Author Topic: Bonds !!!  (Read 49507 times)

MustacheAndaHalf

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 6666
Re: Bonds !!!
« Reply #300 on: October 17, 2023, 06:50:21 PM »
2) Wars in Ukraine and Gaza could give China, Iran, or Serbia the opportunity to start new wars while the U.S. and NATO are distracted. Any such disaster would also be treasury-positive.

China has already been antagonistic and Serbia/Kosovo doesn't matter.   Iran is the issue. Israel leveling Gaza is a trap and will draw/force/excuse Iran involvement (eradicating Hamas is far different than leveling a whole city because they are there even if most are sympathizers of Hamas.) But when Iran gets fully engaged then it will become a problem with countries taking sides, NATO (US) will have to step in and yes treasuries will fall bc there will be fear of WW3 when combined with Ukraine and China tensions

Anyway, there is a fear bid at the moment but it won't be sustainable enough to offset the ridiculous supply (drunken sailor spending at ever higher rates) and lower demand (China and Japan less buying and the big dummy buyer of last resort (FED) is selling.....the math just doesn't add up for rates to go down for a year or two.  And really, the rate historically isn't that bad.   

China deciding that when the USA is already engaged in supporting two different countries in two different wars is a once in multiple decades opportunity to start a war and pick up Taiwan when the USA is much less likely to intervene is an awful lot worse than China just being antagonistic and feels worryingly plausible at the moment.
This year's U.S. aid to Ukraine adds up to about 1% of the 2023 U.S. defense budget.  Hamas & Hezbollah combined are outnumbered 5 to 1 by Israel's military, so Israel doesn't require U.S. help.  The U.S. sent 2 aircraft carrier groups nearby as a message to Iran & Lebanon, but has another 9 aircraft carrier groups available (China has 2).  I think you're overestimating the resources involved in each situation, and/or underestimating how much the U.S. has in reserve.

China and U.S. economies are joined at the hip.  China's consumers are buying less than expected while U.S. consumers are buying more than expected.  It helps mitigate China's slowdown, and mitigate U.S. goods inflation.  A big disruption would flip both situations in the opposite direction: U.S. goods inflation would soar, and demand for China's products would take a massive hit (right when demand is already low).

maizefolk

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7435
Re: Bonds !!!
« Reply #301 on: October 17, 2023, 08:11:01 PM »
China deciding that when the USA is already engaged in supporting two different countries in two different wars is a once in multiple decades opportunity to start a war and pick up Taiwan when the USA is much less likely to intervene is an awful lot worse than China just being antagonistic and feels worryingly plausible at the moment.
This year's U.S. aid to Ukraine adds up to about 1% of the 2023 U.S. defense budget.  Hamas & Hezbollah combined are outnumbered 5 to 1 by Israel's military, so Israel doesn't require U.S. help.  The U.S. sent 2 aircraft carrier groups nearby as a message to Iran & Lebanon, but has another 9 aircraft carrier groups available (China has 2).  I think you're overestimating the resources involved in each situation, and/or underestimating how much the U.S. has in reserve.

China and U.S. economies are joined at the hip.  China's consumers are buying less than expected while U.S. consumers are buying more than expected.  It helps mitigate China's slowdown, and mitigate U.S. goods inflation.  A big disruption would flip both situations in the opposite direction: U.S. goods inflation would soar, and demand for China's products would take a massive hit (right when demand is already low).

We have 11 aircraft carriers, but typically only about six of them are deployed or deployable on short notice (30 days). Half of our deployed carriers and (probably) 1/3 of our easily deployable carriers are currently focused on just trying to keep the situation in Israel from spiraling. Which has a lot less to do with what Hamas could do to Israel now that Israel's military is mobilized, and a lot more to do with Iran (a nation whose active duty military outnumbers that of Israel by a factor of 4:1 if we just want to count people. I'm not sure that's a great metric but whatever).

Since Russia invaded Ukraine 1.5 years ago, we've spent $113B on aid to Ukraine. Call it an average of $75B/year spent on aid to Ukraine or roughly 10% of our usual defense spending (although obviously not all of our spending on aid to Ukraine has been military spending). I'm sure you're reading the same stories I am about how much we're straining to increase production of shells and other ammunition and shift around planned weapon construction (including weapons originally promising to Taiwan) to backfill our allies who have been transferring their own arms to Ukraine.

However, put even that aside. I think the biggest question, from China's perspective, isn't about absolute military capacity of the USA, but simply whether the US government and public have the motivation to get involved in a third war on the far side the globe when our political system was showing so many signs of strain with the first war and we now seem to be well on our way to being involved in a second.

MustacheAndaHalf

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 6666
Re: Bonds !!!
« Reply #302 on: October 18, 2023, 02:45:15 AM »
China deciding that when the USA is already engaged in supporting two different countries in two different wars is a once in multiple decades opportunity to start a war and pick up Taiwan when the USA is much less likely to intervene is an awful lot worse than China just being antagonistic and feels worryingly plausible at the moment.
This year's U.S. aid to Ukraine adds up to about 1% of the 2023 U.S. defense budget.  Hamas & Hezbollah combined are outnumbered 5 to 1 by Israel's military, so Israel doesn't require U.S. help.  The U.S. sent 2 aircraft carrier groups nearby as a message to Iran & Lebanon, but has another 9 aircraft carrier groups available (China has 2).  I think you're overestimating the resources involved in each situation, and/or underestimating how much the U.S. has in reserve.

China and U.S. economies are joined at the hip.  China's consumers are buying less than expected while U.S. consumers are buying more than expected.  It helps mitigate China's slowdown, and mitigate U.S. goods inflation.  A big disruption would flip both situations in the opposite direction: U.S. goods inflation would soar, and demand for China's products would take a massive hit (right when demand is already low).
We have 11 aircraft carriers, but typically only about six of them are deployed or deployable on short notice (30 days). Half of our deployed carriers and (probably) 1/3 of our easily deployable carriers are currently focused on just trying to keep the situation in Israel from spiraling. Which has a lot less to do with what Hamas could do to Israel now that Israel's military is mobilized, and a lot more to do with Iran (a nation whose active duty military outnumbers that of Israel by a factor of 4:1 if we just want to count people. I'm not sure that's a great metric but whatever).
Not sure why you replied to my post by saying "has a lot less to do with what Hamas could to do Israel."  I stated the carriers were a message to Lebanon and Iran.

Since Russia invaded Ukraine 1.5 years ago, we've spent $113B on aid to Ukraine. Call it an average of $75B/year spent on aid to Ukraine or roughly 10% of our usual defense spending (although obviously not all of our spending on aid to Ukraine has been military spending). I'm sure you're reading the same stories I am about how much we're straining to increase production of shells and other ammunition and shift around planned weapon construction (including weapons originally promising to Taiwan) to backfill our allies who have been transferring their own arms to Ukraine.
I compared weapons and equipment sent to Ukraine against the budget of the defense department.  Why are you dividing non-military aid by the military budget?

