The US Treasury just auctioned off $35 Billion in 5 year Treasury Notes. $94 Billion in bids were placed.
The high yield was 1.0279%. Nearly $32 Billion worth of the bids were below that. How does that compare with expected inflation over the next five years.

At the beginning of the month it was around 1.5%. Could be lower now, but I am guessing not all the way down to 1.029%.
People are willing to lose money in real terms in order to give it to the US Federal Government. Maybe we should consider giving people what they want? I’m just saying.

6 comments
Comments feed for this article
Wednesday ~ August 24th, 2011 at 1:41 pm
Effem
Let the Fed come out and publicly state that they will never buy US-issued debt again and then we will have a much better gauge on “what the people want.” The main investment case for bonds is that the Fed will never let rates rise again. I think you are reading too much into what is essentially a manipulated market.
If the Fed made that pledge and we still had negative real rates then I agree with you fully – we should borrow more. Now, getting an adequate ROI on those expenditures…well, that’s a whole different story.
Wednesday ~ August 24th, 2011 at 4:11 pm
bdbd
I suppose one of those new fangled 3 D printers could churn out a few of those Cotillards.
Thursday ~ August 25th, 2011 at 12:19 am
Rick
if (A) we should selling lots of bonds while yields are low in order to make cheap investments and (B) be doing lots of QE — assuming AD shortfall is a problem and QE addresses it — which buys back the same bonds, then putting (A) and (B) together isn’t this the same as just spending money into circulation (except that it goes to contractors first instead of bond-buyers)? If so, why does MMT seem to have such a worse reputation than the combination of debt-financing and QE?
Thursday ~ August 25th, 2011 at 11:23 am
Friedman's Ghost
Am I the only one that see the Nike swoosh?!?! I for one feel better look at the graph that way…
Monday ~ October 24th, 2011 at 12:45 pm
Pete
According to Zero Hedge, countries outside of the U.S. dumped 74 billion dollars in U.S. Treasuries, most of it over the weekend:
“Over the weekend, we observed the perplexing sell off of $56 billion in US Treasurys courtesy of weekly disclosure in the Fed’s custodial account (source: H.4.1) and speculated if this may be due to an asset rotation, under duress or otherwise, out of bonds and into stocks, to prevent the collapse of the global ponzi (because when the BRICs tell the IMF to boost its bailout capacity you know it is global). We also proposed a far simpler theory: “the dreaded D-day in which foreign official and private investors finally start offloading their $2.7 trillion in Treasurys with impunity (although not with the element of surprise – China has made it abundantly clear it will sell its Treasury holdings, the only question is when), has finally arrived.” In hindsight the Occam’s Razor should have been applied. Little did we know 5 short days ago just how violent the reaction by China would be (both post and pre-facto) to the Senate decision to propose a law for all out trade warfare with China. Now we know – in the week ended October 12, a further $17.7 billion was “removed” from the Fed’s custodial Treasury account, meaning that someone, somewhere is very displeased with US paper, and, far more importantly, what it represents, and wants to make their displeasure heard loud and clear. (Source)
Undoubtedly, the Chinese and other countries have recently discovered that Italy and Greece, with smaller debt to income ratios than the United States, are less riskier and carry a higher rate of return. This is because, unlike the US, the Rothschild/Rockefeller bond rating agencies have trashed their country’s debt ratings, forcing them to pay a much higher interest rate than U.S. Treasuries. Hey, if you take the risk, you might as well earn the reward!
Monday ~ May 6th, 2013 at 12:17 pm
michael kors bag outlet online
Immediately after study several of the weblog posts on your website now, and I really like your way of blogging.