Live data from Hacker News

Germany for First Time Sells 30-Year Bonds Offering Negative Yields

wsj.com

101–110 of 314 posts

Re: Germany for First Time Sells 30-Year Bonds Offering Negative Yields

#101
post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Those of you (US) with large stock/cash positions: what are you doing to weather the (inevitable) storm I follow the traditional advice of doing nothing and not trying to time the market.

Yeah I get that. What about for people like me who are trying to enter the market? I'm wondering if it's worth it to wait and see, or if I should just not worry too much and invest now anyway.

On average, buying now is cheaper than buying later. And you can't time the market.

You're going to be contributing to this for years and years, so where the market was at when you invested your first dollar will be meaningless.

Re: Germany for First Time Sells 30-Year Bonds Offering Negative Yields

#102
post #27

I’m starting to entertain the idea of a massive bubble in bonds. Is inflation really never going to show again? I can’t understand why anyone would want to hold a fiat currency for 30 years for no return. Is it due to portfolio theory where the assumption is stocks and bonds yields have inverse correlation and the way to manage risk is to have a correct ratio? Due to global QE there is too much money floating without…

> Is inflation really never going to show again?

In developed economies money is being removed nearly as fast as it's being added, in the form of going into the blackhole of low to negative yielding paper. It's removing a present ~$17 trillion of capital that could otherwise be sloshing around pressing inflation higher. That's an extraordinary amount of money that has largely been rendered non-impacting. There are only a few areas where you see any inflationary pressure in the US, such as in assets like equities and real-estate, due to the Fed rates. In that case you've got people with immense collective free capital pressing aggressively upward on prices (willing to pay a high premium to try to get a return beyond what eg treasuries are offering).

It's why Japan can never spark traditional inflation (nor achieve any growth). Their epic pile of low yield debt has sucked a lot of the loose capital out of their economy. It's a giant pile of non-productive, non-active, ineffectual capital. Instead of going toward wage pressure / competition, growth, business formation & loans, VC, productivity investments, R&D, et al.

If you could unleash $20-$30 trillion of increasingly low yielding debt back into the US economy, inflation would skyrocket and it would demand far higher rates to control inflationary pressure.

It takes several things working in tandem to result in this unusual outcome. Countries outside of the developed world - the first tier, affluent economies - have a near impossible time achieving such low or negative yields, and lack of inflationary pressure.

Re: Germany for First Time Sells 30-Year Bonds Offering Negative Yields

#103

I feel like I still don't understand negative yields, despite really trying to. Negative yields means that I put in $X (or euro/whatever germany is using) and I later am guarenteed no more than $Y out of the exchange, where Y < X. I am literally guaranteed to lose money. I could just hold on to my money, "keep it under my mattress" and still make a better ROI than bonds with negative yields. Why would anybody buy the…

One way to make money is if you sell the bond at a higher price later to another buyer. From the article:

“Why are people buying at negative yields? It is mainly in expectation that you’re going to be able to sell to someone at a higher price later on,” said Andrea Iannelli, investment director, fixed income at Fidelity International. “Whatever the yield you have to assume you’re going to make more on the capital gain than lose on the yield.”

So Y X and you profit.

As an analogy I just thought up: it's kind of like overpaying for a house, thinking that in time the house value will appreciate.

Re: Germany for First Time Sells 30-Year Bonds Offering Negative Yields

#104
post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would a derivatives exchange not accept cash? what are people buying those derivatives with? Furthermore, how could any bond (or anything at all for that matter) be less risky than cash? the market value of a bond may change over time but $1 will always be worth $1. Inflation may change the purchasing power of that dollar but then the exact same mechanism will effect the bonds as well.

Cash has risks: * risk of physical destruction * risk of physical theft * risk of forgery etc etc There's some nonzero cost to accept, handle, vet, store, etc for cash. That's not even including if there are extra reporting laws or other for large amounts of cash, which just adds to the overhead.

These are all concerns with paper, not “cash” as it’s commonly considered in finance.

Have $xx,xxx in a checking account at a national bank. It’s a database entry, not a pallet of pennies. Furthermore, with fractional reserve banking, I sincerely doubt if there’s enough coins and bills in the country to account for the total “cash” in all the accounts, let alone all the assets.

