Archive for the 'debt' Category

Households Cut Back; Government Debt Grows

Kurt Brouwer September 28th, 2009

During this recession, Americans are paying down their mortgages, paying off car and truck loans and moving back to old fashioned thrift.  And, Yet, despite all the cutbacks on the part of Americans, the country’s debt load has gone up due primarily to government borrowing.  Yet, even with all the new government debt, the country’s headlong race into indebtedness has slowed considerably:

new-york-times-annual-debt-growth.JPG

Source: New York Times

The rate of growth in new national debt, is down to 3.7%, which is low by historical standards.  This piece by Floyd Norris from the New York Times gives some detail [emphasis added]:

THE United States government is borrowing money like never before. The national debt rose by more than a third over a one-year period, far more than it ever did at any time since World War II.

…This week, the Federal Reserve published its quarterly report on debt levels in the economy. While Uncle Sam borrowed more, others borrowed less. The accompanying chart shows that total domestic debt — the amounts owed by individuals, governments and businesses — climbed just 3.7 percent from the second quarter of 2008 through the second quarter of this year. That is the smallest increase since the Fed started these calculations in the early 1950s.

Moreover, domestic debt declined in the second quarter, falling 0.3 percent to $50.8 trillion. The figures are not seasonally adjusted, making quarter-to-quarter comparisons risky, but it was the first such decline since the first quarter of 1954, when total debt was less than $500 billion.

…Until this recession, the idea that American individuals would ever cut their overall debt levels seemed as likely as an August snowfall in Miami. But that was before the bottom fell out of the housing market, something that Florida condo developers had considered to be equally unlikely.

Over the year, total household debt fell by 1.7 percent, and mortgage debt — the largest component of household debt — fell a bit more, at a 1.8 percent pace. This is the 10th recession since the Fed began collecting the numbers, but the first in which the amount of home mortgage debt fell. Some of that decline, of course, came from foreclosures that canceled debt and left lenders with big losses…

Without the huge slug of debt put on by the government, our overall indebtedness would be falling.  Some economists and pundits think government borrowing is the only thing between us and disaster.  That may or may not be, but in my opinion it is disaster deferred not disaster avoided.

Even though households are cutting back, the U.S. Treasury just reached a new — albeit dubious — record:

The U.S. Treasury issued a new record of $7 trillion in bonds for the fiscal year that will end next week:

U.S. issues $7 trillion debt, supply to stabilize  (Reuters, September 23, 2009, Burton Frierson)

The U.S. government will have issued $7 trillion in bonds by the time the current fiscal year ends next week, but it expects the debt deluge to stabilize by mid 2010, a Treasury official said on Wednesday.

…However, this expansion may take place in an environment where investors consider leaving the safe-haven Treasury market for riskier assets, and debt issuance is likely to level off mid next year, said Treasury Acting Assistant Secretary for Financial Markets Karthik Ramanathan.

“In fiscal year 2009, which ends next week, Treasury will have issued $7 trillion in gross issuance — that’s in a 12-month period,” Ramanathan told a financial markets conference in New York…

A trillion here and a trillion there.  After a while, it adds up.  Not all of these bonds were brand new.  In fact, most of the bonds issued replaced bonds that were maturing.  Nonetheless, the new debt issuance is huge.  Reuters continues:

“This issuance was necessary to meet nearly $1.7 trillion in net marketable borrowing needs, nearly $1 trillion more than what we raised last year,” he added.

That’s sizeable.  $1.7 trillion in net new borrowing.

Finally, the headline of this piece cracks me up.  ‘U.S. issues $7 trillion debt, supply to stabilize.’  Since the Treasury determines what the supply is, I guess that’s like saying, “We’re borrowing scads of money now, but we plan to borrow less in the future.”  OK, that’s nice, but we’ll believe it when we see it.

Ordinary Americans have proved they can cut back, but it remains to be seen what happens when the recession ends and the recovery begins.  The reverse is true of government borrowing.

