What's Behind the Big Surge in US Government Bond Yields

Did you ever notice how you spend hours shopping online? Only to pause a checkout because you wonder if you trusted enough to hit by now. Agentic commerce is testing that moment more than ever. That's where PayPal comes in. With 25 years of checkouts, 400 million consumer accounts globally, and the benefit of fraud protection. So no matter where a purchase starts, it ends with trust. Build for payments, growth, and agentic. PayPal open. Build for all business. Visit PayPalopen.com. Some people treat ChachiPT like some kind of smart search engine. And some use it to get work done. ChachiPT work is a new way of working in ChachiPT that can take action across your apps and files, stay with a project for hours if needed, and turn a goal into finished work. It's designed to help you move from a chaotic starting point to a reviewable first version. So all the source materials, briefs, and scattered information that you have to grind through to turn into something useful can just become something useful. Put ChachiPT to work on your most ambitious ideas and projects. Get started at chachiPT.com by selecting work mode, available on plus and pro plans. Healthcare doesn't always work great. If you've ever waited on a refill or couldn't schedule an appointment, you get it. That's the kind of stuff Optum is changing. They're using data and technology to integrate patient care, pharmacy, and everything else. So healthcare is connected, not complicated. What's that look like? Cheaper prescriptions that are easier to get and care that looks at the whole person. How you need it. Optum is helping make healthcare work as one for everyone. Learn more at business.optum.com. - Hello, Odd Lodz listeners. I'm Joe, wasn't all. - And I'm Tracy Alloway. - We're the hosts of the Odd Lodz podcast and we've got something exciting for you. - That's right. One of the best parts of hosting our podcast is we get to actually meet and interact with our listeners. And we know we have some listeners over in Los Angeles. - That's right. So if you're in LA, we're going to be recording a live show, some live recordings at the Vermont Theater in Hollywood on September 17th. - We have some really exciting guests lined up. Have some really great conversations plans. So go ahead and get your tickets. You can find those over at bloomberg.com/odlots or click the link below in the show notes and come and say hi when you're there. (upbeat music) - Bloomberg Audio Studios. - Podcasts, radio, news. (upbeat music) - Hello and welcome to another episode of the Odd Lodz podcast. I'm Tracy Alloway. - And I'm Joe, wasn't all. - Well, Joe, we are still at Jackson Hole. - Yeah. - Where the official theme of this year's symposium is financial innovation in payments. However, the unofficial theme has to be what the heck is going on with bond yields and the federal reserve because this whole meeting is coming against a backdrop of higher yields, particularly at the long end. A new Fed chair seems to want to make a mark on the Fed and has started all of these different task forces to look at things like comms and balance sheets. And then of course, we also have a Fed that seems to kind of maybe be operating at cross currents to the US Treasury given that the Treasury is now buying back longer-dated bonds and seemingly suppressing longer-dated yields. - There's so many different dimensions to what you described. So there is the formal technical thing. There is the sort of relationship between the Fed and the Treasury. There is the new things going on inside the Fed. There is obviously the warmth in the economy. By the way, the sun just came out or recording outside who has been rainy and cool all day. That would suddenly got hot again. Maybe that's a sign. Anyway, that's why it's fun to be in Jackson Hole though. They're all kinds of different people we can talk to, including people who sit perfectly at this intersection of all the things that we're talking about. - That's exactly what I was gonna say. So the guest for today, truly the perfect guest, someone who's able to sort of synthesize the macro and what's going on in the bond market as well as some of the operations of the actual Treasury market. So truly the perfect guest, we're gonna be speaking with Darrell Duffy. He is, of course, professor of finance over at Stanford University. So Darrell, thank you so much for coming back on all plots. - Tracy, Joe, great to be back. Thank you. - Is there a connection between higher bond yields and the payment system? Basically, why are you here? - Well, there can be, in March of 2020, when the markets became dysfunctional. - That's a good answer. - The Fed had to step in and dig out the balance sheets of the largest dealers to keep the bond market moving and bond yields jumped and were very volatile. - The last time we talked was also a Jackson Hole. And we talked about this relationship between just the sheer volume of public debt that's traded these days and the sort of like scarce dealer balance sheet. And this is like, you