Bloomberg: The World Better Get Used to Negative Rates

Reece

Superstar
Supporter
Joined
Feb 8, 2015
Messages
7,181
Reputation
1,735
Daps
37,724
:patrice: Been reading alot about this lately. The Fed never unwound their balance sheets from the last stimulus, and interest rates are already rock bottom. They can't go any further to stimulate the economy amid another meltdown. Then you had Dalio in the news the other day saying MMT and stimulus from the government is where we will look to next but, the whole purpose was to separate monetary decisions from who was in office wasn't it? :patrice: A few people out there talking about the IMF and the BIS being the next backstop too :patrice:

Bloomberg

Today, around $10 trillion of bonds are trading at negative yields, mainly in Europe and Japan. In the next recession, U.S. interest rates, too, may enter negative territory: Short-term rates are currently running around 2.5 percent, and cuts of between 3 percent and 5 percent are commonly needed to restart economic activity. In markets where rates are even lower or already negative, rates will need to go deeply into into the red.

Negative real rates refer to returns below inflation. Negative nominal yields involve a guaranteed loss of capital invested. In other words, if an investor places a deposit with a bank, she will receive at maturity an amount less than the original investment. In the case of bonds, negative yields mean that investors lose the difference between the price paid and the face value.

The only way to avoid losses in such a situation is to physically withdraw cash and hold it, or to purchase real assets or equities. There are a host of reasons why that’s harder than it sounds. Those worried about security and safety will have little choice but to invest in government bonds or insured bank deposits. Also, returns are relative; it’s possible that purchasing negatively yielding securities may be the least-bad alternative available.

Some investors may be attracted by the opportunity for capital gains if they expect yields to become more negative; foreign investors may see possible currency appreciation. Others may focus on real rather than nominal returns, as even negative returns may preserve or increase purchasing power under deflationary conditions.

Some investment mandates force fund managers to purchase bonds, even if yields are negative. Similarly, liquidity regulations require banks and insurance companies to hold high-quality securities no matter what. Central banks that face restricted investment choices may also be customers.

Negative rates are supposed to work through the same economic channelsas low or zero rates -- boosting asset prices to enhance the wealth effect, increasing the velocity of money and encouraging greater borrowing. In theory, savers facing the threat of losses should increase investment and consumption, helping to boost economic growth and inflation. Yet, where negative rates have been implemented, they’ve been singularly ineffective, even as they’ve created serious economic and financial distortions.

The real reason the world is in this predicament is the failure to deal with unsustainable debt levels. Debt can only be reduced in one of four ways: through strong growth, inflation, currency devaluation (where the borrowing is from foreigners) or default. All the strategies other than growth involve some level of transfer of value from savers, either by reducing the nominal value returned or through decreased purchasing power.

Growth and inflation are weak. Devaluation is difficult if every nation tries to reduce the value of its currency at the same time. Debt defaults on the scale required would destroy a large portion of the world’s savings, not to mention affect the solvency of the financial system, triggering a collapse of economic activity. That’s why policymakers resist write-downs of trillions of dollars’ worth of debt that cannot be paid back.

So, central banks must instead covertly use negative rates to reduce excessive debt levels by transferring wealth from savers to borrowers through the slow confiscation of capital.

What negative rates are telling us is that the global economic system cannot generate sufficient income to service, let alone repay, current debt levels. The latter are so high that even current, artificially depressed rates only allow them to be barely managed.

The fact remains that someone has to pay the price of the financial excesses of the last few decades. With low and negative rates, that “someone” will be savers.
 

Meta Reign

I walk the streets like, ''say something, n!gga!''
Joined
Jun 9, 2012
Messages
3,224
Reputation
-3,591
Daps
6,590
Reppin
Franklin ave.
Because in Bizzaro World, the bank is doing YOU favor by holding your money. . . I mean, why should a bank -- an institution that can "print" any amount of money it wants and call it profit (in one way or another, with restrictions), with the assistance of it's respective central bank -- be forced to hold your peasant pennies?:hhh:


Sarcasm done: . . . People know so little about monetary policy (purposely by design) they read an article like this and can't even see the butt rape. They read this, and just straight up accept the problem, reaction and solution given to them. They will argue a man like me down, based off of these type of articles. They won't DARE question, who really benefits. . . I mean beacuse it's not obvious enough that PAYING the bank to hold your money isn't a blind robbing of society enough.

We are so far gone, man.
 

Meta Reign

I walk the streets like, ''say something, n!gga!''
Joined
Jun 9, 2012
Messages
3,224
Reputation
-3,591
Daps
6,590
Reppin
Franklin ave.
Me as grandpa: You know there was a time where the bank would pay YOU to hold your money!

Grandkid: Really?! What happened?!

Me: Well, eventually banks gained so much of our resources and political influence that they didn't need to hide the fact that they were the ones who were really in charge anymore. So they decided to say "fukk it, let's just take the people's money straight to their faces now."

Gk: That ain't how I learned it old man!

Me: No, really! This is just a tax for living under a Corporatist economic system. Please believe me!

Gk: :hhh:

Me: :mjcry:
 
Top