I used the defense department budget of $1.7 trillion ($1.6 trillion in 2022).  Maybe it's easier to divide two years of that ($3.3T) by the Ukraine "security assistance" spending of $46.6B, which is 1.4%.  If you prefer the smaller military budget, closer to 3%.  But you cannot count non-military aid against a military budget and call it a strain on the military, and I wouldn't call 1.4% or 3% that significant.

https://www.usaspending.gov/agency/department-of-defense?fy=2023
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_military_aid_to_Ukraine_during_the_Russo-Ukrainian_War#U

I view that "strained production" differently - as a stress test.  The U.S. needs to be prepared to ramp up military production, and that's what has happened.  The U.S. has almost doubled production of 155-mm artillary shells, and in the next couple years will triple that amount.

"Production should soon reach 28,000 units per month, and by the autumn of 2025 the production is expected to ramp up to one million [155-mm] shells per year." (28 x 12 = 336k/year)
https://news.yahoo.com/us-significantly-increases-production-155-194500112.html


However, put even that aside. I think the biggest question, from China's perspective, isn't about absolute military capacity of the USA, but simply whether the US government and public have the motivation to get involved in a third war on the far side the globe when our political system was showing so many signs of strain with the first war and we now seem to be well on our way to being involved in a second.
You speculate the U.S. is "on our war to being involved in a second [war]", but that's an assumption on your part.  You can't talk about unwillingness to get involved in a "third war" when the U.S. is not currently involved in two wars.

The U.S. sent $47 billion of weapons and other security assistance to Ukraine.  The U.S. provided far less military aid to Sudan, which is also at war - is the U.S. involved in that war?  I don't view 1.4% to 3% of military spending as being involved in a war where we have no troops.

Something to consider: Ukraine being invaded impacted oil & grain markets, which contributed to worldwide inflation.  Over 90% of advanced chip production (under 10nm) happens in Taiwan, which are needed for smart phones, AI and advanced weapons systems.  You think the U.S. can afford to see all of those cut by 90%?

I feel like I'm helping drive this thread into politics.  Feel free to respond, but I plan to focus on bond yields and avoiding the political tangent.
« Last Edit: October 18, 2023, 03:03:11 AM by MustacheAndaHalf »

MustacheAndaHalf

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 6666
Re: Bonds !!!
« Reply #303 on: October 18, 2023, 03:02:40 AM »
The strong consumer is lasting longer than I expected, which caused Treasury yields to rise.

"Retail sales rose 0.7% in September from the previous month, more than double Wall Street's estimates for 0.3% growth."
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/retail-sales-smash-expectations-in-september-with-us-consumer-slowdown-nowhere-in-sight-123221872.html

(side note: I just read the above sentence - not the rest of the article.  An article by a "writer" is someone I don't consider an expert.  I heard the consumer was stronger than expected from other sources I trust more, and am quoting that sentence to illustrate the situation)

Watching CNBC, I saw an estimate of a December Fed rate hike being about 40% likely, and a January rate hike being just under 50%.  I believe that's why Treasury yields rose yesterday.

Earlier I predicted weak consumer demand after summer ended.  Record travel meant record spending, and I thought consumers would need to pay off that spending (from their credit cards).  The September data shows I'm wrong.  The market didn't move much, which gives me time to reconsider if October data will match my thesis or disprove it.
« Last Edit: October 18, 2023, 03:05:09 AM by MustacheAndaHalf »

maizefolk

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7435
Re: Bonds !!!
« Reply #304 on: October 18, 2023, 05:16:03 AM »
Here is what you said originally.
This year's U.S. aid to Ukraine adds up to about 1% of the 2023 U.S. defense budget.

US aid to Ukraine (the wording you used) totals $113B (source). Of that, $61.8B is military aid.

You stated:
I used the defense department budget of $1.7 trillion ($1.6 trillion in 2022).

I'm not sure where you got this number, but unfortunately I believe it is quite incorrect. Total US defense spending in fiscal year 2022 is between $740B (source) and $877B (source) depending on how narrowly or broadly defense spending is defined. Fiscal year 2023 isn't over yet and might be a bit higher, but certainly not 2x higher.

This error may be part of leading you to misleading conclusions. Total military expenditures of every country in the world are only 2.2 trillion (Source). If the USA were spending as much as you believe we are, we'd account for almost 80% of global military spending (we actually account for 40%) and we would be spending almost 7.5% of our GDP on defense, a higher percentage than any country in the world other than Ukraine (source).

So correcting for the fact that total aid to Ukraine has been over a year and a half and military spending is annually, I maintain that the correct number for your original statement about the ratio of US aid to Ukraine to US defense spending is closer to 10% than 1%.

Thank you for committing to giving me the last word on this topic @MustacheAndaHalf. Back to everyone's regularly schedule discussion on bonds.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 23251
  • Age: 42
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Bonds !!!
« Reply #305 on: October 18, 2023, 07:40:15 AM »
You speculate the U.S. is "on our war to being involved in a second [war]", but that's an assumption on your part.  You can't talk about unwillingness to get involved in a "third war" when the U.S. is not currently involved in two wars.

Off the top of my head, the US is currently fighting in Yemen, Somalia, Niger, and Syria.

MustacheAndaHalf

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 6666
Re: Bonds !!!
« Reply #306 on: October 18, 2023, 08:12:30 AM »
You speculate the U.S. is "on our war to being involved in a second [war]", but that's an assumption on your part.  You can't talk about unwillingness to get involved in a "third war" when the U.S. is not currently involved in two wars.

Off the top of my head, the US is currently fighting in Yemen, Somalia, Niger, and Syria.
How will this impact bond yields?

FIREandMONEY

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 54
Re: Bonds !!!
« Reply #307 on: October 18, 2023, 02:23:19 PM »
How does one buy this bond referenced below?  The big risk seems to be that they could call the bond before the 10 year period is up?

https://seekingalpha.com/article/4641501-forget-cds-treasuries-bank-of-america-offering-6-55-percent-yielding-bond

ChpBstrd

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 6754
  • Location: A poor and backward Southern state known as minimum wage country
Re: Bonds !!!
« Reply #308 on: October 18, 2023, 03:48:51 PM »
30 year treasury yields hit 5% today, levels last seen in mid-2007.*

However, the 5 year expected inflation rate (derived from nominal bond yields minus inflation-adjusted bond yields) is only 2.35%. The 30 year expected inflation rate is only 2.4%.

