Register For Our Mailing List

Register to receive our free weekly newsletter including editorials.

Home / 168

Response to Roger Montgomery on bonds

In a recent article in Cuffelinks, Roger Montgomery asked the question, “Are bonds failing us as a warning signal?” He argued they are, for two reasons. First, bond yields are “an artifice created by central bank buying” and thus do not reflect economic fundamentals. Second, credit quality is low and yet corporate bond yields are also low, which means the market is signalling incorrectly about risk in the corporate sector.

This article debates both those aspects of Roger’s argument.

Let it be said at the outset, however, that the debate is not about whether bond yields are unusually low. Of that there is absolutely no doubt. Across the credit spectrum – from high quality government bonds through investment grade and high yield corporate bonds – yields are at absolute historically low levels. A large chunk of the world’s government bond market (all in Europe and Japan) is trading at negative nominal yields, and the average yield across the US Treasury market is only 1.1% (which incidentally is not the lowest ever – that mark was posted four years ago when the average US government bond rate was just 0.8%, although at the longer end, 10 year bonds at 1.5% match the low they reached in 2012.).

More to low rates than central bank buying

We need to analyse the drivers of the bond markets more rigorously before we conclude that the only reason for the low yields is central bank buying pushing against fundamentals, which are ‘sending the wrong signals’.

Central banks have been buyers – in Europe and Japan this continues, though the Fed stopped a couple of years back - but so have many other bond market participants. At the peak of the Fed’s buying, there were plenty of Treasury bonds being supplied, with the US budget deficit running at 10% of GDP. However, the deficit is much lower now, back to around 2.5-3.0% of GDP. Continued buying of US government debt issues has taken the average bond yield on US Treasuries from around 1.5% two years ago to 1.1% now, but this has been demand from the market, not the Fed. There is no longer a ‘central bank distortion’ in US Treasuries.

It’s just as valid to see negative and low bond yields as the result of a poor macroeconomic environment. Rather than monetary policy ‘not working’, the economic headwinds have been so great that all it’s prevented is an even worse outcome for growth and unemployment.  A real rate of return on risk free capital (i.e. government funds) in this climate is non-existent. The real yield on 10 year US inflation-linked bonds is just 0.1%.

Low inflation, with widespread forecasts of deflation, therefore argue that current bond yields align with the fundamental drivers of bond markets in a fairly normal sort of way. Far from sending a failed signal or being dysfunctional, the bond market is performing as expected.

Roger’s article also suggests that corporate bonds are not expressing risk levels appropriately.  However, the spreads over US Treasuries (the credit risk premium) that corporate bonds are paying, across the range from AAA to CCC, are close to long run average levels. Not wildly tight, as would be needed to support a claim that risk isn’t being priced properly.  Arguably, that was the case before the recession in the US in 2000-01 and before the GFC, which both saw spreads trading at close to 1.5 standard deviations below average. At those times the market wasn’t paying credit investors enough for the macro risk that was evolving.

However, in 2016 this is not the case. When US growth is chugging along, not great and struggling to sustain any acceleration, but not slumping in a way that causes huge concerns about corporate defaults, spreads are at around their long run average.

Low corporate rates driven by low government rates

The only reason corporate and high yield bond yields are at absolute low levels is because the underlying government rate is low. The extra yield over that rate to compensate for credit risk is still providing adequate compensation for risk.

Let me give just one ratings band to illustrate. BB-rated bonds in the US are currently trading at an average yield of 5.07%. This is a spread to US Treasury of 3.9%, spot on the long-run average spread to Treasury. They were even tighter in early 2014, at 3% even.

Pre-GFC, BB spreads were below 2%. That level was crazy because the break-even spread for BB is 2.15%. That is, at a spread of 2.15%, BB credits are paying just enough to cover the expected loss from defaults in that part of the market. In the current market, investors are being paid well above the break-even.

The article also says corporate debt issuance has been excessive. Maybe in China, as the chart in the article shows, but not in the US. In the investment grade space, the size of the market has been growing at 9.7% per annum for a couple of decades, the same in the last two and five years.  In the high yield space, the market has been growing at a slower pace over recent than its long run expansion. In the lowest-rated credits (BB and CCC), there has been little expansion for the past few years.

Uncommon and common ground

The bond market faces issues, especially for those who trade in it and require lots of liquidity to move large parcels of securities around quickly. But as a fundamental signal of how the fundamentals of the world economy are tracking, it is still providing valuable information. That’s a different view to the one that Roger presented.

What I share with Roger is the desire to see a world that provides investors across all asset classes with stronger returns. But I don’t blame central banks for the fact that this isn’t the case – they are merely players in the same very difficult game as the rest of us.

Comment in response from Roger Montgomery

"I have absolutely no problem with this alternate view. I don’t agree with the general proposition that this is normal and there’s nothing really to see here. Yields on US 10-year treasury bonds are lower today than they were during the Great Depression, indeed they are the lowest they have ever been since the 1700s. I suspect that is not a reflection of the state of the economy and if it is, we are in a whole lot more trouble. Different views are what makes a market and if others want to buy the securities I am selling, I’d be lost without such views."

 

Warren Bird is Executive Director of Uniting Financial Services, a division of the Uniting Church (NSW & ACT). He has 30 years’ experience in fixed income investing. He also serves as an Independent Member of the GESB Investment Committee. 

3 Comments
Warren Bird
August 11, 2016

Just to clarify, I didn't say current rates are 'normal'. I don't find that a helpful terminology. My opening comment about rates being 'unusually low' was meant to convey this thought.

I saw a fantastic chart this week showing government interest rates back to 3000 BC. For about 4,900 years both short and long rates were basically in the 3-5% range. But in the 20th century they've mostly been either lower (1930's, 2008 until now) or higher (1920's, 1970-2000). We haven't seen a consistent period of "normal" for a hundred years! I'd love it if Roger is right and we get there sooner rather than later.

