Why on earth could the 2 year be higher? With CDs if you lock your CD up for longer obviously you get a better rate...I am not an econ savvy guy in terms of fixed income.
Why on earth could the 2 year be higher? With CDs if you lock your CD up for longer obviously you get a better rate...I am not an econ savvy guy in terms of fixed income.
I think the idea is that with the 2Y being higher than the ten...The 2Y you get 4% after 2Y. With the 10 you get 3.4 or whatever it is over a ten-year period. Why would you lock up your monies for 10 years that yields less than a 2Y lockup? After two years, that money is then free to go flailing around to seek a better opportunity?
I don't do fixed-income, so that is my edumacated guess, heh.
Then why don't you just shut up if by your own admission you have zero clue about fixed income? You seem to be unable to let a topic go by without having to add something. No matter how stupid.
The inversion of 2-year/10-year curve is usually understood as the precursor to a recession. As you can see in the graph below, it has happened just prior to every previous recession in the past.Why on earth could the 2 year be higher? With CDs if you lock your CD up for longer obviously you get a better rate...I am not an econ savvy guy in terms of fixed income.
Then why don't you just shut up if by your own admission you have zero clue about fixed income? You seem to be unable to let a topic go by without having to add something. No matter how stupid.