How exactly does negative interest on government bonds work?

No, that's just it. When someone takes a mortgage from the bank, the bank pays them a slight amount of interest on the mortgage. You still have the mortgage payment to make, but the interest portion of the payment is actually a credit to you, from the bank.

http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/7f4e2f4c-dde3-11e4-9d29-00144feab7de.html

Given this, why would the bank want to lend out money?
OK, so I agree with you. If banks were really wholesale lending money at negative interest. I think that they're not and this just makes for a good story. Ms. Christiansen seems to be an anomaly and they even point out that "Even Ms Christiansen will still pay the bank each month due to the fees on her loan." I know a bunch of investors who would borrow an infinite amount of money in Denmark if they got paid by the bank to do so, including myself, so clearly this isn't a condition that could persist since commercial lending rates are a function of supply and demand.
BTW, thanks for the nice reference, it made it very clear what we were talking about.
 
No, that's just it. When someone takes a mortgage from the bank, the bank pays them a slight amount of interest on the mortgage. You still have the mortgage payment to make, but the interest portion of the payment is actually a credit to you, from the bank.

http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/7f4e2f4c-dde3-11e4-9d29-00144feab7de.html

Given this, why would the bank want to lend out money?
Credit cards are still 14 to 25% in ZIRP . 14% with excellent credit. Unlilely to chamge woth ZIRP. But, if we get a credit for a mortgage i guess banks would have to be subsidized by the government or fed.
 
In the countries where this is happening banks are charging for large deposits. Also banks present counterparty risk. Governments don't (at least in their own currency for developed countries).

There are limits on how much physical cash you can hold. You need to pay for a strongbox and insurance.

There may end up being legal limits http://gainspainscapital.com/2015/10/08/governments-have-begun-moving-to-ban-physical-cash/

GAT

Do you think gold would also be banned under NIRP? How about foreign bonds for countries without NIRP? Maybe they'd be classified as NIRP 'havens' and targeted? I can definitely see why a government would like a cash ban.
 
Do you think gold would also be banned under NIRP? How about foreign bonds for countries without NIRP? Maybe they'd be classified as NIRP 'havens' and targeted? I can definitely see why a government would like a cash ban.

Gold is tricky, as I think that is such a totemic asset there would be outcry, even though most people only own a few ounces max in the form of jewelrrey.

It's much easier to ban overseas holdings or bank accounts, since most people don't have them or care about them. But this would be pointless since they'd have to operate exemptions for companies doing international trade; an easy loophole to get through.

Effectively these are forms of capital controls. We don't like capital controls in developed countries, especially the anglo saxon ones.

This is pure politics, not economics.

GAT
 
OK, so I agree with you. If banks were really wholesale lending money at negative interest. I think that they're not and this just makes for a good story. Ms. Christiansen seems to be an anomaly and they even point out that "Even Ms Christiansen will still pay the bank each month due to the fees on her loan." I know a bunch of investors who would borrow an infinite amount of money in Denmark if they got paid by the bank to do so, including myself, so clearly this isn't a condition that could persist since commercial lending rates are a function of supply and demand.
BTW, thanks for the nice reference, it made it very clear what we were talking about.

You can't borrow infinite money, because you're still responsible for the debt payment. It's not like you get paid, net, to borrow. It's just that lending is no longer profitable (not that it is at low rates anyway once fees are processed, etc).
 
Do you want to be a bond holder or a bag holder?
Tomorrows higher yielding bond/note trashes the value of todays lower yielding note/bond.

The fed raising short term rates is forcing sales of short term note bag holders. Those who own yetserdays lower yielding note see its falling price and dump it . Inflation (higher rates) are a bond holders nightmare.
So, in the above environment , do you want to shift to equities. The thrill is gone. The fed is late but is removing the punchbowl, miscalculating, and is sure to bring on a recesssion.
Flight/relative safety is a component and aligns with economic fundamentals.
The oncoming recession and present day fed tightening is sure to overshoot and kill all inflation. Yields further out .....10 to 20 etc.. respond to low inflation expectations with a note/bond rally. A bond holders dream,falling interest rates (no inflation/deflation) in the instrument they own.. Capital appreciation swamping the falling yield.
I dont know, but I assume big money mandated to fixed income must slide thier maturities back and forth say, between the 2 and 10 year note.
Inflation, time, and default are the cheif risks and a relative decision is made between the 2 and 10 year.
Recent history, going back to Greenspan(Greenspan conundrum) highlights what happens further oit on the curve can frustrate the fed.
Wasnt it just last year Yellin declared the risk premia( yield beyond fundamentals) was to low
And that rates in that part of the curve could increase dramatically with US taper and divergent monetary policy. That has not playedout at all.

Remember December, the rate hike, things were not obvious as hindsight is now.
There was a big discounting of the feds move in the 1,3,6 month notes, eurodollar futures and fed funds futures. These pretty much topped with the fed action/hike, sold off a bit and rallied furiously with oil/China/fed fading.
So, of course there is potentially some confusion possible where the fed raises
rate and entire curve rallies.

What if any tax difference on cap. appreciation vs. yield ? thnx
 
While Janet pontificates about employment and inflation and such, I suspect they're watching the below numbers more than they let on.

uaBBjNK.jpg
 
In the countries where this is happening banks are charging for large deposits. Also banks present counterparty risk. Governments don't (at least in their own currency for developed countries).

There are limits on how much physical cash you can hold. You need to pay for a strongbox and insurance.

There may end up being legal limits http://gainspainscapital.com/2015/10/08/governments-have-begun-moving-to-ban-physical-cash/

GAT


GAT, Thanks for input.
I tried to grasp it myself and here is how I see this:
Current inflation in US is 0.7% => in one year, from 1000$ cash I hold now, I'll be able to buy goods for current 930$ cost.
Inflation in Japan is 0.19%+0.25% ( 2-yr JGB negative yield) => my net loss is 0.44% or I get back $956 in one year, what is definitely better.
Correct me if I'm wrong.
Cheers.
 
The whole purpose of NIRP is to prevent banks from hoarding cash and, instead, force them to lend it to the broader economy. In theory, it sounds like a beautiful concept but it's damned flawed.
Exactly. It assumes there is demand for loans. In a prolonged period of balance sheet contraction there is extremely low demand for new debt, no matter how low the interest rates.
 
GAT, Thanks for input.
I tried to grasp it myself and here is how I see this:
Current inflation in US is 0.7% => in one year, from 1000$ cash I hold now, I'll be able to buy goods for current 930$ cost.
Inflation in Japan is 0.19%+0.25% ( 2-yr JGB negative yield) => my net loss is 0.44% or I get back $956 in one year, what is definitely better.
Correct me if I'm wrong.
Cheers.

why not to short 2 yr bond instead of buying? In this case you will get 0.25-0.19 and net gain 0.04%
 
Back
Top