My interpretation:
  • Today's buyers of long-duration treasuries are demanding high real returns, rather than expecting high inflation that keeps rates elevated. Otherwise they'd have bid up TIPS instead of going with nominal bonds.
  • The yield curve appears to be un-inverting on the long end instead of the short end as usually happens. Expect mortgages to exceed 8% soon as long duration rates reach parity with the federal funds rate.
  • Most importantly, the long-duration bond market is running out of buyers. The treasury's surge of new issues after the summer debt ceiling pause is overwhelming the market, creating the potential for high real returns. Meanwhile, economic slowdowns in China and the Eurozone are reducing demand for US debt.
  • I think we're past the point of no return with regard to a CRE or housing crisis, but the timing could be anywhere between now and 2 years from now. If that happened, yields could drop and treasury prices could rise.
 



*If you're thinking about the connection to the GFC housing price collapse, keep in mind rates had generally been falling over the previous 5-7 years, unemployment slack was higher, and housing affordability was much better, whereas in 2023 we've seen a sudden increase in rates, no unemployment slack, and much worse affordability. Also keep in mind the 2004-2007 housing bubble and 2007-2009 housing deflation was mostly a coastal and HCOL area phenomenon. This time the rapid price increases (and now decreases) have occurred almost everywhere.

How does one buy this bond referenced below?  The big risk seems to be that they could call the bond before the 10 year period is up?

https://seekingalpha.com/article/4641501-forget-cds-treasuries-bank-of-america-offering-6-55-percent-yielding-bond
The instructions are brokerage-specific, but generally there is a way to search for the CUSIP to find the bond and place a bid. That said, bank stocks, bank preferred stocks, and bank bonds are cheap for a reason. They are the ultimate bag holders on loans made at low rates to projects with ROIs that no longer make sense at today's interest rates. These bonds would be a bold bet against a repeat of the GFC, but BOA is sitting on massive bond losses if marked to market and a possible time bomb with their mortgage and CRE portfolios. Investment is fleeing the banks for a reason, so keep that in mind when choosing between this and an FDIC-insured CD at 5.7% or a treasury at 5%.

MustacheAndaHalf

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 6666
Re: Bonds !!!
« Reply #309 on: October 19, 2023, 03:32:35 AM »
These bonds would be a bold bet against a repeat of the GFC, but BOA is sitting on massive bond losses if marked to market and a possible time bomb with their mortgage and CRE portfolios. Investment is fleeing the banks for a reason, so keep that in mind when choosing between this and an FDIC-insured CD at 5.7% or a treasury at 5%.
CNBC talked to BoA CEO Brian Moynahan a day or two ago, and he was asked about mark to market of bonds.  Mr Moynahan said that will not happen, and he's a highly respected CEO.  I think he knows what he's talking about, so I wouldn't count on mark to market of bank bonds.

reeshau

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2601
  • Location: Houston, TX
  • Former locations: Detroit, Indianapolis, Dublin
Re: Bonds !!!
« Reply #310 on: October 19, 2023, 07:04:27 AM »

*If you're thinking about the connection to the GFC housing price collapse, keep in mind rates had generally been falling over the previous 5-7 years, unemployment slack was higher, and housing affordability was much better, whereas in 2023 we've seen a sudden increase in rates, no unemployment slack, and much worse affordability. Also keep in mind the 2004-2007 housing bubble and 2007-2009 housing deflation was mostly a coastal and HCOL area phenomenon. This time the rapid price increases (and now decreases) have occurred almost everywhere.


What you say about the GFC is true.  But importantly, the proximate cause of it was the oversupply of housing, and the willingness to finance unqualified buyers to move that inventory (NINJA loans, etc.)  We have the exact opposite situation today, and that supply shortage is holding up prices, to the benefit of homebuilders.  They were so ravaged by the GFC that the US underbuilt housing for a decade, and only resumed providing for the number of new US households in 2021--barely above breakeven, even as it seems to have been a peak.  Rates were dropping, but were still in the 6% range; closer to today than 2019.  Also, much closer to long-term averages than the aberration that was the 2010's.

And while home price drops are definitely spread wider geographically, it is hardly everywhere.  Q3 data won't come in until early November, but in Q2, 60% of metros saw price increases.

I do wonder how this particular knot unravels.  I think even moderately higher rates will only reinforce the stalemate that keeps homeowners locked in.  Short of a recession, which would cause more "must move" participants into the market, I think some level of rate reduction would entice people back in.  Would this trickle of supply outbalance buyers who are currently held back?  How much movement will it take, and is that less than would trigger general inflation / resumption of asset bubbles?  Of course, time will also increase pressure, as people experience changes in their family structure, and more people come to paying off those low mortgages.

My opinion is informed by watching the Irish housing market first-hand.  Ireland took the GFC worse than the US.  Their housing market crash was swift and severe, but didn't bottom until 2014.  And building has yet to recover.  Much of the supply shortage there is caused by government red tape, as it is very difficult to get building approval.  But there is clearly popular unrest about housing affordability, and counterintuitive actions by market participants:  they had to enact a tax specifically for vacant properties, to entice owners of inactive housing to get into the market--even while prices continue to set records!  This condition is about to be a decade old.

ChpBstrd

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 6754
  • Location: A poor and backward Southern state known as minimum wage country
Re: Bonds !!!
« Reply #311 on: October 19, 2023, 11:49:46 AM »

*If you're thinking about the connection to the GFC housing price collapse, keep in mind rates had generally been falling over the previous 5-7 years, unemployment slack was higher, and housing affordability was much better, whereas in 2023 we've seen a sudden increase in rates, no unemployment slack, and much worse affordability. Also keep in mind the 2004-2007 housing bubble and 2007-2009 housing deflation was mostly a coastal and HCOL area phenomenon. This time the rapid price increases (and now decreases) have occurred almost everywhere.
What you say about the GFC is true.  But importantly, the proximate cause of it was the oversupply of housing, and the willingness to finance unqualified buyers to move that inventory (NINJA loans, etc.)  We have the exact opposite situation today, and that supply shortage is holding up prices, to the benefit of homebuilders.  They were so ravaged by the GFC that the US underbuilt housing for a decade, and only resumed providing for the number of new US households in 2021--barely above breakeven, even as it seems to have been a peak.  Rates were dropping, but were still in the 6% range; closer to today than 2019.  Also, much closer to long-term averages than the aberration that was the 2010's.

And while home price drops are definitely spread wider geographically, it is hardly everywhere.  Q3 data won't come in until early November, but in Q2, 60% of metros saw price increases.

I do wonder how this particular knot unravels.  I think even moderately higher rates will only reinforce the stalemate that keeps homeowners locked in.  Short of a recession, which would cause more "must move" participants into the market, I think some level of rate reduction would entice people back in.  Would this trickle of supply outbalance buyers who are currently held back?  How much movement will it take, and is that less than would trigger general inflation / resumption of asset bubbles?  Of course, time will also increase pressure, as people experience changes in their family structure, and more people come to paying off those low mortgages.