know, often when people talk about the size of the debt, they talk about maybe like debt to GDP or something like that or whatever. This is like what you focus on then and some of your work takes it from a different angle. Yes, talk about the volume, but just sort of the pipes that we have to run it through. - That's right. And, you know, after that event in 2020, I said it would happen again. Dealer balance sheets would get clogged again, but even with a massive amounts of trading we're seeing today, the dealers have more space yet. Could be capital regulations are not as strong. Could be the dealers have recapitalized, but they're definitely in force. - I definitely want to talk more about that, but just on a basic level, when you look at yields on something like the 30 year above 5%, I know they've come in slightly today following the Chairman's speech, but when you see a yield at that level, what do you think? What is it telling you? - Well, if I'm the Secretary of the Treasury, it's telling me that the United States is spending a heck of a lot on interest expense and I need to do what I can to get those yields down. The question is, what can the Treasury Secretary do? As an economist, I run the following thought experiment, suppose Tracey, I were to convince you, there's no inflation risk. Inflation, as indicated in today's markets, is pretty stable going forward. The sovereign is not going to default. You are, let's say, a hedge fund, a macro hedge fund. You have 20 billion of the 10 years. And-- - I wish I could go on. - And I'm calling from the Treasury Department and I'm suggesting that you could take another 10. There's space on your own balance sheet to do that. Now, given the conditions that I described for the safe bonds, why wouldn't you? On the reason is you already have what you chose to have at 5.3% and in order to get you to buy 10 billion more, you need a higher yield to compensate you. The foreign central banks, they have had what they need for a long time now. They didn't, they're not buying more. Foreign investors generally are not keeping up with the size of the bond market. So it's the discretionary investors, mutual funds, hedge funds, banks, insurance companies, pension funds, that are yield sensitive and are being asked to take more of a pretty safe asset, but they're not going to do it unless they get more yield compensation. - It's an interesting way to think about it. So in Tracy's proverbial hedge fund, she has the 20 billion dollar allocation to Treasuries, but no one's paying Tracy just a whole of Treasuries, right? So she presumably had a lot of other assets, risky assets. Maybe she's been in Nvidia- - I thought the best assets. - Maybe she's been in Korean ship stocks or all the other things. When we think about the pricing though, to what extent doesn't make sense to think about a Treasury bond being is in competition for other theoretically investible assets. And when all those are flying to the moon or many of them like we've seen, does that have a sort of a reverberation onto the risk-free asset? - Sure it does. And it's other bonds included in the hyperscalers famously been demanding a lot of investment by bond investors and it's all piling on. But the biggest culprit is our government's generally, not just the U.S., but especially the U.S. And government deficits and debt to GDP are spectacularly high and there's no end in sight. So this piling on effect, I think it's mainly in the bond market. - Debt to GDP ratio is no end in sight, et cetera. It's certainly, that seems right. People could have said that five or six years ago. Well, they could have said that 2018, 2019. And they said it for years about Japan and just rates kept going lower. Now they're going higher. But they said they kept going lower. What is it, what changed? Like you could have told this story 10 years ago and you could have laid out the demographics and you could have talked about the lack of political appetite to cut spending, et cetera. What changed fundamentally such that we got this reversal? - Okay, so let's go back even further to when the IMF said 60% debt to GDP is the red line. - Yeah. - You should not want to go beyond that. And if you do, it's at your own risk. That number just kept getting higher and higher for all major governments. France now is also at 100% debt to GDP. So what's changed is the sheer volume of government debt relative to GDP. It marches on and on. 10 years ago it wasn't anywhere near 100%. And the treasury market was, let's see, if I recall about 18 trillion, now it's 31 trillion. So it's just volume. It's not, I mean, as Ken Rogoff remarked lunch, there's a lot of regression to the mean in terms of long-term yields. and things come and go, but what's been coming is more and more bond debt. - Yeah, can you say more about this idea of competition with hyperscalers because I see, some people seem to take it as a given. Like the hyperscalers are issuing so much debt into the market, particularly longer term debt that like it obviously has this crowding out effect. But then