Register For Our Mailing List

Register to receive our free weekly newsletter including editorials.

Home / 324

What does a negative bond yield really mean?

It seems someone at the ASX must have read Graham Hand’s introduction to Firstlinks Edition 320, about the ASX bond price calculator not being able to handle a negative yield. Because now it can.

We see that for the 3% coupon bond maturing in March 2047, that a minus 1% yield equates to a bond price of $227.32. But does that seem reasonable?

How to understand this new world

Compare that to a price of $148.08 for a yield of 1%. And at a 0% yield, the price will simply be the sum of the future coupons plus the face value of $100 at settlement, being $182.50. Therefore, a price of $227.32 for a minus 1% yield would appear to pass the sensibility test (which can also be verified in a simple spreadsheet).

Negative-yielding debt is globally prevalent, but particularly in Europe, with Germany recently selling over 800 million euros worth of 30-year bonds yielding an average minus 0.11%. Investors are paying the government to hold their debt. For 30 years!

This phenomenon is foreign to many investors, and they are finding it hard to come to grips with what a negative yielding investment actually means. So let’s try and rationalise it.

First, we understand a positive yield to mean that in recompense for locking away some capital, we receive payment in the form of interest from the deposit-taker. A negative yield implies the opposite. That is, we pay the deposit-taker some interest for looking after the capital.

To illustrate and for simplicity, consider a zero coupon, 10-year bond with a face value of $100. That is, depending on the yield, an investor pays an amount today to receive $100 in 10 years’ time, with no other income prior to maturity.

In the case of a positive yield of 1%, the price today of that bond is the present value of the redemption amount, discounted at the yield to maturity of 1%. So $100 payable in 10 years will have a current price of $90.53. That is, $90.53 invested today earning 1% p.a. will accumulate to $100 in 10 years.

If the yield was 0%, then the present value today is simply the $100 redemption amount. And if the yield was minus 1%, then the present value of $100 payable in 10 years will be $110.57. 

Present values with negative yields

But what does a present value of $110.57 at minus 1% really mean? It means that to have someone hold $100 for a period of 10 years, we must pay them interest of $10.57 today. That is, interest required for the whole period is charged up front.

Another way to think of this transaction is from the bond issuer’s point of view. To look after $100 for 10 years, they ask for $110.57 today, being what $100 would accumulate to in 10 years, at an implied interest rate of 1%. In effect, the bond issuer requires at the outset, the redemption amount accumulated at a rate approximately equal to the bond yield paid by the investor. 

To summarise, with negative yields, the investor pays more today than the amount redeemed at maturity. Which makes sense intuitively if we think that the bond issuer needs more than $100 today, if that amount is going to run down over time at negative market interest rates, and $100 must be paid back in 10 years' time.

The logic also holds for exchange traded bonds that pay regular fixed interest amounts through to maturity, such as the 3% coupon, March 2047 bond highlighted above. In fact, using the accumulation approach for that bond, accumulating the future coupons plus the $100 redemption to March 2047, at an interest rate of 1%, returns a value of $226.60. A good approximation to the price of the bond at a minus 1% yield, of $227.32.

Why does anyone invest at negative rates?

With some $17 trillion of negative yielding bonds now existing worldwide and growing, why would anyone invest in such debt? There are a number of reasons.

1. Scope for capital gains. If interest rates fall even further, bond prices rise.

2. Ride the yield curve. Assume a normal yield curve where the shorter the term, the more negative the yield. With the passage of time and all else being equal, holding a long-term bond will see the yield fall and the price rise. Therefore, capital gains are possible.

3. If deflation is expected. A negative 1% bond yield with negative 2% inflation, implies a positive 1% real return.

4. If liquidity is important. The highly liquid and cash-like bond market is usually preferable to holding a wad of cash.

5. It may be the best yield you can achieve without putting your capital at risk, with government bonds virtually risk-free.

We have a new world order when it comes to investment yields on government debt, and negative 10-year bond yields in Australia may not be too far away here. So we should at least try to make sense of a strange situation and adapt accordingly.

 

Tony Dillon is a freelance writer and former actuary. This article is gheneral information and does not consider the circumstances of any investor.

 

5 Comments
stefy
September 19, 2019

I don't care what spin is put on negative interest rates, IMO it's madness.

SMSF Trustee
September 22, 2019

Why stefy?

Is it madness for markets to price in a world economy unable to generate a positive rate of return on risk free capital when that's exactly what we see happening in so many economies? Is it madness to assume that the failure to generate inflation will continue and that a negative nominal rate of return might actually be a half decent real return over the next ten years or so? Is it madness to see that monetary policy has not yet been able to find a level that drives economic growth and inflation, thus resulting in most people acknowledging that zero cash rates are around for a while yet?