My opinion is informed by watching the Irish housing market first-hand.  Ireland took the GFC worse than the US.  Their housing market crash was swift and severe, but didn't bottom until 2014.  And building has yet to recover.  Much of the supply shortage there is caused by government red tape, as it is very difficult to get building approval.  But there is clearly popular unrest about housing affordability, and counterintuitive actions by market participants:  they had to enact a tax specifically for vacant properties, to entice owners of inactive housing to get into the market--even while prices continue to set records!  This condition is about to be a decade old.
I'm wary of the explanation that we've had a housing shortage, and I think the data contain arguments for and against the claim. Here are some data against the claim.

If we chart new housing starts against growth in the US population, we can see a long period between 2006 and 2017 when population was growing much faster than housing starts. Now we are in an era where housing starts have been exceeding population growth, something which has occurred only a couple of times since the 1960s. When viewing this chart, bear in mind that a housing unit usually provides shelter for more than one person. So, for example, if a new housing unit shelters an average of 2 people, a sustainable level of housing starts might be half of population growth, plus replacement of units taken out of service.



I suppose it's possible to point to that chart and say the 11-12 year span of building far less than population growth which ended in about 2017 is to blame for the 46% rise in the price of the median home between 1Q2020 and 4Q2022. However the dates don't line up.

Fair questions include: "Why didn't we have double-digit price increases eight or ten years ago, at the time the alleged supply deficit was at its peak?" and "Why didn't we have double-digit annual price increases in the 1990s when an even bigger gap in housing starts versus population growth was occurring?" Supply and demand explanations lose credibility when we talk about price movements occurring a decade or multiple decades after an imbalance. The logic of real estate price increases being only explainable by supply reductions and/or demand increases does not account for factors such as interest rates, mortgage standards, minimum down payments, investment manias, or helicopter money.

Other fair questions are: "Were housing prices affected by the fact that thousands of dollars per person in stimulus payments started in 2Q2020, at the exact time when the housing price growth rate increased dramatically?" or "If we assume the GFC was caused by an oversupply of houses (the blue line being close to the red between 2002 and 2006), then aren't we saying any housing shortage from the similarly under-built 1990s was erased and far surpassed by just a couple years of building near but well below population growth? By extension isn't starts actually surpassing the population growth trend in 2020-2022 (blue line above red line in those years) expected to erase any alleged shortage from the 20-teens?"



In summary, the data suggest to me we may have been underbuilding between 2006 and 2017, but that we may have been overbuilding actually (!) for at least several years to an extent which in the past led to an alleged oversupply issue. I say alleged because I'm old enough to remember talk about the world running out of houses in 2005-2006 too, when in fact a price drop was around the corner!

Remember, the blue line (starts) is probably sustainable well below the red line (population growth) because more than one person lives in the average housing unit. Destruction of housing units is a factor requiring new starts just to maintain balance, but in the GFC we endured a housing correction shortly after starts came within +600k of population growth. In January 2022, that spread was roughly -410k.

We know the following:
-National median home prices increased 46% in just 2.75 years, when usually they just track inflation.
-The price growth rate increased immediately and dramatically upon public receipt of stimulus checks.
-National median home prices then declined over 13% in the first 2 quarters of 2023, shortly after the end of stimulus checks and as mortgage rates exceeded 6%.
-Housing starts have been exceeding population growth since probably about July 2020. That has only ever happened for about 20 months in the early 1970s and one month in 1984.

YMMV

reeshau

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2601
  • Location: Houston, TX
  • Former locations: Detroit, Indianapolis, Dublin
Re: Bonds !!!
« Reply #312 on: October 19, 2023, 12:34:54 PM »

Remember, the blue line (starts) is probably sustainable well below the red line (population growth) because more than one person lives in the average housing unit. Destruction of housing units is a factor requiring new starts just to maintain balance, but in the GFC we endured a housing correction shortly after starts came within +600k of population growth. In January 2022, that spread was roughly -410k.


To this point, I've always looked at households than population.  I wish I could find a rate of creation, but it's actually instructive enough to look at the total, for a start.  (One of these days I may take the dataset and derive it myself)

When I first looked at this, I was surprised how smooth it was.  This does reflect a slowdown in growth rate, as this is not a semilog graph, and is over a long time.  But you can look at the rate of creation as a need for housing, whether single- or multi-family.  And as you said, there is loss of older housing stock.  I would also add that national statistics assume all these houses are in one place--the right place.  So incoming migration adds pressure, and perhaps uneven pressure vs. outgoing migration because of the delay and expense needed to build in order to accommodate.

As straight as it is, this does show an inflection up in households (i.e. an increase in growth rate) in 2022.

tooqk4u22

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2846
Re: Bonds !!!
« Reply #313 on: October 19, 2023, 12:43:53 PM »
@ChpBstrd

Good thoughts.  Also remember that leading up to GFC there was government push for homeownership and the homeownership hit almost 70% that was all time high and did not provide enough flex/mobility and is also why there was a "feeling" of running out of homes.  It's funny how the government escaped any blame for that.   But 60-65% is the sweet spot historically, and we are on the upper bound of that now.

Some things that are different this time that are resulting in a  so called shortage of housing:

1)  almost all homeowners are locked in at 3% ish mortgage rates or own them outright.  A big disincentive to move when mortgages are 8% and prices close to all time highs.

2) there have been a lot of apartments in those housing start numbers over the last 10 years that were aimed at younger millenials and thegeration after that and now they are aging up and looking to marry, start families and buy houses....when largest population in history wants to do something all at the same time it will have an impact.   Also why build to rent homes a trendy right now.

3)  a large portion of the existing supply was taken offline by single family rental investors and AirBNB and similar investors.   

4) boomers are staying in place (partly bc of #1) but moreover bc of the experience through covid....there is a premium to have a little more space now and fears of going into communal living.   

All in all there it creates a log jam and until more people start dying, divorcing, losing jobs or moving due to back to work mandates it likely won't change.   

I will caveat this with this mostly is for coastal, sunbelt, growth cities, etc where higher pay jobs and such have been migrating.    There is plenty of cheap housing in a lot of this country if you don't need a job.   




ChpBstrd

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 6754
  • Location: A poor and backward Southern state known as minimum wage country
Re: Bonds !!!
« Reply #314 on: October 19, 2023, 02:10:18 PM »
@reeshau measuring households has its appeals. In theory, a young person starts a new household when they move out of mom and dad's house and rents their first apartment, then a few years later they marry and buy a home. However, there's a lot of behavior hidden in household formation, namely (1) moving out of the parents' home, and (2) deciding to buy rather than rent.