Burgeoning Bond Funds

Kurt Brouwer September 24th, 2009

Money market fund yields approaching zero have grabbed the attention of millions of investors who are now making the move into bonds funds.

Jason Zweig, at the Wall Street Journal, notes the trend and provides a bit of caution for those seeking yields [emphasis added below].

If you have not read him before, Zweig is an excellent and prolific writer for Money and other publications such as the Wall Street Journal.  He also has written or edited several books, his most recent being Your Money and Your Brain (Simon & Schuster, 2007).

Don’t Trip in Search for Bond Yields  (Wall Street Journal, September 18, 2009, Jason Zweig)

The Federal Reserve’s policy of driving interest rates down toward zero may have kept the financial system alive. But it is killing savers, and driving them to do desperate things.

The first sentence of this piece suggests that investors were doing desperate things by going into bond funds.  No doubt that is true in some cases, but it is also true that getting a yield of zero is unrewarding.  In fact, if you are getting a yield approaching zero from a money market fund — while inflation is running about 1-2% — well then you are losing purchasing power every year.

So, making a move into bond funds makes sense provided you do so wisely (see Purchasing Power for more on inflation and purchasing power).

Nearly 78% of taxable money-market funds, the traditional parking place for savings, are offering 0.1% or less in annualized yield, according to Crane Data LLC, a research firm. On a $10,000 balance, that will earn you a maximum of 83 cents — yes, $0.83 — in monthly interest income. All told, these funds hold $1.3 trillion that will generate a return of just about zilch for the people who worked so hard to save it.

Bear in mind this number in bold above, $1.3 trillion, is just the amount held by so-called retail investors.  The amount held by institutions of various sorts is actually higher, well north of $2 trillion.  The Investment Company Institute reports total money market fund assets of $3.48 trillion as of September 24th. Then, if you add in bank deposits, Treasury Bills and so on, the number gets even bigger.  In other words, there’s lots of money out there in very low-yielding investments.

Choose carefully and conservatively

The type of bond fund you choose is very important.  Fortunately, there are plenty of conservative taxable bond funds from which to choose that have yields of 3-5%.   And, there are many solid tax-exempt or municipal bond funds with attractive tax-free yields.

On the other hand, if investors are going from very low-risk money market mutual funds to high risk bond funds, then that is a problem.  Higher risk bond funds would be those with longer average maturities or those that hold high yield or junk bonds.

The Wall Street Journal continues:

Last month, investors put twice as much money into intermediate-term and junk-bond funds as into short-term bond portfolios. As a result, they have exposed themselves to much greater risk from rising rates or falling credit quality. When interest rates go up, as in 1994, investors in longer-term bonds can get slaughtered.

…Bonds are safer than stocks. But, at today’s high prices and low yields, bonds are riskier than they were a few months ago. The easiest way to tell is by looking at duration: the change in a bond’s market value when interest rates go up or down by one percentage point. If, for example, you own a bond with a duration of four, then its value will go up about 4% if interest rates fall by a percentage point; the bond will lose about 4% if rates rise by one point…

So, be careful out there.  And, please don’t shop for the highest yield because that will lead you to long-term bond funds and/or junk bond funds.  There is nothing wrong with putting some of your fixed income money into junk bond funds, for example, but do it only if you are diversified and also if you understand how volatile long-term bond funds and junk bond funds can be.  For example, a long-term bond fund has roughly the same volatility as a diversified stock fund.

And, what exactly is duration, anyway?

Zweig mentioned a bit of financial jargon that is worth a moment of your time.  Duration attempts to marry two separate aspects of a bond or a bond fund: first, the average maturity of all the bonds in the portfolio and, second, the average yield or interest income coming in to the portfolio.

The article is correct that we use duration as a rule of thumb to estimate portfolio volatility in the event of a quick spike in interest rates.  However, it’s just a rule of thumb, not exact.  It’s also not the only the only factor that determines volatility.  Imagine the dismay felt by someone last year who had invested in a fund with low duration, but a high commitment to mortgage bonds or junk bonds?

