- Joined
- 10 December 2012
- Posts
- 3,632
- Reactions
- 9
There is still plenty of room to move downwards from 2%.
If you are familiar with the Japanese interest rate cycle, you will know that after the rate fell below 2% it never raised above it again, currently sitting at 0.5% I think.
Meanwhile JGBs provided decent returns in the move from 2% to 0.5% (yields down, price up) while everyone thought that the "top is in" for JGBs for like 20 years now.
Japan has historically run a current account surplus and has had the capability to support much of the Govt debt internally.
A country’s trade surplus (more accurately its current account surplus, which includes things like royalty payments, tourism, returns on investment abroad, and other things, but we will pretend they are the same) is exactly equal to its total savings minus its total investment, which is equal to the amount of savings it exports. This is why we refer to the balance of payments. The total money that ants receive from their trade (current account) surplus is perfectly balanced by the capital account deficit, which is simply the amount of savings they send abroad.
Why save more than you invest?
Countries run trade surpluses, in other words, not because their citizens are hard working ants, but rather because they save more than they invest. Of course ants are supposed to save more than grasshoppers because they are prudently willing to make some sacrifice today in order obtain a better outcome tomorrow, but this means that they also must invest more than grasshoppers because the only way a sacrifice today results in a better outcome tomorrow is if we save part of today’s production and invest it in something that will increase our productivity tomorrow. The natural thriftiness of ants explains why they save more, but it cannot explain why countries save more than they invest, and so run trade surpluses, year after year. There are three reasons that explain most cases of large, persistent trade surpluses.
The first reason is a good one in that it results in higher growth and a better outcome for the world overall. The second two reasons, which are really variations of the same reason, result in lower growth for the world overall.
In the first case, there is a huge investment opportunity abroad, perhaps because a group of foreign ants have identified a great opportunity to increase productivity, and this opportunity persists year after year. The returns on that investment are so much higher than they are at home that ants at home are willing to save more than they naturally would to invest at home.
Because they save more than they invest, they export the excess savings abroad, where it earns an outsized return. Total growth in production for the world, consequently, is higher, and if that increase in production is shared between the ants at home and foreign ants, every one is better off. Notice however that the foreign ants will be importing savings because their investment needs exceed their savings, and so in spite of their hard work and rapidly rising productivity, they will run trade deficits for many years. In the 19th Century England and the United States played these two roles, with excess English savings pouring into the United States to fund growth in history’s most successful emerging market, and while the British ran persistent trade surpluses, and the US ran persistent trade deficits, both countries got richer.
The second reason a country might save more than it invests is because of high levels of income inequality. Rich people usually save more of their income than ordinary people, so that the more they keep of the total amount of goods and services produced by hard working ants, the higher that country’s savings rate and the lower its consumption rate. Because lower consumption discourages businesses from building new factories or otherwise expanding production, higher savings often come with lower investment, and so countries with highly unequal income distribution tend to run large trade surpluses.
The other reason has to do with the share that households receive of everything they produced. A country’s total production is divided between households, businesses, and the government. Although governments do make purchases that we can classify as consumption, almost all consumption comes from households. This matters, because in countries in which households are allowed to keep a very large share of what they produce, whether they are as thrifty as ants or as spendthrift as grasshoppers, their total consumption will be a high share of total GDP, and total savings a low share. If their high consumption encourages businesses to open new factories, low savings and high investment might even lead them to run temporary trade deficits, although only until the factories begin to produce.
But if households retain a low share of everything they produce, with governments and businesses getting the rest, then again, whether they are as thrifty as ants or as spendthrift as grasshoppers, their total consumption will be a low share of total GDP, and the country’s total savings, which is equal to GDP minus consumption, will be a high share. Once again if low consumption actually causes investment to drop, they will run large trade surpluses. Notice however, that the country has a high savings rate not because ants have saved a lot of their earnings. It has a high savings rate because businesses and governments are able to save the money that was not given to households.
Australia has no such luxury. I don't know what the lower bound will be here, but we definitely wont be able to get to 0% like the USA or Japan simply because we are not a safe haven currency like the USA nor a surplus capital country like Japan.
The RBA may be able to take the sting out of the some of the first 1% rise in overseas interest rates, but after that it's likely to be passed on in full to debt holders.
Don't forget how fast things moved when the GFC hit. Interest rates the big 4 had to pay to get credit jumped by over 1.5% very rapidly.
How it all will pan out I'm not sure, but I'm enjoying the compression in bond yields with my SMSF bond portfolio providing roughly 14% annual returns over the last 3 financial years. Not sure it can continue on like that, but I bought in for the income stream. Capital growth has been a very welcome bonus.
We estimate that from current valuations, the S&P 500 will underperform Treasury bonds by more than 2% annually over the coming decade. We’ve never observed a similar level of stock vs. bond valuations without stocks actually underperforming bonds over the subsequent 10-year period. Next, look at bear market lows such as 2009, 2002, 1990, 1987, 1982, 1978, and 1974, and recognize that the completion of every market cycle in history has provided better investment opportunities, both in absolute terms, and relative to bonds, than are presently available.
