AdamA wrote:
MediumTex wrote:
If 30 year yields reached 0%, then I would say move into t-bills for a while.
I have been fascinated by the discussion of negative yields on LTT's that pops up on this site from time to time.
Does anyone think this is possible?
Yes, I think it's possible. But I also think it would be historically unprecedented (or nearly so). I suppose there's a first time for everything, so why not for negative long-term bond yields? And if it's possible, I suppose an investor wanting to protect against the worst-case scenario might want to allow for it in his portfolio allocation. Then again, maybe not. Who knows.
I use a Treasury Only MMF right now and essentially accept a negative yield (because of the expense ratio). I do it for safety and convenience.
What if at some point people were willing to do the same with longer dated bonds? Maybe moving out of LTT's would be a mistake at that point...
I realize that this is very far-fetched, but it's fun to discuss.
Accepting negative yield on short bonds can make sense if you expect danger ahead or deflation for the next couple of years. Accepting negative yield on long bonds requires a
much gloomier outlook since it encompasses the next 30 years (!!).
But who am I to argue with reality? Even Japan hasn't yet experienced a 30-year period of net deflation, but if things continue along their current trajectory, they might eventually get there. And so may the U.S.
If 30-year yields go negative, I would imagine short bond yields would be even more negative, thus providing at least
some relative incentive to invest in long vs. short. And if money 30 years from now is expected to have more purchasing power than money today has (i.e., net deflation over 30 years)... well then, maybe a slightly negative yield on long bonds wouldn't be such an unreasonable thing to accept.