What to do now?

If you have money in a money market fund that is destined for use in the near future such as paying taxes or next year’s tuition for your daughter or son, then I would keep it in a money market fund or maybe a bank certificate of deposit.  Or, you could consider a very short-term bond fund.

On the other hand, if you were keeping the money in cash just due to uncertainty of where to invest for the long haul, then a solid portfolio of bond funds could be excellent as part of your overall portfolio.  Or, if you are purely an income investor, then a diversified portfolio of bond funds could be fine.

My favorite bond fund (see The Biggest Bond Fund) is Pimco Total Return (pttrx).  It has a current (SEC) yield of about 4.93% and a duration of 4.4 years.  Pimco has a similar fund with a shorter duration, Pimco Limited Maturity (ptldx), which has a current yield of 3.44% and a duration of 2.1 years.

Vanguard also has a number of excellent taxable funds and tax-exempt funds. In the tax-free arena, I like Vanguard Intermediate Term Tax-Exempt (vwiux), which has a Federal tax-free yield of 3.20% and a duration of 5.9 years.  Also, Vanguard Limited Term Tax-Exempt is good.  It has a tax-free yield of 1.67% and a duration of 2.4 years.

My advice is to move slowly and deliberately if you are considering a change from money market funds into bond funds.  The rewards are tangible, but make sure you understand the risks.

Don’t Tell Congress What Comes After Trillion

Kurt Brouwer September 23rd, 2009

I really never thought we would be tossing around the term trillion right and left, but we are.  Or, rather Congress is. But, I don’t think they really know how much money — or rather debt — we are incurring with each new trillion dollar commitment.

So, just how much is a trillion? The late Illinois Senator, Everett Dirksen once said,

“A billion here and a billion there.  After a while, it adds up to real money.”

Dirksen was referring sarcastically to the aplomb with which Congressional leaders of that day spent taxpayers’ money in round lots of billion dollars.

Now, in less than a year, we have moved on from budget deficits in the billions to trillion dollar plus deficits.  So, I wondered, what comes next?  This Associated Press report gives us the answer [emphasis added]:

A New Hampshire man says he swiped his debit card at a gas station to buy a pack of cigarettes and was charged over 23 quadrillion dollars.

Josh Muszynski (Moo-SIN’-ski) checked his account online a few hours later and saw the 17-digit number — a stunning $23,148,855,308,184,500 (twenty-three quadrillion, one hundred forty-eight trillion, eight hundred fifty-five billion, three hundred eight million, one hundred eighty-four thousand, five hundred dollars).

Muszynski says he spent two hours on the phone with Bank of America trying to sort out the string of numbers and the $15 overdraft fee…

If a guy in New Hampshire can spend quadrillions on gas, just think what the Congress could do?

Seriously though.  Take a look at this news item from a previous post about a new world’s record of $7 trillion in bonds for the fiscal year that will end next week:

U.S. issues $7 trillion debt, supply to stabilize  (Reuters, September 23, 2009, Burton Frierson)

The U.S. government will have issued $7 trillion in bonds by the time the current fiscal year ends next week, but it expects the debt deluge to stabilize by mid 2010, a Treasury official said on Wednesday.

…However, this expansion may take place in an environment where investors consider leaving the safe-haven Treasury market for riskier assets, and debt issuance is likely to level off mid next year, said Treasury Acting Assistant Secretary for Financial Markets Karthik Ramanathan.

“In fiscal year 2009, which ends next week, Treasury will have issued $7 trillion in gross issuance — that’s in a 12-month period,” Ramanathan told a financial markets conference in New York…

A trillion here and a trillion there.  After a while, it adds up.  Not all of these bonds were brand new.  In fact, most of the bonds issued replaced bonds that were maturing.  Nonetheless, the new debt issuance is huge.  Reuters continues:

“This issuance was necessary to meet nearly $1.7 trillion in net marketable borrowing needs, nearly $1 trillion more than what we raised last year,” he added.