Similarly, everyone involved in these transactions have access to the same banking system. There’s no reason you need to fly a C-5 with pallets of Swiss francs around. (Even then, it seemed absurd since both governments could access Swiss banks.)

Re: Germany for First Time Sells 30-Year Bonds Offering Negative Yields

#105

I feel like I still don't understand negative yields, despite really trying to. Negative yields means that I put in $X (or euro/whatever germany is using) and I later am guarenteed no more than $Y out of the exchange, where Y < X. I am literally guaranteed to lose money. I could just hold on to my money, "keep it under my mattress" and still make a better ROI than bonds with negative yields. Why would anybody buy the…

Held individually the negative-yield bonds don't make much sense. However, they can actually improve the risk-adjusted returns of a portfolio that also holds stocks. This is because long-term bonds have, in the past decade, been negatively correlated with stocks [1,2].

[1] https://imgur.com/a/r9nCsN5

[2] https://www.portfoliovisualizer.com/asset-correlations?s=y&s...

Re: Germany for First Time Sells 30-Year Bonds Offering Negative Yields

#106
post #95
post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Look at the S&P 500 index from early 2008 to say 2012. Governments will enact policies to prop up the stock and bond markets, as they always have. Our entire civilization is held up on the promise that financial market indices go up over time, except for temporary recessionary periods. We just accept that retirees cashing out at the wrong time will be victims of 'collateral damage' during these 'market corrections'.…

People who bought the Nikkei index in the early 1990s are still waiting for the correction to end...

https://dqydj.com/nikkei-return-calculator-dividend-reinvest...

After dividends, you broke even after inflation (-0.096% return) if you dumped your life savings into the Nikkei in Jan 1990 and never invested another dime.

But if you kept investing incrementally over the years, like most people do, then annual returns went to 2.5% after inflation in 1995-2000, to 6.5% in 2005 and 9.4% in 2010.

Re: Germany for First Time Sells 30-Year Bonds Offering Negative Yields

#107
post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So for an institutional investor, a negative yield bond is essentially a hedge against bank failure?

Yea that’s a good way to think about it

Does that mean a negative yield indicates a loss of trust in banks? That institutional investors are so desperate to avoid relying on banks that they're willing to take a loss on gov't bonds?

Re: Germany for First Time Sells 30-Year Bonds Offering Negative Yields

#108
post #96
post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's no electronic cash account they can put up? If not, why not, and why can't we enable something like that so people aren't forced to buy bonds in order to hold cash?

It would be counter productive to society. Put money in a bank, the bank lends it out, the money serves society buy financing a new business or perhaps consumption but either way it is doing something. Lend it to the government in the form of bonds and they'll spend it on something. If it just goes into the cash account you're describing, it does nothing but exist, in the event of recessions this would be severely da…

So people should be forced to invest their money even if they don't think any of the ventures are worthwhile? And physical cash shouldn't exist either?

Re: Germany for First Time Sells 30-Year Bonds Offering Negative Yields

#109
post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

continue to put x% of my salary into vanguard ETFs, and store the rest in cash. you cannot time the market.

I'm using Questrade, and because I have a self-directed account, I need to put in a buy order manually 1x/month. Is that the way it's normally done? I used to have a mutual fund through my bank, where I'd set a monthly amount and they'd automatically deposit that into the fund from my chequing account. I decided to try something different since the reporting tools available through the online banking system were very…

Cheap Vanguard funds like VFIAX (S&P500) or VTSAX(Total US stock market). No need for managed funds that charge over 5 basis points, you're just wasting money. Then sock away cash in a no fee online high yield banking account like Ally or Marcus.

Re: Germany for First Time Sells 30-Year Bonds Offering Negative Yields

#110
post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would a derivatives exchange not accept cash? what are people buying those derivatives with? Furthermore, how could any bond (or anything at all for that matter) be less risky than cash? the market value of a bond may change over time but $1 will always be worth $1. Inflation may change the purchasing power of that dollar but then the exact same mechanism will effect the bonds as well.

I think the answer to both your questions is because there are costs to securely storing cash. That also makes cash risky compared to bonds, where you are not responsible for the security.

Why is everyone responding to the question under the same misinterpretation, that it means "cash" as in "physical banknotes" rather than "electronic Euros"? I know the principle of charity is hard sometimes, but come on.
Post reply on HN