I see some other people, and they'll be like, oh no, the buyers of US treasuries are different to the buyers of investment grade bonds. And there's no way they're in competition with each other. But to me, it feels like the overall theme of the bond market right now is this additional duration that investors have to absorb. - No, it's absolutely right. And I wouldn't describe it as the hyperscalers crowding out the Treasury Department, but rather the other way around. - How interesting. - Yeah, I mean 32 trillion and rising at 2 trillion a year. There's nothing, I mean, it is true. hyperscalers are perhaps gonna hit a trillion of debt in the next couple of years. That's small compared to the Treasury Department. So I really think it's the Treasury and not just the US Treasury for finance ministries and legislatures around the world that are stuffing a lot of bonds into the hands of the same investors. Yeah, pension funds, insurance companies, they'll buy all of this, and they make trade-offs. And we see what's happening to yields. - I just thought of a great idea for a sci-fi story in which essentially these giant government debt loads, collapse governments, and these AI building companies become the new sovereign. - That's what I've been saying. So that's in Margaret Atwood's books. It's the companies basically replace the governments and you live in a corporate compound and everything is provided to you by the tech company rather than government. - And the the clawed yield and the Gemini yield, and those will be earned to risk free. - Boy, I wanna get back to one more thing. So I get all of this what you're saying. One word that hasn't come up though is inflation. And so when I think like a big difference between seven or eight years ago and now is that there's continued to be high inflation years above target and it turned out it was even a very aggressive rate hiking cycle didn't get it back to target. Why couldn't it simply be that the reason for higher rates is the series of higher short term rates as expected because there are a lot of inflationary impulses among them may be spending. - In the long run inflation and bond prices go together, fiscal theory of the price level, meet John Cochrane's book or maybe you have. - We've never heard John on the podcast. We really should do that. - He would be perfect on this question. But today if you look at forward implied inflation numbers coming from real and nominal bonds. - Yeah. - They're not showing alarm bells at all. It's true that we've had a significantly more inflation than the Fed would like to see for the last five years. And as Kevin Worsh remarked this morning and others have spoken, the last part is a lot of work remaining to be done by the Fed. So yeah, inflation is a concern but I don't my view. I don't think that's what bond investors that are thinking about the 10s, 20s and 30 years what's foremost on their mind. I think they're looking at the supply relative to the demand. And again, foreign central banks have had all that they need and they're not buying more. And it's mostly domestic discretionary investors that are being asked to take this additional supply and they just need more compensation. (upbeat music) Did you ever notice how you spend hours shopping online only to pause right before you hit by now? That tiny hesitation, the one where you wonder if it is trustworthy can make or break the sale. Now with AI changing the way consumers discover and compare things, that split second trust question matters more than ever. For more than 25 years, PayPal has been a leader in online payments and now they're at the forefront of agentic commerce making it work for businesses. Letting them maintain control of their brand and their customer relationships. So even as the way people shop changes, the moment that matters most still feels familiar and deeply dependable. Build for payments, growth and agentic. PayPal open. Visit paypalopen.com to get started. Some people treat Chachypt like some kind of smart search engine and some use it to get work done. Chachypt work is a new way of working in Chachypt that can take action across your apps and files, stay with a project for hours if needed and turn a goal into finished work. So all the source materials, briefs and scattered information that you have to grind through to turn into something useful can just become something useful. Put Chachypt to work on your most ambitious ideas and projects. Get started at chachypt.com by selecting work mode, available on plus and pro plans. - If you listen to financial news, you know a lot of time is spent thinking about what's next. The next opportunity, the next investment, the next move. But sometimes what matters most is being ready for what you never saw coming. A storm damages a second home. A pipe bursts above a collection you spent decades building. An unexpected loss puts a growing business on pause. Those are the days no one sees coming. But for more than 75 years, Cincinnati Insurance has been ready when they do. With deep expertise, coverage for