Jonathan Rochford
August 11, 2016

Global GDP growth is well below long run averages and the US is only limping along this year with GDP growth running at around 1%. Europe and Japan have been struggling to grow for years with both having excessive debt levels. China is the only major economy growing strongly but that growth is based on debt growing much faster than GDP, which is typically called a Ponzi scheme. The global economy is clearly in poor health.

Central banks have pushed down bond yields with quantitative easing and low or negative interest rates. It's a global race to the bottom with everyone hoping that lower rates in their jurisdiction will push their currency down and provide an export boom. That hasn't worked for anyone.

The GMO long range forecasts for asset class returns are cause for everyone to reconsider their return targets. Arguably the only asset class offering decent yield, without high risk and betting on interest rates going lower is private debt. Australians are fortunate that the market for private debt is uncompetitive offering the ability to outperform equities whilst taking much lower risk.

Roger Montgomery
August 11, 2016

I have absolutely no problem with this alternate view. I don’t agree with the general proposition that this is normal and there’s nothing really to see here. Yields on US 10-year treasury bonds are lower today than they were during the Great Depression, indeed they are the lowest they have ever been since the 1700s. I suspect that is not a reflection of the state of the economy and if it is, we are in a whole lot more trouble. Different views are what makes a market and if others want to buy the securities I am selling, I’d be lost without such views.

 

Leave a Comment:

     

RELATED ARTICLES

Are bond yields lower forever or is the Big Bang coming?

Briefly, on the role of government bonds

Unpacking the '30-year bull market' in bonds

banner

Most viewed in recent weeks

10 reasons wealthy homeowners shouldn't receive welfare

The RBA Governor says rising house prices are due to "the design of our taxation and social security systems". The OECD says "the prolonged boom in house prices has inflated the wealth of many pensioners without impacting their pension eligibility." What's your view?

House prices surge but falls are common and coming

We tend to forget that house prices often fall. Direct lending controls are more effective than rate rises because macroprudential limits affect the volume of money for housing leaving business rates untouched.

Survey responses on pension eligibility for wealthy homeowners

The survey drew a fantastic 2,000 responses with over 1,000 comments and polar opposite views on what is good policy. Do most people believe the home should be in the age pension asset test, and what do they say?

100 Aussies: five charts on who earns, pays and owns

Any policy decision needs to recognise who is affected by a change. It pays to check the data on who pays taxes, who owns assets and who earns the income to ensure an equitable and efficient outcome.

Three good comments from the pension asset test article

With articles on the pensions assets test read about 40,000 times, 3,500 survey responses and thousands of comments, there was a lot of great reader participation. A few comments added extra insights.

The sorry saga of housing affordability and ownership

It is hard to think of any area of widespread public concern where the same policies have been pursued for so long, in the face of such incontrovertible evidence that they have failed to achieve their objectives.

Latest Updates

Superannuation

The 'Contrast Principle' used by super fund test failures

Rather than compare results against APRA's benchmark, large super funds which failed the YFYS performance test are using another measure such as a CPI+ target, with more favourable results to show their members.

Property

RBA switched rate priority on house prices versus jobs

RBA Governor, Philip Lowe, says that surging house prices are not as important as full employment, but a previous Governor, Glenn Stevens, had other priorities, putting the "elevated level of house prices" first.

Investment strategies

Disruptive innovation and the Tesla valuation debate

Two prominent fund managers with strongly opposing views and techniques. Cathie Wood thinks Tesla is going to US$3,000, Rob Arnott says it's already a bubble at US$750. They debate valuing growth and disruption.

Shares

4 key materials for batteries and 9 companies that will benefit

Four key materials are required for battery production as we head towards 30X the number of electric cars. It opens exciting opportunities for Australian companies as the country aims to become a regional hub.

Shares

Why valuation multiples fail in an exponential world

Estimating the value of a company based on a multiple of earnings is a common investment analysis technique, but it is often useless. Multiples do a poor job of valuing the best growth businesses, like Microsoft.

Shares

Five value chains driving the ‘transition winners’

The ability to adapt to change makes a company more likely to sustain today’s profitability. There are five value chains plus a focus on cashflow and asset growth that the 'transition winners' are adopting.

Superannuation

Halving super drawdowns helps wealthy retirees most

At the start of COVID, the Government allowed early access to super, but in a strange twist, others were permitted to leave money in tax-advantaged super for another year. It helped the wealthy and should not be repeated.

Sponsors

Alliances

© 2021 Morningstar, Inc. All rights reserved.

Disclaimer
The data, research and opinions provided here are for information purposes; are not an offer to buy or sell a security; and are not warranted to be correct, complete or accurate. Morningstar, its affiliates, and third-party content providers are not responsible for any investment decisions, damages or losses resulting from, or related to, the data and analyses or their use. Any general advice or ‘regulated financial advice’ under New Zealand law has been prepared by Morningstar Australasia Pty Ltd (ABN: 95 090 665 544, AFSL: 240892) and/or Morningstar Research Ltd, subsidiaries of Morningstar, Inc, without reference to your objectives, financial situation or needs. For more information refer to our Financial Services Guide (AU) and Financial Advice Provider Disclosure Statement (NZ). You should consider the advice in light of these matters and if applicable, the relevant Product Disclosure Statement before making any decision to invest. Past performance does not necessarily indicate a financial product’s future performance. To obtain advice tailored to your situation, contact a professional financial adviser. Articles are current as at date of publication.
This website contains information and opinions provided by third parties. Inclusion of this information does not necessarily represent Morningstar’s positions, strategies or opinions and should not be considered an endorsement by Morningstar.

Website Development by Master Publisher.