the return that we will likely see from stocks, that small negative return looks pretty darn tasty.

    The real irrationality was the bull market of the late 1990s. We incurred a $12 trillion debt in those years. While that debt is being paid, an asset class providing a small negative return will remain more attractive than one likely to provide a big negative return.

    This too shall pass. I intend no personal offense to Buy-and-Holders.

    Rob

  • By the mall of america, June 28, 2013 @ 6:52 am

    Good day! I know this is kinda off topic but I was wondering which blog platform are you using for this site?

    I’m getting fed up of WordPress because I’ve had issues with hackers and I’m looking at alternatives for another platform. I would be awesome if you could point me in the direction of a good platform.

  • By 正規取扱店店舗, September 9, 2013 @ 2:51 am

    prada シューズ

Other Links to this Post

  1. Weekend reading: House price boom is more a whimper in the long run — November 6, 2010 @ 10:34 am

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a comment

WordPress Themes