Give me a break (even)

Top: TIPS  & UST curves; Bottom: break-evens

Some market participants have described the mechanism through which quantitative monetary policy (read: LSAPs) works or is intended to work to be centered around inflation expectations. The line of thinking is that the Fed is trying to stoke inflation expectations to incentivise purchase of goods today by increasing the rate at which people expect the price level to increase while holding down rates, increasing the gap between yields and expectations of inflation, commonly referred to as the "real rate" and observed in the market for Treasury Inflation Protected Securities (TIPS).

From the TIPS and US Treasury Notes and Bonds curves we can derive what we call "break-evens," or the level of future inflation at which payoffs of both TIPS and regular Treasuries are the same. There's some idiosyncrasies here because there is optionality in TIPS as and a right skew to inflation, and so it is possible (and in my opinion true) that this option is reflected in yields and TIPS holders are willing to pay an additional premium (which is constantly changing) for the embedded option which is ultimately reflected in break-evens, which are often interpreted as "inflation expectations."

5-year, 10-year, and 5-year forward 5-year break-evens (rhs)
YoY All Urban Consumers CPI (lhs)

It is hard to ignore the sudden rise in break-evens coinciding with anticipation for Fed LSAPs (QE), and I am choosing to interpret this reaction as representative of market participant "animal spirits." The sudden rise in break-evens (71bp for 5y!!) means that a level of inflation above the Fed's symmetrical target is now "priced-in" for US Treasuries. Which leaves us with the question, "Will incremental asset purchases by the Fed increase the compounded annual rate of inflation by 0.70% over the next five years?" My opinion is that they will not and break-evens are showing us that there is either panic over what additional LSAPs mean for near-term inflation or there the option embedded in TIPS is being aggressively bought and the rise in break-evens reflects the rising premium of this hypothetical call option.

With both core and headline YoY CPI comparisons below the 2% symmetrical target, core YoY CPI displaying a negative 1st derivative and YoY comparisons getting easier (CPI rate of change peaked last year around August) it looks to me like break-evens are excessively ebullient given the evidence of quantitative policy effects on the general price level over the last 3+ years in the US. It is my belief that quantitative monetary policy alone during a period of deleveraging can not generate the necessary credit growth to drive meaningful price inflation other than through whatever transitory effect a weaker currency has on commodity inputs (which represent a small % of final price).  As I mentioned in The Twist, redux,

While borrowers continue to deleverage, any impact from lower rates will be limited and as mortgage debt outstanding continues to fall, the marginal stimulative power of monetary policy, unfortunately, diminishes.

Additionally,there is evidence to doubt whether lower MBS spreads will be passed on to customers or whether the banks will keep the windfall. Despite current coupons trading at record tight spreads, the "primary-secondary" spread remains, not only stubbornly high, but near all-time record highs! (see lower left). ... This is why, unless we see further expansion of H.A.R.P. (Home Affordable Refinance Program) which increases the pool of homeowners eligible for refinance, I think the ultimate effect of an "MBS Twist" on aggregate demand will be limited and the ultimate economic beneficiaries will be banks and security holders who see their securities increase in price. 

YoY % change in average hourly and weekly earnings
of private sector employees. (source)

That is why, unless the Fed's continuing LSAPs are paired with fiscal stimulus (hopefully in the form of an extension of the HARP program) I have a hard time believing current break-evens will be achieved. Additionally, I have chosen to interpret the Fed FOMC's decision to embark in another round of LSAPs as confirmation the economy remains fragile and the growth outlook has not improved and, with gasoline prices flirting with $5/gal, and real wages still falling, it is hard to see how marginal purchases of mortgage securities (that have marginally diminishing impact) will manage to stoke aggregate demand to a level that drives meaningful inflation in the short term. Keeping mortgage rates low provides an increase in discretionary income for homeowners able to refinance at a lower rate but, if real wages don't grow and gasoline price increases are taking a significant portion of those savings, the beneficiaries are basically just treading water. And, if I had to guess, I would guess that a non-trivial portion of savings from any mortgage refinancing will go towards paying down revolving credit.

