February 17, 2005
WE NEED HIGHER DEFICITS:
Where Did All the Long Bonds Go? (Rich Miller and Laura Cohn, 2/17/05, Business Week)
Is there a worldwide shortage of long bonds? It may seem like an odd question to ask when a host of governments -- from the U.S. to Britain to Japan -- are running huge budget deficits. But it's one that the financial markets increasingly are debating. [...]Behind the sudden popularity of long bonds are changes, actual and prospective, in regulations governing pension funds aimed at shoring up their finances and protecting retiree benefits. Those modifications are prompting pension plans to step up their long-bond purchases to more closely match the maturity of their assets to their longer-dated liabilities. The rule changes started in Britain two years ago, spread to the Netherlands, and now may be heading to the U.S.
On Jan. 10, the Bush Administration proposed a wide-ranging plan for reforming the way the $1.8 trillion private-pension fund industry operates, including the elimination of a host of regulations that have allowed the funds to legally underestimate the size of their liabilities. If approved by Congress, the reforms could prove to be a bonanza for the bond market.
When the Bush Administration put forward similar proposals some two years ago, the Committee on Investment of Employee Benefit Assets surveyed its pension-fund members to see how the proposed changes would affect them. The bottom line: As much as $650 billion of pension-fund assets could be shifted out of U.S. equities into long-term bonds.
That's what you get when you combine aging populations and just one trustworthy economy in the world. The global economic system would be destabilized if we did away with our deficit. Posted by Orrin Judd at February 17, 2005 10:47 AM
I could have sworn I read a couple of years ago that we were going to do away w/the 30-year.
Posted by: Sandy P at February 17, 2005 11:44 AMThe Treasury started "de-emphasizing" the 30-yr. bond back in 1993, which was really a gamble that interest rates were going to drop quickly, allowing the sale of more shorter-term bonds.
The effects of a quick rise in interest rates were ignored.
Posted by: jim hamlen at February 17, 2005 12:05 PMAs much as $650 billion of pension-fund assets could be shifted out of U.S. equities into long-term bonds.
Children, can you say "crash"?
Robert:
There're more than enough young to pick up the stock slack, especially as we buy trillions of dollars of them with SS accounts.
Posted by: oj at February 17, 2005 12:42 PMRobert - the pension funds (and other investors) will go where the value is - if stocks get cheap they will shift back from the bonds.
If I recall correctly the 30yr was discontinued as the growing surpluses meant they weren't needed anymore. The govt actually bought back some 30yr bonds in the open market since they had extra cash. 30yrs were purchased since they generally had the highest interest rates.
Of course if the govt budget accurately reflected the looming social security shortfall issuing long term bonds to eliminate this shortfall makes sense.
Posted by: AWW at February 17, 2005 12:55 PMAnd how many foreigners would pick up our companies cheap???
Posted by: Sandy P at February 17, 2005 1:33 PMBut will the young pick up enough slack to counter the boomer retirement which will shift money from stocks to cash or cash equivalents in their 401(k)'s and IRA's?
1945 + 65 year retirement age is 2010.
Posted by: Chris Durnell at February 17, 2005 6:48 PM