So when Phillips 66 dumped crude for immediate delivery in Cushing late Wednesday, resulting in the lowest closing price for WTI in 13 years on Thursday, it had nothing to do with supply and demand. Got it.
We don't need negative rates here; just the existence of negative rates in other countries acts like a black hole, sucking our interest rates down into it. And get back to us when crude is overflowing into the streets of Cushing, taking the price of WTI and the stock market down with it.
Last week, Zero Hedge pointed out that Wednesday's spike in WTI (on a day when EIA data showed crude inventories rising by 7.8 million barrels) could be traced to a $600 million liquidation in the triple-inverse oil ETN, DWTI, on Tuesday. The ETN’s issuer, Credit Suisse, was essentially forced to buy back short positions the following day, resulting in a massive short squeeze. Based on the fact that the ETN is currently trading at a huge discount to its Net Asset Value, ZH has surmised that a similar liquidation occurred yesterday. Just another example of how our “markets” have become the playthings of high frequency traders and reckless leveraged funds.
So what happens when the inevitable Yuan devaluation occurs in the next few months (when China's FX reserves reach the IMF's red-line of $2.8 trillion), or when Europe goes even further down the negative interest rate rabbit hole, or when Japan's economy finally implodes? Like I said, too many pieces on that chessboard to keep track of, so I'll just focus on inflation and the US economy.
The dollar is an unnecessary layer of complication (and too unpredictable for me anyway). The main drivers of long-term interest rates (for the past 140 years) are inflation, inflation expectations, and GDP growth, and I've done just fine for the past 5 or 6 years trading on the basis of those metrics.
Well played, barc - sounds like you're sticking to your discipline. I tend to think rates are headed even lower, so I'm hanging on to my bonds. In the event I'm wrong, I'm sure I'll have plenty of other chances in the coming months/years to get out...
It's amazing how much time they've spent talking about negative interest rates during her testimony. This is how the political establishment "prepares" us.
Contrary to popular belief, QE has always been negative for US Treasuries. During QE1, QE2 and QE3, long-term rates actually rose (because QE increases inflation expectations and stirs up investors' "animal spirits"). At the conclusion of each iteration of QE, rates fell dramatically within a matter of months. So the lesson is: sell at the first mention of new QE, and buy near its end. Lather, rinse and repeat for the next decade...
A yield of 0.25% on the 10Y would imply a yield of around 1.50% (or lower) on the 30Y, so TLT would be more like $160+, but keep in mind that this is almost a Depression scenario, so hopefully it doesn't happen...
We've had at least 6 months of recessionary red flags, so the situation is different than a year ago. Jim Grant, in a CNBC interview yesterday, said that he thought we were already in a recession. I think he may be a little early (bear markets in equities usually occur about 9 months before a recession), but I'm not sure. Treasuries are exactly where you want to be in a recession, though. NIRP, based on what we've seen in Europe, would likely result in even lower Treasury yields. But as I've said many times, a new announcement of QE would be my signal to sell (as it has been for the past 5 or 6 years). In the past, QE in the US (not Europe) has successfully raised inflation expectations (although eventually it won't work any more), resulting in a slow grind upward in rates. And when QE4 is about to end, of course, that will be the time to buy back in.
Just 3 short trading days later, and those ridiculous spreads between US and peripheral European bonds have collapsed.
As of today (10Y; 30Y):
Italy: 1.72%; 2.83%
Spain: 1.79%; 3.01%
US: 1.75%; 2.58%
In the eighties, the price of oil dropped from $30/bbl to $10/bbl and Shell did not cut the dividend. Conoco and Phillips Petroleum both had a history of cutting their dividends in tough times (before the merger and now post-merger). Shell has always had a unique culture regarding their dividend.
Both Conoco and Phillips Petroleum had a history of cutting/suspending dividends when times got tough. Royal Dutch Shell last cut its dividend in 1945, during the German occupation of the Netherlands during WWII. There are no guarantees in life, but Shell's institutional culture has always been such that the dividend is considered sacred (and its history backs it up).
Wow, so yahoo will not allow the shortened version of the "National Socialist German Workers' Party" on their message boards. That's kinda funny...
The last time Royal Dutch Shell cut its dividend was in 1945 when the Netherlands had just endured the ?Hunger winter? under #$%$ occupation (just before the end of WWII). So unless we see German Panzers on the horizon, I think the dividend is safe.
Sometimes it’s helpful to take a step back and put US Treasury rates in context. The following are yields for a sampling of global sovereign bonds as of today (first number is 10Y yield, second is 30Y):
Switzerland: -0.31%; 0.29%
Japan: 0.07%; 1.08%
Germany: 0.28%; 1.01%
France: 0.61%; 1.63%
Italy: 1.44%; 2.64%
UK: 1.53%; 2.34%
Spain: 1.55%; 2.84%
US: 1.88%; 2.70%
Of course twenty-five percent of Europe’s sovereign bonds are actually in negative yield territory, but those are generally of shorter duration (generally five years or less, although German bunds are negative out to seven years). Although there are fundamental reasons the rates on US Treasuries remain at historically low levels, one can’t ignore relative value as another compelling reason.