businesses, homes, valuables and more, Cincinnati Insurance works with independent agents who take the time to understand what matters to you. Together, they help protect more than what you own. They help protect what you're building toward. And when a bad day does come, Cincinnati Insurance has real people there to help make things right. Because planning for the future isn't only about knowing what's next, it's about making sure you're ready for what you can't predict. Let Cincinnati Insurance make your bad day better. Find an independent agent at cyan.com. - This is kind of a cliched question, but that deluge of debt issuance, I guess. What does that actually mean for central bankers? Because when you come to a conference like this, it feels like that's the obvious thing in the mix. And you hear little whispers of words like fiscal dominance, but no one actually talks about it in any direct way. - Yeah, I think the Fed is studiously avoiding fiscal dominance. It would not entertain a discussion with the Treasury regarding yield curve control. The last time that happened, it was a very acrimonious end in the 1950s with the Treasury, the Fed Treasury Accord. People think the word Accord means they had a good agreement. It actually means they had a really, really rough argument. - Interesting. - And the Fed supplied some support to the bond market, kicking and screaming for a short period of time, and then got out of the business of yield curve control, and it won't want to revisit that. The FOMC will do everything possible, not to get into fiscal dominance. I think that's my reaction. - So one of the reasons we wanted to speak to you is because you've done work on the impact of Treasury buyback programs in particular. And of course, I guess was it a week or two ago, I've lost all sense of time, but recently we had-- - Over the last two weeks. - Yeah, we had Scott Besson announcing that he was increasing the size of the Treasury's buyback program. He cited liquidity concerns, but as far as I can tell, things look pretty normal in the Treasury market at that moment in time. What do you think his thinking was? - Well, from his remarks, he seemed to think that yields were too high irrespective of liquidity concerns, and that in his view, market participants should have understood that a lower yield for the U.S. Treasury securities would be appropriate. And he said that he was signaling. He used a word signal, signaling to the market, his belief that Treasury yields were too high. Now, I think we subsequently can see that, while the market reacted quickly to that news, it reversed itself pretty quickly afterwards. Part of that related to the firepower of the Treasury Department relative to the bond market. I'm sure you remember James Carville's famous comments about the power of the bond market. - Anyone who has ever written about the bond market has used this quote as the lead for a column at some point, myself included. - Did you see what Trump said? - What? - The other way. - About military infrastructure. - Patriot intervention in the bond market. So I don't know, maybe James Carville wasn't thinking fully that the bond vigil had not, James Carville had not considered that the bond vigilantes could be bombed into submission potentially. I don't know if he thought about that. - Well, even the mighty U.S. Treasury Department is not as powerful as bond markets when it comes to setting yields. We also saw in the yen intervention, some signals that perhaps first we have a more activist Treasury Department than we've had in the past in terms of willingness to engage in financial market trades. And secondly, that there might be some concern that if things don't go well in Japan and the Japanese central bank needs to unload treasuries, that that would add on to this piling on that we just discussed and cause problems for U.S. Treasury markets and the interest expense of the U.S. government. So, my impression, maybe I'm reading too much between the lines, is that Secretary Besson wanted to market to understand that the Treasury Department wasn't just going to sit there idly and take that, they wanted to be involved. I feel like classical discussions of interventions, they seem to work better when they are not volume bound by level bound, and when it seems often the case, when they're level bound, you don't even have to spend anything, so you say, "Okay, 5% is our line in the sand." And in theory, does the Treasury have, it could just issue two-year bills and just take out the thirties. With that, I mean, if Besson very strongly feels that it's like these prices just do not, on some fundamental level, it do not make sense. Could he just say, "You know what, we're going to issue only two years or five years or whatever, we're going to buy 30 years any time they get to 4.99%, and if you're a bond vigilante and you're thinking it's going to go, you're shorting debt, you're going to get badly burned." Well, that would be formula for increasing the interest rate, expense volatility for the U.S. government, because your debt maturity is going to