That's why, against every piece of folksy advice* I've gotten from veteran traders, I am very much bullish on the 10-year Treasury Note. I bought exposure to this tenor because I think, in no uncertain terms, that inflation expectations have a harsh reality check coming, the embedded call in TIPS is grossly overpriced and--due to their healthy roll, favorable 2s10s steepness and high exposure to inflation expectations--the ten year note is the ideal way to play this thesis. As such, I will continue to buy weakness in the note and concentrate my duration exposure around this particular tenor. The market has become entirely too intoxicated with the promises of QE and has forgotten that monetary base expansion is not inflationary without both credit and wage growth.

The you go, that is my thesis for buying dimes. In the words of my friend Kevin Ferry, "book it, time-stamp it, laminate it, decoupage it, roll it up and smoke it!"

* "Don't fight the Fed," "Don't fight the tape," "Don't get married to a position," "There's old traders and bold trades but no old bold traders"

Muni Madness

Via FRED, the Bond Buyer Index GO 20y to maturity, mixed quality) spread to treasuries (weekly)

I've made no secret that I have been a heavy buyer of long-term municipal credit risk, taxable and non (via Build America Bonds) with short in treasuries of similar maturity to isolate the spread, looking for compression. But, please, take a look at the big 2008 spike. At these levels DV01s are big, so that widening can be really painful. Do yourself a favor and watch your risk levels. While there's reasons (scroll down to TOB section if you must) why I, personally, don't expect a 2008-like event, I am ready for it. This goes double if you think you are going to boost your positive carry and grab extra return from a wide discount in CEFs, as illustrated below.

XBBNX is NAV of BBN

Discount / premium of MQT via CEF Connect

UPDATE-1: Going back to 1953 using the monthly 20y treasury series with the long-term average series for the gap (pretty good fit, actually)

Treasuries as volatile as stocks!

The NYT has a story about how long-term treasurys are sensitive to changes in yield. Socking, I know.

“There could be near-equity-like volatility” coming for these bonds, warned Joseph H. Davis, chief economist and head of the investment strategy group at the Vanguard Group.
...
The Vanguard Long-Term Treasury fund, for example, has lost around 8 percent of its value in just the last two and a half months

and,

In the first six months of 2009, the average long-term government bond fund lost 23 percent of its value, only to climb around 14 percent in the subsequent four months, slump 8 percent in the next six months, and soar 26 percent between April and August of this year.

I applaud Mr. Lim for his mention of duration in the article, it's nice to see a journalist not treating his/her readers like idiots, but I wish he would have gone the extra mile and mentioned convexity. By bringing down long-term yields, the Fed was the one that increased volatility in bond prices by increasing duration. Just like the decline in long-term yields has created great gains for bond holders, it is putting them at great risk. To see why, look at the graph below.

Image borrowed from thismatter.com

As you can see, the line turns nearly vertical as yields approach zero. This is the same effect that you see in the graphs displayed in the housing affordability posts. The slope of that line is the sensitivity of interest rates, in fact, the slope of the tangent is the duration that Mr Lim mentions. What I wish he had mentioned, however, was that that volatility is natural at rates this low. Changes in yield have not really been violent, but these instruments are very sensitive to yield levels. in the future, it will not be ticks up in yield that are at fault for making bond investors lose money, it will be the Fed for bringing down far rates to such low levels, and investors for not doing their homework.

Of course, investors need not lose money even if yields move up. Mr. Lim accurately explained how coupon payments may make-up for loss in bond price, but he forgot one more thing, the yield curve. With a positively-sloped yield curve, the value of a bond naturally increases as time passes because the rate on near-term securities is lower than those on longer-term securities. In other words, if the 30-yr rate is 6% and the 20-yr rate is 5%, then an investor could absorb a 1% rise in the 20-yr rate over 10 years without having to absorb a loss on the price of his/her bonds. This may do little for investors in the 30-yr bond, but when you consider the gap between the 3 and 7 is 126bp, you see how that positive slope can provide a little cushion to bond holders. In the mean time, though, investors looking for low volatility are cordially invited to invest in one of the safest assets out there, cash and cash equivalents.