• 314 days Will The ECB Continue To Hike Rates?
  • 315 days Forbes: Aramco Remains Largest Company In The Middle East
  • 316 days Caltech Scientists Succesfully Beam Back Solar Power From Space
  • 716 days Could Crypto Overtake Traditional Investment?
  • 721 days Americans Still Quitting Jobs At Record Pace
  • 723 days FinTech Startups Tapping VC Money for ‘Immigrant Banking’
  • 726 days Is The Dollar Too Strong?
  • 726 days Big Tech Disappoints Investors on Earnings Calls
  • 727 days Fear And Celebration On Twitter as Musk Takes The Reins
  • 729 days China Is Quietly Trying To Distance Itself From Russia
  • 729 days Tech and Internet Giants’ Earnings In Focus After Netflix’s Stinker
  • 733 days Crypto Investors Won Big In 2021
  • 733 days The ‘Metaverse’ Economy Could be Worth $13 Trillion By 2030
  • 734 days Food Prices Are Skyrocketing As Putin’s War Persists
  • 736 days Pentagon Resignations Illustrate Our ‘Commercial’ Defense Dilemma
  • 737 days US Banks Shrug off Nearly $15 Billion In Russian Write-Offs
  • 740 days Cannabis Stocks in Holding Pattern Despite Positive Momentum
  • 741 days Is Musk A Bastion Of Free Speech Or Will His Absolutist Stance Backfire?
  • 741 days Two ETFs That Could Hedge Against Extreme Market Volatility
  • 743 days Are NFTs About To Take Over Gaming?
  1. Home
  2. Markets
  3. Other

Perspective

The most fatal illusion is the settled point of view. Since life is growth and motion, a fixed point of view kills anybody who has one - Brooks Atkinson

With another Fed meeting and prospective taper coming down the pike this afternoon, we thought we would frame the question of the times (Are 10-year yields headed higher or lower? - see Here) with a bit more historical perspective to what we perceive to be a "settled point of view" in the market.

Recognizing the distinctions between the current Fed who enacts policy from the mystical realm of zero-bound and the more recent committees over the past twenty years that enjoyed such luxuries of a fed funds rate greater than 3.00%, we don't think most participants grasp how significant a move in 10-year yields was accomplished last year - and how improbable the expectations for a continuation higher is today.

Even when contrasting the bond market carnage in 1994 - brought on by the commencement of an unexpected Fed tightening cycle, the move in 10-year yields over the past year has been twice its magnitude. When viewed as a comparative study between these two time periods (normalized below by the month over month performance) you can see that even during an actual Fed rate tightening period in which the fed funds rate doubled from 3% in February of 1994 to 6% in February of 1995, 10-year yields crested only ~ 40% above the previous years low and started breaking down during the Fed's final rate hike in February of 1995. To put the move in even greater context, 10-year yields appreciated just shy of 70% from the entirety of the previous cycle low in June 2003 to the cyclical peak in June 2006. This encompassed a Fed rate tightening cycle which took the fed funds rate gradually from 1.0% in June 2004 to 5.25% in June 2006.

Over the past year, with just a posturing shift by the Fed to an eventual curtailment of quantitative measures, 10-year yields crested ~ 80% above the May 2013 breakout.


Larger Image

The magnitude of the move in the current yield disposition is lucidly presented below in the long-term chart we've posted ad infinitum since last December. Simply put, the increase has been greater and more severe than at any period in the last 50 years. With respect to current and future expectations, this development has translated downstream to a market environment which now overwhelming (67 out 67 economist believe rates are headed higher) anticipates the trend continuing and where the impact to the economy - as evident in the downturn in the housing market - has been material.


Larger Image

One of our standing refrains (see Here) since we began publishing our thoughts back in 2011 has been that greater historical perspective was needed when appraising the long-term yield cycle. While we recognize that it's only one part of the story, we appreciate the unbridled force of nature and inertias it appears to be driven by and the comparatively geologic-time horizons required in understanding its cycle. Greenspan called it the conundrum, predominantly because he had little ability in affecting yields higher. The Clinton administration referred to it as under the influence of bond vigilantes, because they perceived the move in yields as too severe. Both camps were left grasping at straws and we suspect there will be more confusion in the years ahead as we see yields troughing around 2% longer than most would anticipate.


Larger Image

 

Back to homepage

Leave a comment

Leave a comment