I don't think so.

Just because it hasn't happened before doesn't make it 'madness'. Just because we don't like it or enjoy it doesn't make it madness. Madness would be to put your head in the sand and deny that it's happening.

Tony Dillon
September 19, 2019

"In effect, the bond issuer requires at the outset, the redemption amount accumulated at a rate approximately equal to the bond yield 'paid' by the investor. "

Just to expand on this statement for the mathematically inclined.

It can be shown that taking the present value of a cash flow stream at an interest rate of i%, is equivalent to accumulating that cash flow at a rate equal to -i / (1 + i)%.

And when i is of sufficiently small magnitude, (1 + i) is close to 1, therefore -i / (1 + i) is close to -i.

Now when i = -1%, the present value of $100 payable in 10 years time equals $100 / (1 + (-0.01))^10 = $110.57.

If we instead accumulated at a rate equal to and opposite in sign to the -1% yield, that is at 1%, we accumulate to $100 x (1+0.01)^10 = $110.46. Which is a good "approximation" to the present value at i = -1%.

And accumulating $100 for 10 years at -(-0.01) / (1 + (-0.01)) = 0.010101, equals $100 x (1+0.010101)^10 = $110.57, exactly the same as taking the present value at i = -0.01.

James
September 18, 2019

Do we really need to get used to it, investing at a negative rate for 30 years? Better do a complete redesign of every retirement income forecast.

SMSF Trustee
September 21, 2019

James, if you haven't done that already you are way behind the eight ball. Yes, get used to it!

 

Leave a Comment:

RELATED ARTICLES

What does the current yield curve tell us?

Why investors buy bonds at negative yields

banner

Most viewed in recent weeks

Australian house prices close in on world record

Sydney is set to become the world’s most expensive city for housing over the next 12 months, a new report shows. Our other major cities aren’t far behind unless there are major changes to improve housing affordability.

The case for the $3 million super tax

The Government's proposed tax has copped a lot of flack though I think it's a reasonable approach to improve the long-term sustainability of superannuation and the retirement income system. Here’s why.

7 examples of how the new super tax will be calculated

You've no doubt heard about Division 296. These case studies show what people at various levels above the $3 million threshold might need to pay the ATO, with examples ranging from under $500 to more than $35,000.

The revolt against Baby Boomer wealth

The $3m super tax could be put down to the Government needing money and the wealthy being easy targets. It’s deeper than that though and this looks at the factors behind the policy and why more taxes on the wealthy are coming.

Meg on SMSFs: Withdrawing assets ahead of the $3m super tax

The super tax has caused an almighty scuffle, but for SMSFs impacted by the proposed tax, a big question remains: what should they do now? Here are ideas for those wanting to withdraw money from their SMSF.

The super tax and the defined benefits scandal

Australia's superannuation inequities date back to poor decisions made by Parliament two decades ago. If super for the wealthy needs resetting, so too does the defined benefits schemes for our public servants.

Latest Updates

Planning

Will young Australians be better off than their parents?

For much of Australia’s history, each new generation has been better off than the last: better jobs and incomes as well as improved living standards. A new report assesses whether this time may be different.

Superannuation

The rubbery numbers behind super tax concessions

In selling the super tax, Labor has repeated Treasury claims of there being $50 billion in super tax concessions annually, mostly flowing to high-income earners. This figure is vastly overstated.

Investment strategies

A steady road to getting rich

The latest lists of Australia’s wealthiest individuals show that while overall wealth has continued to rise, gains by individuals haven't been uniform. Many might have been better off adopting a simpler investment strategy.

Economy

Would a corporate tax cut boost productivity in Australia?

As inflation eases, the Albanese government is switching its focus to lifting Australia’s sluggish productivity. Can corporate tax cuts reboot growth - or are we chasing a theory that doesn’t quite work here?

Are V-shaped market recoveries becoming more frequent?

April’s sharp rebound may feel familiar, but are V-shaped recoveries really more common in the post-COVID world? A look at market history suggests otherwise and hints that a common bias might be skewing perceptions.

Investment strategies

Asset allocation in a world of riskier developed markets

Old distinctions between developed and emerging market bonds no longer hold true. At a time where true diversification matters more than ever, this has big ramifications for the way that portfolios should be constructed.

Investment strategies

Top 5 investment reads

As the July school holiday break nears, here are some investment classics to put onto your reading list. The books offer lessons in investment strategy, financial disasters, and mergers and acquisitions.

Sponsors

Alliances

© 2025 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. To the extent any content is general advice, it has been prepared for clients of Morningstar Australasia Pty Ltd (ABN: 95 090 665 544, AFSL: 240892), without reference to your financial objectives, situation or needs. For more information refer to our Financial Services Guide. 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.