Recent stats and anecdotes describe young people in many places staying with the parents well into their 20s or 30s, and there are discussions about multi-generational housing becoming culturally normal in the U.S, as it is in most of the world. Secondly, even when young people move out on their own, if they encounter an environment where renting is a much better deal than buying, we may discover their desire is lacking to take the traditional next step and tie an unaffordable mortgage around their neck.

@tooqk4u22 I do recall the government programs and politicians' speeches to advocate home ownership. Your tax dollars were at work inflating the housing bubble!

I agree inflating the homeownership rate is counterproductive. The flipside of all those sub-4% mortgages are a lot of people who cannot follow job or promotion opportunities, wasting some percentage of their economic potential. WFH is mitigating this effect, but some percentage of jobs cannot WFH and for those jobs the labor pool is suddenly localized and less efficient. Perhaps it will be the people who stay mobile and nimble who rise up the ranks and evoke economic jealousy in the future, rather than homeowners sitting on six-figure value increases as it is now.

Also, the homes people buy are typically more economically wasteful than the homes they rent. It costs a lot more to build, heat, cool, maintain, pay taxes on, and insure a typical SFH than it does an apartment, so homeowners are often experiencing a cash drain. That's a fact even if all the extra spending shows up in GDP and even if their home's appreciation makes up for some of it. The next FIRE narrative might be using apartments to jump from promotion to promotion, and then buying a cheap home to retire to, wherever cheap homes can be found.

Also, I disagree with the higher pay jobs migrating to HCOL areas. These areas have always featured higher wages, but their advantages due to network effects and economies of scale are being challenged by technology and high real estate costs, so if anything the jobs are migrating away. The unemployment rate is as low or lower in many LCOL places, and those who can WFH can compete for jobs at companies based in HCOL areas. Companies in HCOL areas face higher costs to run physical offices, so WFH arrangements with people in the Midwest or South are especially appealing.

vand

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2345
  • Location: UK
Re: Bonds !!!
« Reply #315 on: October 19, 2023, 04:24:10 PM »
The carnage in long bonds over the last 3 years has been extraordinary - the EDV fund is down by 65% from its peak during the covid lockdown!!

Imagine you jumped out of stocks during the covid crash and into long bonds...


Mr. Green

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4539
  • Age: 40
  • Location: Wilmington, NC
Re: Bonds !!!
« Reply #316 on: October 20, 2023, 12:54:40 PM »
The carnage in long bonds over the last 3 years has been extraordinary - the EDV fund is down by 65% from its peak during the covid lockdown!!

Imagine you jumped out of stocks during the covid crash and into long bonds...
That would make you one of those Boomers who talks about how they lost their life savings in The Great Recession. Ouch. Just another reinforcement that the worst thing to do is making a decision to sell during a deep loss.

reeshau

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2601
  • Location: Houston, TX
  • Former locations: Detroit, Indianapolis, Dublin
Re: Bonds !!!
« Reply #317 on: October 20, 2023, 01:50:20 PM »
The carnage in long bonds over the last 3 years has been extraordinary - the EDV fund is down by 65% from its peak during the covid lockdown!!

Imagine you jumped out of stocks during the covid crash and into long bonds...
That would make you one of those Boomers who talks about how they lost their life savings in The Great Recession. Ouch. Just another reinforcement that the worst thing to do is making a decision to sell during a deep loss.

The worst thing to do is to forget that you have 10...or 20...or 30...or more years to live and invest for, regardless of what is happening this year.

erjkism

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 33
  • Age: 34
  • Location: MN
Re: Bonds !!!
« Reply #318 on: October 28, 2023, 09:36:00 AM »
Considering this information, should one liquidate everything and sit in short term treasuries and wait for a buying opportunity in the future?

Let me check my crystal ball........sorry, seems it's not working.   

Anything I tell you is certainly wrong.   I do what helps me sleep at night and my AA overall and within categories shift somewhat with my view on markets.   Sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't.

-  start of pandemic all of my fixed income went to cash/money market/short bond funds....made nothing but didn't lose as much when rates started to turn.
- during 2021 during meme and tech craziness, moved half of sp500 into growth.  That worked.
- didn't move it back this year, that didn't work. Would have been far better this beat all in sp500.
- started dipping into intermediate bond funds (BND) two weeks ago, so far a bit early and isn't working. Still relatively small piece so current money market rates offset.

Anyway, right now I am comfortable being slightly underweight equities with that buck split between sp500, value and international and fixed income still mostly short but DCAing (not quickly) into intermediate duration to locking higher yields for when the Fed gets its way - DON'T FIGHT THE FED is a saying for a reason.   

Will it work, probably not the way I want it to.

your crystal ball worked!

ChpBstrd

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 6754
  • Location: A poor and backward Southern state known as minimum wage country
Re: Bonds !!!
« Reply #319 on: November 02, 2023, 07:15:31 AM »
Worth noting: "Treasury Dept. to boost bond auction size next week"

Quote
The U.S. Treasury Department will increase the size of its bond auction sizes by up to $112 billion next week...

At 2:40 in the video, there's a slide showing projections for significantly increased treasury issuance through much of 2024, and the idea is greater supply might lead to falling prices and higher yields. This projection could be a fit with one of my narratives that the yield curve will invert on the long end, within months +/- of the start of recession. Another extended debt ceiling debate could add a dip and a lump to the chart of treasury issuance, like we saw in summer and fall this year. 

I've been accumulating bond duration lately, but this info suggests I don't have to hurry.

ChpBstrd

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 6754
  • Location: A poor and backward Southern state known as minimum wage country
Re: Bonds !!!
« Reply #320 on: November 13, 2023, 09:42:52 PM »
Worth noting: "Treasury Dept. to boost bond auction size next week"

Quote
The U.S. Treasury Department will increase the size of its bond auction sizes by up to $112 billion next week...

At 2:40 in the video, there's a slide showing projections for significantly increased treasury issuance through much of 2024, and the idea is greater supply might lead to falling prices and higher yields. This projection could be a fit with one of my narratives that the yield curve will invert on the long end, within months +/- of the start of recession. Another extended debt ceiling debate could add a dip and a lump to the chart of treasury issuance, like we saw in summer and fall this year. 

I've been accumulating bond duration lately, but this info suggests I don't have to hurry.
Yields have been falling and bonds have been appreciating since mid-October, which I interpret as confirming my earlier intuition that investors are loading up on bonds in anticipation of a supply interruption. Several House Republicans are rejecting House Speaker Johnson's suggestion to kick the can into January rather than trying to squeeze months of negotiations into the next four days and having a government shutdown potentially through Christmas break.

It's also worth mentioning that a government shutdown would increase the risk of a recession. It's the last straw for investors who are ready to call a top in long-term interest rates. They might be right.