That’s sizeable.  $1.7 trillion in net new borrowing.

Finally, the headline of this piece cracks me up.  ‘U.S. issues $7 trillion debt, supply to stabilize.’  Since the Treasury determines what the supply is, I guess that’s like saying, “We’re borrowing scads of money now, but we plan to borrow less in the future.”  OK, that’s nice, but we’ll believe it when we see it.

After seeing how quickly Congress made the leap from spending billions to trillions, I am hoping that no one tells them what comes next.  If they figure it out, we’ll soon be seeing quadrillion dollar deficits.

New Record for U.S. Treasury–$7 Trillion

Kurt Brouwer September 23rd, 2009

The U.S. Treasury issued a new record of $7 trillion in bonds for the fiscal year that will end next week:

U.S. issues $7 trillion debt, supply to stabilize  (Reuters, September 23, 2009, Burton Frierson)

The U.S. government will have issued $7 trillion in bonds by the time the current fiscal year ends next week, but it expects the debt deluge to stabilize by mid 2010, a Treasury official said on Wednesday.

…However, this expansion may take place in an environment where investors consider leaving the safe-haven Treasury market for riskier assets, and debt issuance is likely to level off mid next year, said Treasury Acting Assistant Secretary for Financial Markets Karthik Ramanathan.

“In fiscal year 2009, which ends next week, Treasury will have issued $7 trillion in gross issuance — that’s in a 12-month period,” Ramanathan told a financial markets conference in New York…

A trillion here and a trillion there.  After a while, it adds up.  Not all of these bonds were brand new.  In fact, most of the bonds issued replaced bonds that were maturing.  Nonetheless, the new debt issuance is huge.  Reuters continues:

“This issuance was necessary to meet nearly $1.7 trillion in net marketable borrowing needs, nearly $1 trillion more than what we raised last year,” he added.

That’s sizeable.  $1.7 trillion in net new borrowing.

Finally, the headline of this piece cracks me up.  ‘U.S. issues $7 trillion debt, supply to stabilize.’  Since the Treasury determines what the supply is, I guess that’s like saying, “We’re borrowing scads of money now, but we plan to borrow less in the future.”  OK, that’s nice, but we’ll believe it when we see it.

The Biggest Bond Fund

Kurt Brouwer September 23rd, 2009

Morningstar reports on just how big Pimco Total Return Fund is.  It is the biggest — and my personal favorite — bond fund:

PIMCO’S Cash Haul (Morningstar Advisor, September 21, 2009)

Investors are still giving equity funds the cold shoulder, said Morningstar editorial director Sonya Morris. Fixed-income funds have received the majority of inflows this year. About 60% of August’s flows went into taxable-bond funds, and muni funds soaked up another 20%.

The biggest beneficiary of these trends is PIMCO. Its PIMCO Total Return PTTRX is the top-selling fund of the year. August inflows of $5.5 billion pushed the fund to a jaw-dropping $177.5 billion in net assets, Morningstar data show. To put that figure into context, PIMCO Total Return alone now represents 13% of the entire taxable-bond mutual fund universe. And it’s almost twice as big as the second-largest mutual fund, Vanguard Total Stock Market VTSMX. PIMCO Total Return is up 11.65% for the year through Sept. 15 versus the Barclays Capital Aggregate Index, which is up 4.9% during that period…

This is a case where a mutual fund has grown for all the right reasons.  Excellent performance, moderate expenses and very good publicity.  All hail Pimco.

If you take a look at some of these posts on Pimco, you can get a sense of what Bill Gross and the brain trust at Pimco have done over time to keep the fund on track and performing well:

Portfolio Changes at Pimco

Bond Market Vigilantes Ride Again

Pimco Adds to Government Bond Position
Full Disclosure: Kurt Brouwer owns Pimco Total Return Fund (pttrx)

« Prev - Next »