Morning Report: Bond yields approach their 2013 lows 4/5/16

Posted on April 5, 2016 by Brent Nyitray

Markets are lower for the second day in a row on global growth concerns. Bonds and MBS are up.

With the latest bond market rally, the 10 year bond yield is a stone’s throw away from the 2013 “taper tantrum” when the Fed began its withdrawal of QE. Part of the reason for the bond rally is the flight to safety in Europe. The German Bund now yields under 10 basis points. Talk about a all-risk/no reward trade. Falling global bond yields are pulling US Treasury yields lower as investors sell European and Japanese bonds to buy US Treasuries. For the mortgage industry, it should mean more refi volume. Since the Fed hiked rates in December, the 10 year yield has fallen 58 basis points. Who’d a thunk?

 

The ISM non-manufacturing index improved in March, after decelerating for most of last year and this year. Employment continues to be neutral.

Job openings fell in February to 5.445 million from 5.6 million the month before. These are still boom-time levels, which begs the question as to why the labor market continues to have such a low labor force participation rate. Many would argue it is a skills gap – the labor people need isn’t what is out there there right now.

Good article on how hard it can be for Millennials to get a mortgage these days if you have bad credit, given the regulatory shelling that has been going on for the past 8 years. There is definitely a cognitive dissonance in DC over the competing goals of increasing access to credit and slugging “unregulated” financial system even harder.

Ever wonder why a government guaranteed mortgage backed security trades for a much higher yield than the corresponding Treasury? The credit risk is the same – i.e. zero – so what is the reason for the difference. I discuss the reason in Rob Chrisman’s blog. Note there is some bond geek math going on in the explanation.

Former Fed Head Narayana Kochlerakota discusses the way we use the financial system for social engineering, and suggests if the government thinks college and housing needs to be subsidized, the answer is to subsidize it directly instead of subsidizing borrowing. FWIW, I have always thought the issue with college tuition inflation is that college is a good with inelastic demand. Colleges don’t compete on price and parents will pretty much pay whatever is asked. When the government subsidizes an inelastic good, the subsidies accrue to the producer, not the consumer. Which means the net effect is that the more the government subsidizes college education, the more colleges raise tuition.

Filed under: Economy, Morning Report |

« »

16 Responses

  1. markinaustin's avatar
    markinaustin, on April 5, 2016 at 11:18 am said:

    Frist.

    Sounds like we must buy more rental property, Brent.

    Like

    Reply
  2. jnc4p's avatar
    jnc4p, on April 5, 2016 at 5:14 pm said:

    Sanders comes across pretty badly in the recent New York Daily News interview:

    http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/transcript-bernie-sanders-meets-news-editorial-board-article-1.2588306

    Like

    Reply
    • ScottC's avatar
      ScottC, on April 5, 2016 at 6:09 pm said:

      jnc:

      Sanders comes across pretty badly in the recent New York Daily News interview:

      Yes, but I think it is a pretty accurate picture. He is an ignorant demagogue who knows virtually nothing of actual substance about the things he talks about.

      Like

      Reply
    • markinaustin's avatar
      markinaustin, on April 6, 2016 at 6:54 am said:

      On Sanders:

      I once knew a relatively dumb prosecutor whose nickname was “Tacho”. Tacho used to shake his finger and say “there’s something suspicious here” about almost everything.

      I see Tacho whenever I listen to Sanders, and I could hear Tacho in that interview.

      Tacho would not have understood what entity regulated the banking system, or Basel III, or Dodd-Frank, either. But he could shake his finger.

      Like

      Reply
    • jnc4p's avatar
      jnc4p, on April 6, 2016 at 9:31 am said:

      I’d say that’s more about Trump.

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply
      • Let the mutherfuker burn!'s avatar
        Let the mutherfuker burn!, on April 6, 2016 at 9:46 am said:

        It’s like the dude’s President already. Talk about ceding power, I thought Harry Reid had set the bar for it, I stand corrected.

        Like

        Reply
        • jnc4p's avatar
          jnc4p, on April 6, 2016 at 10:09 am said:

          Trump has certainly set the agenda for the campaign from the Republican side. On the Democratic side it’s Sanders, but they have more overlap on trade and immigration than either side would care to admit.

          Like

        • novahockey's avatar
          novahockey, on April 6, 2016 at 11:29 am said:

          my favorite part about this whole Sanders things is that so-called progressives are ready to stick him and his supporter in the ribs to keep power. so much for being idealists. it’s all about raw power. and they want it for Clinton

          Like

        • markinaustin's avatar
          markinaustin, on April 6, 2016 at 2:47 pm said:

          NoVA, read that interview with Sanders. If a true conservative can see through Trump’s invisible cloak, then a true liberal ought to see through Sanders’.

          It also makes sense for organizational Rs to fear DJT and organizational Ds to fear the I [Socialist] they permitted to run as a D. These are candidates with no party loyalties. If they were better informed and more reasonable persons the fervor they have created would be plausible and even compelling. What we have instead is noise.

          Like

Be kind, show respect, and all will be right with the world.