I've been picking up TLT, ZROZ, and the highest convexity individual treasuries I can find. I now have six figures invested in 20+ year duration assets that I'm willing to hold for 2-3 years if necessary.

We'll likely see a big movement one way or another after tomorrow's CPI report. A bad CPI number should drive up rates, but may also be overshadowed by the increasing likelihood of a debt ceiling crisis pushing down rates. A good CPI number will lead to a mad dash into treasuries as more investors conclude rates are going down from here.

If the debt ceiling is promptly resolved again, another gusher of pent-up treasury issuance will wash down the valley. The history of the last 5 months will repeat, and rates will go up as supply exceeds demand. Thus, the shutdown will be a good time to take profits on bonds, in case the top wasn't in and we're still due for a yield curve reversal from the long side.

 

reeshau

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2601
  • Location: Houston, TX
  • Former locations: Detroit, Indianapolis, Dublin
Re: Bonds !!!
« Reply #321 on: November 14, 2023, 06:56:26 AM »
A shutdown now is politically even more suicidal than usual, given it's the week before the busiest travel days of the year.

ChpBstrd

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 6754
  • Location: A poor and backward Southern state known as minimum wage country
Re: Bonds !!!
« Reply #322 on: November 14, 2023, 06:59:33 AM »
A shutdown now is politically even more suicidal than usual, given it's the week before the busiest travel days of the year.
Naaa, voters will still blame the president for any economic dysfunction, even if it was intentionally engineered by Congress.

ChpBstrd

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 6754
  • Location: A poor and backward Southern state known as minimum wage country
Re: Bonds !!!
« Reply #323 on: December 06, 2023, 03:39:16 PM »
Just thought I'd update this thread to note that EDV, my new favorite treasury bond fund, went up 24.37% between October 19 and December 6. That's compared to 6.76% for the S&P500. EDV rose 2% today after the 30y yield fell 8bp.

Turns out I was wrong about not having to hurry to buy bond duration, but at least I backed up the truck in early-mid November. Yields are absolutely collapsing. I think they'll land somewhere between 3.75% and 4%, so there are still some gains to milk before I exit.

Katmandew

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 15
Re: Bonds !!!
« Reply #324 on: December 07, 2023, 09:16:36 AM »
Just thought I'd update this thread to note that EDV, my new favorite treasury bond fund, went up 24.37% between October 19 and December 6. That's compared to 6.76% for the S&P500. EDV rose 2% today after the 30y yield fell 8bp.

Turns out I was wrong about not having to hurry to buy bond duration, but at least I backed up the truck in early-mid November. Yields are absolutely collapsing. I think they'll land somewhere between 3.75% and 4%, so there are still some gains to milk before I exit.


Thanks for the update CB!  I have been admiring your courage in going long and also experiencing a *tad* bit of jealousy! 

Must_ache

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 316
  • Age: 52
Re: Bonds !!!
« Reply #325 on: December 07, 2023, 09:26:59 AM »
I can still remember the 10-yr hitting 5% not long ago and Bill Ackerman saying that'll do and undoing his short position and then all of this started.  I'm not saying it was all him, but it seemed like a pivotal point in my mind.

Among other things, I bought $75K in 20-yr treasuries two and a half months ago.  It's now up 9% to $82K and I think it's still waaaay too early to sell but I'm wondering at what point should I pull the trigger.  We would expect rate cuts and even presumably an uninversion so that short-term rates are well below the current 4.42% 20-yr (all else being equal) right? 

What about that narrative that we were going issue a ton of debt that was going to keep yields higher?   
« Last Edit: December 07, 2023, 09:28:42 AM by Must_ache »

Must_ache

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 316
  • Age: 52
Re: Bonds !!!
« Reply #326 on: December 07, 2023, 12:32:16 PM »
-National median home prices increased 46% in just 2.75 years, when usually they just track inflation.

If $120,000 was the median house price in 1992 then using the CPI index the house price should have been $221,354 in 2020. 
Instead it was in excess of $320,000, that's an additional 1.3%/yr above the rate of inflation.
That's before inflation really lifted off.

I'm sure there could be other explanations such as houses getting bigger and bigger over time.  I wasn't sure if that would level off at some point.

grantmeaname

  • CM*MW 2023 Attendees
  • Walrus Stache
  • *
  • Posts: 5987
  • Age: 31
  • Location: Middle West
  • Cast me away from yesterday's things
Re: Bonds !!!
« Reply #327 on: December 07, 2023, 02:08:02 PM »
Yeah, like you say, it's much closer to inflation if you're tracking $/sq ft rather than gross price.

tooqk4u22

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2846
Re: Bonds !!!
« Reply #328 on: December 07, 2023, 07:04:31 PM »
-National median home prices increased 46% in just 2.75 years, when usually they just track inflation.

If $120,000 was the median house price in 1992 then using the CPI index the house price should have been $221,354 in 2020. 
Instead it was in excess of $320,000, that's an additional 1.3%/yr above the rate of inflation.
That's before inflation really lifted off.

I'm sure there could be other explanations such as houses getting bigger and bigger over time.  I wasn't sure if that would level off at some point.

It is partly due to houses getting bigger but another key contributor is regulation and nimbyism, which in the last 30 years has contributed significant costs to new construction.

But moreso, housing is a leveraged asset and we (in the US) buy payments not houses.   Over that 30 period average interest rates for the 30 year mortgage declined substantially from about 8% in 1992 to 2.8% in 2020.  So hypothetically if you assume the average mortgagee could afford $1000/month then at 8% the mortgage would be limited to $136,000 and at 8% and $243,000 at 2.8%.   That difference is essentially the vig over and above inflation.   

So you went from $120,000 in 1992 to $221,000 in 2020.....add the $107,000 financing rate differential and you get $328,000.  Funny how math works. It's very simplistic and there are other variables but the rates have been a big part.

And then it got worse after 2020 beavause rates stayed low, everybody left the cities, the government handed out money for nothing, and people didn't have to pay for commuting costs or student loans or rent so there was so much easy money on top of the low rates and supply/demand imbalances that ultimately drove average house price up to $480,000 at the end of 2022, which has come down to about $420,000 currently or way ahead of inflation.

$120 in 1992 to $221 in 2020 to $263 currently based on inflation. Average mortgage rates are now 7% (8% a month ago) so theoretically all that financing vig has been eroded except that everybody who owns a home either owns it outright or has a sub-3% mortgage so there are like 3 homes on the market when there would normally be 300.   So there is a massive supply/demand imbalance still.  All else being equal, home values will have to fall considerably, stay flat for a very long time, or a combination thereof.....the embedded low rates will put a floor on the downside so it should skew to flat for longer and let inflation make it "look" not so bad. 