What does the ability to run a current account surplus actually mean? Most people don't understand it at all. Luckily Michael Pettis has written about it extensively to correct many misunderstandings and misconceptions.
http://blog.mpettis.com/2015/06/internal-and-external-balance/
here is just one small snippet of this long article which links to many other articles
Demand for AU gov bonds has been high from Central Banks reweighting away from USD/EUR/JPY. High enough that while the AUDUSD was above 1, the RBA was actually selling bonds directly to other CBs off market to avoid their demand supporting the price. If those off market transactions were to come back on to the direct market, you can bet that the AUDUSD would be a lot higher than where it is today.
I haven't forgotten. But you are conflating two things here. First, you have implicitly assumed that rates will rise any time soon, by an amount that would entail massive reductions in Central Bank balance sheets (i.e. unlikely). Second you are conflating this assumed rate hike with spiking corporate rates during a credit crunch where Government rates declined to all time lows.
Nobody knows for sure, obviously, but the good thing about AAA Government bonds is that you can forecast their return under the assumption they are default free (i.e. may lose real but not nominal value). So we can forecast the benchmark rate for 10-30Y out from now, and compare it to the returns we might receive from other investments (adjusted by volatility if necessary) of the same duration to decide where to invest. i.e. maybe 2% p.a. doesn't sound like an awesome investment, but then again if your 10y annualised forecast for equities is <2%, after considering the volatility you may decide actually 2% bonds don't sound so bad.
(as an example)
http://hussmanfunds.com/wmc/wmc150608.htm
2% Govt bonds sounds a raw prawn to me. Why not get into some rated corporate bonds and get 4-5% for not much more risk? Some ILBs are still offering cash flow of ~3.5%. Not bad when you're income keeps pace with inflation.
2% Govt bonds sounds a raw prawn to me. Why not get into some rated corporate bonds and get 4-5% for not much more risk? Some ILBs are still offering cash flow of ~3.5%. Not bad when you're income keeps pace with inflation.
I share sydneyboy view: if i can get 3% above inflation: I sign today;It's interesting that you can be so negative on pretty much everything relating to the Australian economy, but still think Australian corporate bonds at 4-5% represent good value.
I share sydneyboy view: if i can get 3% above inflation: I sign today;
I was actually wondering where i could get that!
It's interesting that you can be so negative on pretty much everything relating to the Australian economy, but still think Australian corporate bonds at 4-5% represent good value.
i use FIGG. Thumbs up for making access to bonds easier. Wish they'd launch a corp bond ETF.
Value in a sense is relative, not absolute.
What do you believe would be a realistic rate of return going forward? 5% with relatively low risk from a corporate bond issued by a company that has regulated assets seems a decent compromise in the current low rate low growth environment, especuially if there's further yield compression as I suspect there will be.
BBB: An obligor rated 'BBB' has adequate capacity to meet its financial commitments. However, adverse economic conditions or changing circumstances are more likely to lead to a weakened capacity of the obligor to meet its financial commitments.
especuially if there's further yield compression as I suspect there will be.
Wait..
So you believe we are essentially at ZIRP, and you're skeptical of further declines in rates since we aren't a reserve currency or a capital account surplus, and you think our economy is screwed and you think we won't get to keep our AAA...
But you also suspect there will be further yield compression?
How does that work?
When comparing a basket of bonds/shares/real esate you can get some idea on relative value, but you need to be adequately compensated for risk on an absolute basis. When I look down that list and see Mackay Sugar with ytm of 5.5% on an unrated, unsecured issue I have a hard time accepting risk is being compensated.
For bonds? I have nfi. I assume you're talking about Sydney Airport? A BBB rated company. What does BBB mean?
(My bolding)
So how does that fit in with your assesment of where the economy is heading? If the scenarios that you post here actually come to fruition what are the chances that SYD cannot make its payments? I'd also point out that the next rating below BBB is junk status.
cash converters could be a decent bond buy at 6.7%. pawn brokers tend to do well in difficult times.
Seriously? There might be more demand in a recession but there will also be a lot more defaults.
At least 75% of earnings are from the most sub of sub prime lending. The balance sheet has nothing of substance except a bit of inventory which is second hand crap and the loan book. IF CCV's debt doesn't become priced as distressed in a recession I would be amazed. 6.7% is rose coloured ridiculous.
You could be right. In the day of ebay and gumtree do we still need pawn brokers? Still, they've been around with the rise of online competitors so there's some market demand for their services.
cash converters could be a decent bond buy at 6.7%. pawn brokers tend to do well in difficult times. :
Can't current corporate bond yields compress further?
Can't new loans banks need to get to roll over expiring loans increase in costs as they did during the GFC.
The bond / credit markets are quite big. Remember when the banks didn't pass on the full RBA rate cuts?
What happens when the cash rate is 1% and bank cds continue to increase? How low can the cash rate go?
In a risk off environment what do you think that will do to Aussie Govt bonds?
Outside of Central banks who'd want to buy Aussie Govt bonds now with the reasonable expectation of further AUD falls. is it worth the risk of loosing 10%+ on the currency for maybe an extra 2% yield?
Just for interest sake what's your views on where interest rates are going? Do you think the AAA rating is safe? How low will the market lets interest rates go in Australia?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?