be shorter and shorter, and you're going to be rolling over that debt in auctions that will reflect current market conditions, and a larger and larger fraction of your interest expense is going to be realized on a day-to-day basis, so that's -- U.S. is still in pretty good shape, but has an average debt maturity of about six years. I also have the view that governments are just not powerful enough to control these trends with their own resources. Let's go back to the attack on the British pound in which Scott Besson had a role in 1992, when he was working with the Soros hedge fund. The British government was simply unable to defend the pound, and it should never have tried. It used up a lot of its firepower that way. And so, even, as I said, the U.S. Treasury Department, if markets decide that yields are going to be at 6%, the U.S. Treasury Department is not going to be able to have a strong say in that, not without taking a lot of risk. What does your research actually say about, I guess, the impact and duration of Treasury buybacks? Because this isn't the first time the Treasury is doing this. There's plenty of empirical instances that you can base your research on. What have you found previously? Well, I'm working right now with two economists at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, Michael Fleming and Oorshakar, and with my PhD student at Stanford, Sam Wichely. And we are using the buyback data, as well as turnover data on dealer balance sheets, to understand the benefit of the original purpose of the buyback program, which is to go out and clean up the leftover bits and pieces of old Treasury notes and bonds. Odd lots. But this was stuff that actually wasn't really trading anymore, right? Yeah, it was clogging up dealer balance sheets and trading at lower prices than would be suggested by a smooth yield curve. And so the idea was, as explained by then, Assistant Treasury Secretary Josh Frost, let's be regular and predictable and clean up these bits and pieces, make the Treasury market more liquid by replacing those with new liquid treasuries, and implicitly make some money for the U.S. taxpayer by low, so high. And that's a good program. Our research shows, well, it's in progress, you'll see the paper eventually. Well, back up. Yeah. You and your PhD student can come back on for that. It shows that that's effective. And by the way, I think it's totally legitimate that a Treasury Secretary or Treasury Department would step into the market and use the buyback program for unanticipated needs. So for example, going back to March 2020, it's totally legitimate that a finance ministry or a Treasury Department would say, "It's our bond market. It's dysfunctional. It benefits us to step into that market and not leave it entirely to the central bank. You may remember the Liz Truss budget." "Bacon." At that time, the Bank of England faced this dilemma. It was tightening its monetary policy. And at the same time, it had to buy guilds. And so it made a very clear distinction. And soon afterwards, sold those guilds. It's easier if the Treasury Department is involved. In the case of the UK, it indemnified the Bank of England for the losses that it might have incurred. And in the case of the United States, the Treasury Department could use its own buyback program to add firepower. And that could be done on the scale of hundreds of billions, not the mere four to eight billion that the Treasury Department has been speaking about over the last couple of weeks. And from your perspective, in the last few weeks, there's nothing in the sort of classical measures of liquidity that we're out of work. "No, nothing, nothing, you know, dealer-balanced sheets seem to be in good shape that offer spreads, market deaths, or in normal range." Some people treat Chachy-P-T like some kind of smart search engine. And some use it to get "work done." Chachy-P-T work is a new way of working in Chachy-P-T that can take action across your apps and files, stay with a project for hours if needed, and turn a goal into finished work. So all the source materials, briefs, and scattered information that you have to grind through to turn into something useful, can just become something useful. Put Chachy-P-T to work on your most ambitious ideas and projects. Get started at chachy-P-T dot com by selecting Work Mode, available on plus and pro plans. If you listen to financial news, you know a lot of time is spent thinking about what's next, the next opportunity, the next investment, the next move. With deep expertise, coverage for businesses, homes, valuables, and more, Cincinnati Insurance works with independent agents who take the time to understand what matters to you. Find an independent agent at cianfiand.com. This is Alexis Christoffer's for Bloomberg Surveillance. AI is everywhere, outcomes are not, not because AI doesn't work, but because AI hasn't reached the workflows yet. The campaigns, the launches, the quarterly planning, those workflows are still run by humans alone. AI is making individuals faster, but it's not making businesses more