There is no free lunch, other than in 2020, so thank your politicians and the Fed.   

Must_ache

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 316
  • Age: 52
Re: Bonds !!!
« Reply #329 on: December 07, 2023, 10:09:19 PM »
Good point, I totally agree that lower interest rates have enabled much higher home rates.  With interest rates higher, we need the cost of housing to come down, and while it is doing so a bit I just wonder if the supply shortage is going to drag out that problem.   

reeshau

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2601
  • Location: Houston, TX
  • Former locations: Detroit, Indianapolis, Dublin
Re: Bonds !!!
« Reply #330 on: December 08, 2023, 05:55:59 AM »
I just wonder if the supply shortage is going to drag out that problem.   

We've been underbuilding since 2008, and 2021's peak level brought us just above the household growth rate--the first shovel to fill the hole.  While the few years before 2008 were overbuilt, my thesis is that housing supply will remain short for the next decade.  And that's at a national scale; add in the pandemic-related migration, and a number of cities receiving new residents will be even more acute.

ChpBstrd

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 6754
  • Location: A poor and backward Southern state known as minimum wage country
Re: Bonds !!!
« Reply #331 on: December 08, 2023, 06:56:24 AM »
I can still remember the 10-yr hitting 5% not long ago and Bill Ackerman saying that'll do and undoing his short position and then all of this started.  I'm not saying it was all him, but it seemed like a pivotal point in my mind.

Among other things, I bought $75K in 20-yr treasuries two and a half months ago.  It's now up 9% to $82K and I think it's still waaaay too early to sell but I'm wondering at what point should I pull the trigger.  We would expect rate cuts and even presumably an uninversion so that short-term rates are well below the current 4.42% 20-yr (all else being equal) right? 

What about that narrative that we were going issue a ton of debt that was going to keep yields higher?   
20 year treasuries are this quirky spike in the overall yield curve right now, and a tempting buy. I might aim for 4%, though that might be leaving some money on the table as rates were as low as 3.67% just eight months ago. In 2008, there were opportunities to sell 20Y treasuries at about 3%. Wouldn't that have been a great time to sell bonds high and buy stocks low!?

Regarding the narrative... Well, I had my own narrative that bond prices were being suppressed due to a wave of supply that had been dammed up by the debt ceiling debacle of May-June, and had to be released all at once upon resolution of the issue. We're now probably back to normal levels of debt issuance, though that might change in January when we repeat the process. Perhaps the opportunity to trade such waves is what motivates our politicians to create them.

Thanks for the update CB!  I have been admiring your courage in going long and also experiencing a *tad* bit of jealousy! 
I realized less than half those gains though, because I only backed the truck up in early to mid November. I had been watching for the rising-yield fever to break and wanted a clear and definitive sign before I grabbed the falling knife. I also had this side theory working in the back of my mind that maybe the yield curve would invert on the long end for the first time in history. Once that theory was debunked to my satisfaction, I went all in. Courage would have been to buy before the October 19 bottom and to refuse to believe "this time is different."

vand

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2345
  • Location: UK
Re: Bonds !!!
« Reply #332 on: April 09, 2024, 02:21:09 AM »
Despite my stated preference for as little exposure to bonds as possible, I find myself re-examining the case for holding them at these levels given the recent runup in stocks and gold.

Chartwise, bonds are yet to breach their lows set last October, and are in the process of forming a long complex bottom. Unless it breaks below those lows the base case is still that interest rates have peaked and the next move in monetary policy will be a new easing cycle.

On a fundamental level yields have returned to positive real territory across the entire curve for the first time in a very long time.

The bullish case for bonds is that if/when the economy substantially weakens we will see quick return to the ZIRP playbook which will send bonds, especially long duration, back up in a hurry. The economy has been remarkably resilient in the face of the last tightening cycle especially labour markets that continue to defy all expectations. We will see how it unfolds going forward.

It was a good move to avoid bonds throughout 2021-23, but it is now 2024 and the risk/reward tradeoff has changed considerably. What do others think?
« Last Edit: April 09, 2024, 02:23:24 AM by vand »

tooqk4u22

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2846
Re: Bonds !!!
« Reply #333 on: April 09, 2024, 06:28:02 AM »
The 10 year is at a normal level from historical perspective other than the 60's to 70's inflation boom.   Hopefully we aren't going back there and if we are not that speaks favorably for current rates and yes with economic weakness rates are likely to come down but probably not as low as they did the prior decade.

Some challenges to rate direction.

- the Fed reserve (monetary) is sitting on a boatload of bonds from pandemic and roll-off is relatively slow/small and having even the biggest buyer in the market and is no longer.  (Neutral to upward pressure on rates).

- the federal government (fiscal) is spending boatloads which is stimultive to the economy and jobs but bad for inflation and bond issuance supply (upward pressure on rates)

- China and other foreign central banks arr pulling back from buying us treasuries in favor of gold and politics (upward pressure on rates). 


Moving to intermediate here on a DCA basis probably makes sense.  I am not sure about 20-30 durations bc I still am not sure rates don't have more rise left in them.   

ChpBstrd

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 6754
  • Location: A poor and backward Southern state known as minimum wage country
Re: Bonds !!!
« Reply #334 on: April 09, 2024, 07:43:18 AM »
Some challenges to rate direction.

- the Fed reserve (monetary) is sitting on a boatload of bonds from pandemic and roll-off is relatively slow/small and having even the biggest buyer in the market and is no longer.  (Neutral to upward pressure on rates).

- the federal government (fiscal) is spending boatloads which is stimultive to the economy and jobs but bad for inflation and bond issuance supply (upward pressure on rates)

- China and other foreign central banks arr pulling back from buying us treasuries in favor of gold and politics (upward pressure on rates). 

Moving to intermediate here on a DCA basis probably makes sense.  I am not sure about 20-30 durations bc I still am not sure rates don't have more rise left in them.
Yea for all the reasons you illustrated, it is possible people start looking at long duration treasuries as unrewarded risk. It's time to think about our expectations for what a more-typical un-inverted yield curve will look like a year or two from now.

a) FFR: 4.5%
    10Y: 5.5%
    30Y: 6%

b) FFR: 4%
    10Y: 5%
    30Y: 5.5%

c) FFR: 3.5%
    10Y: 4.75%
    30Y: 5%

Any one of these scenarios involves rising rates on the long-duration end, as investors come to believe the FFR is not going back to 0.25% and we're not going back to the sub-2% long-duration rates of the twenty-teens.

What's keeping the yield curve inverted, despite all the pressures listed above and the risk of rates going up? Is it investor fear of the stock market? What happens if the much-worried-about recession doesn't happen in 2024?

