> “You can buy a 6-month T-bill that’s yielding north of 5%. Why wouldn’t you buy that instead of a long bond that’s yielding 4¾?”
Clearly people do want them, then. So much so they'll pay a 1%+ premium to be locked into the certainty of a long term treasury return rather than gamble short term rates will forever stay higher.
The current 30 year yield is 4.5%, and that's almost 0.5% lower than at the start of the month.
The FED taking a pause on rates was not despite the Silicon Valley Bank collapse earlier in the year, but because of it - banks contracted balance sheets, money is created via lending, as a response, meaning the Fed could take a pause as the banking sector was doing what rates would otherwise do in cooling money creation.
> And bond portfolios are getting absolutely hammered. The longest-dated Treasury bonds are in a bear market worse than the dot-com bust and almost as bad as 2008.
To check that, I looked at the FED yield curve which shows the prices of bonds , expressed in interest rates. Here: https://home.treasury.gov/resource-center/data-chart-center/...
Yields have decreased (prices risen) across the board since the start of the month. The end of October was in fact the highest yield (lowest price) all year.
Is the article 28 days too late?
Is cutting negligent reporting with political anecdote (the US being able to borrow (unsecured!, though repossession would be difficult) in perpetuity, control it's interest rate, and have its own currency, does not make an analogy with household finances/borrowing make - aside from the word 'borrow' they're quite different ideas) useful?
Does crossing the web design of the Financial Times and Wall Street Journal fool a reader into thinking this is in any way credible news?