In all fairness, the treasury investors may have a point. Using the +4.25% rate hiking campaign of June 2004 to July 2006 as a reference, it took 16 months after the last rate hike for the recession to start in December 2007.

In the current +5% rate hiking cycle, the last rate hike came just 8 months ago. So sounding the all-clear signal seems premature in the historical context by at least 8-12 months. This explains why investors are still crowding into treasuries, despite the upward pressures on rates. So what happens in 8-12 months if the economy is still going strong? I think long-duration yields could rise in that situation.

The paradox is that a rise in long-term rates could lead to the recession everyone dismisses when they sell their treasuries and let long term rates rise. I.e. for every uptick in long-term yields, recession becomes more likely. If enough people bet against recession, long term yields will rise making recession more likely. On the flipside, the longer the yield curve remains deeply inverted due to investors making bets that a recession will occur, the longer corporations and governments can borrow cheaply, which is anti-recessionary. Negative investor sentiment may be preventing an actual recession from occurring, as it crowds money into long-duration bonds. This means banks and equity owners are making fistfuls of money by borrowing at lower-than-otherwise rates from fearful investors and investing those funds into growth and leverage. Will the investors buying up long-duration treasuries eventually be right? Maybe, but for now the crowded trade is working against itself and stimulating economic growth.

vand

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2345
  • Location: UK
Re: Bonds !!!
« Reply #335 on: April 09, 2024, 08:52:11 AM »
Good points made.

Another point to consider is that inflation may well still prove stubbornly difficult to get completely under control just as we have seen in previous inflationary periods.  Indeed, the gold price may be telling us this very thing (amongst others), and the CRB index looks like its corrective cycle is over and wanting to march higher

vand

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2345
  • Location: UK
Re: Bonds !!!
« Reply #336 on: April 15, 2024, 02:34:49 PM »
Bonds continue to slide back towards their 2023 bottom.. markets appear to be unwinding their view that the next move in interest rates will be down...

ATtiny85

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 960
  • Location: Midwest
Re: Bonds !!!
« Reply #337 on: April 15, 2024, 05:43:29 PM »
Bonds continue to slide back towards their 2023 bottom.. markets appear to be unwinding their view that the next move in interest rates will be down...

But, but, but, it’s so obvious that they will drop interest rates! Isn’t it? Once again, making an accurate prediction about the future is darn tough to do. (Could still happen of course…)

I have bought a whole bunch of US Intermediate Bond fund over the last nine months. This downturn has happily coincided with us getting serious about getting our way equity heavy portfolio better aligned for retirement.

Should be interesting what the next couple years brings.

ChpBstrd

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 6754
  • Location: A poor and backward Southern state known as minimum wage country
Re: Bonds !!!
« Reply #338 on: April 15, 2024, 09:28:25 PM »
CPI is still lower than it was in September 2023 (3.5% in March vs. 3.7% in Sept.), and so is PCE (4.9% in Feb. vs. 5.55% in Sept.). What has changed is the speed of disinflation and the mood around it.

These inflation metrics suggest we are a lot closer to rate cuts now than we were in September, and yet rates are rising instead of falling. However, it took half a year to drop inflation as far as we did, and at such a pace we won't reach 2% for a while. However, JPow has reminded us in recent months that rates will drop before Core PCE hits 2%. It's only 2.8% now.

Have we made enough progress to move the S&P500's earnings yield from 4.18% to 3.64%? Traders seem to be saying no.

So as in November 2023, we're watching treasury yields rise, even though rate cuts are thought to be 6 months away. This is intriguing because we could see another opportunity to buy bond duration (e.g. EDV, TLT, ZROZ, individual treasuries) by later this month. I bought duration between late November and early December 2023 and it worked out great for me when bonds rallied in late December. Looking forward to repeating the process if the opportunity presents itself.

vand

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2345
  • Location: UK
Re: Bonds !!!
« Reply #339 on: April 16, 2024, 12:56:05 AM »
Long duration bond yields < short term, therefore not compensating you for the risk
S&P 34x CAPE10
Gold +20% over last few weeks
5yr TIPS breakeven risen to 2.5%, making that trade harder

Unless you want to rotate into China and EMs there isn't much immediate value around.

T-bills and chill?
« Last Edit: April 16, 2024, 01:02:52 AM by vand »

Alternatepriorities

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1643
  • Age: 43
  • Location: Alaska
  • Engineer, explorer, investor
    • Alternate Priorities
Re: Bonds !!!
« Reply #340 on: April 17, 2024, 10:57:54 AM »
It seems to me that large part of the S&P500's valuation is being driven by the "Magnificent Seven" or whatever the current term for the talking heads "hot" companies is...

Consider the following P/E  &  P/B ratios from the end of march
S&P     VOO:  26.1  &  4.5
Total    VTI:    25.1  &  4.1
Value   VTV:   19.1  &  2.8
Energy VDE:   11.5  &  2.3

I'm using Vanguard funds because that's what I own, but they all track their benchmarks well. In the above example I see the potential to find some value within the US market. I'm highly skeptical of China's data at this point, but I'd love thoughts on emerging markets that can be trusted.

I invested in bonds for the first time last year, but I am still skeptical of the narrative that we actually want to see inflation get to 2%. Housing is expensive relative to everything else, and dropping home values enough to fix it would be political suicide. The only solution I can see is to inflate everything else including wages to match. We can't do it overnight for psychological reasons, so we'll play lip service to the 2% goal while allowing 3.x% to eat away the overvaluation of homes and some of the national debt... Well the second one will only work if we borrow less than the inflation rate each year which seems unlikely with either of the potential administrations next year...

And now DS is awake so my time for random musings online is up...

Radagast

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2560
  • One Does Not Simply Work Into Mordor
Re: Bonds !!!
« Reply #341 on: April 17, 2024, 11:40:36 AM »
Me:
Still dollar cost averaging into ZROZ (extreme duration treasury bonds) with my 401k. I've been doing that since 2020 when it first dipped under $150/share (and less than half my target allocation), with a little RING (gold miner etf) depending on which was most out of balance, but in practice that's been about 70% ZROZ. I'd guess my cost basis of ZROZ across all accounts is about $90 right now. It looks like I have another 2 years of contributions left before I get to my target allocation of each, which is what it's looked like for the last 4 years. Later this year I may actually sell shares to rebalance into ZROZ. TBD.

Still buying into I bonds. I'd say DCA, but since their price doesn't fluctuate it's really just buying. They are in a similar status to ZROZ: 25-30% below target, a couple more years before they reach it, and me in no hurry to dump more money in.

VWALX (high yield tax exempt): This one is odd because it's part of the broader allocation, but also well over weight and will take most new taxable money to allow a potential future house purchase.

Yup I buy emerging markets too. They get primarily Roth IRA money for the past few years.

 

Wow, a phone plan for fifteen bucks!