productive. That's the gap Asana is built to close. Asana is the operating system for human agent teams, your easy button for AI productivity across every team, ready to go AI teammates, pre-built for marketing, ops, and IT, no prompt engineering, no setup. They show up where the work is happening already onboarded in your workflows, ready to deliver. And the more they work with your team, the smarter they get, with Asana, your whole company can work on the same plan towards the same goal, whether you're a team of 10 or 10,000. Asana, where humans and agents work flow together, try it at Asana.com, that's A-S-A-N-A.com. I mean, one way to think about it is, it's not that different from QE or Operation Twist as some of these things that the central bank did in the 2010s to sort of change the shape or the slope of the yield curve. But that was in a time of below-target inflation and a central bank trying to cost things to re-accelerate. And on some level, does this look like efforts that classically would, you might expect to see in an environment where the central bank is trying to boost inflation? When you say this, meaning what-- Well, the sort of the expanded buybacks, the attempted to press the long end, that sort of looks operation twisty. But that, you know, that was an environment where we were sub-two percent to the frustration of the central bank. Yeah. Well, first of all, I don't think this is stepping on the toes of the Fed. Okay. And I do think that it feels like a twisty type of operation, but a micro twist. It's a firepower that, you know, a few billion dollars, other than the signaling, a few billion dollars is just not kind of move the needle. Micro twist sounds like one of those terrible alco-pops of like the early 2000s, right? Yeah, yeah, yeah. Like, I'll just-- Maybe it sounds like-- I would try a micro twist. Okay. If the Treasury is issuing more short-term debt, which it is, does that solve the long-end yield problem or does that just end up shifting the issue into money markets? Well, it does shift issuance into bills, and that's how buybacks are working with these particular buyback-- oh, these particular operations. And yeah, so it means as I mentioned. There's shorter and shorter debt maturity, but no alarm bells yet. The US is not out of historical norms. It's actually a bit longer maturity, average maturity than normal. And, you know, I'm not that worried yet. I mean, if they were to continue, and really the real action is in new issuance, not in buybacks, if they were to continue to keep the issuance of long-term securities at current levels as they have been. And have forecasted that they will, if they were to keep doing that for years, then the piling up of short-term debt would eventually be notable. And it would cause concern. - All right, so, you know, I talked in the beginning of all these different things that are happening at the moment, but one of them is the new Fed chair and the task forces that he's created, including one that's looking at the Fed balance sheet. Can you maybe put your Kevin Warshat on for a second? And when he says he wants to shrink the size of the Fed's balance sheet, why is that desirable? - Well, first, I'm not Kevin Warshat, so I'm not going to get inside his head. But judging from his speech around the G30 meeting last year, in which he was most clear on his views here, I think he worries that the Fed looks like it's too active in financial markets, that its footprint is too big, and that it has the image of possibly getting into fiscal policy. And so he wants to say completely, my interpretation, he wants to say clear of having created that impression and a smaller balance sheet would signal that. I think the more interesting question is, how could you do it? - Yeah. - Because it's easy enough to sell bonds on the asset side, but it's not easy to extinguish the liabilities on the other side of the balance sheet. - That's right, when we think about the Fed balance sheet, everyone always thinks about assets, 'cause we've gone through years and years and years of QE and no one ever thinks about liabilities. But those two things have to be in balance, you can't shrink the asset side without shrinking the liability side. - You reach that conclusion, Tracy, faster than almost anyone that I talked to. - I do, okay. - So if you just do adding up, if you want to reduce the assets, you have to reduce the liabilities one for one, let's take them in turn. You've got the Treasury General Account. I don't think the Fed's gonna call the Treasury and say, would you take some money out of your account at the Fed? Then you've got paper money. I don't think the Fed is going to put out advertisements saying, please, please Americans and everybody else out there in the world that has paper money, would you mind turning it in so that we can reduce that liability? So that the only significant possible reduction is in reserves, meaning the deposits that commercial banks have at the Fed. And there is scope for doing that, but not with the current tools that the Fed has. - Would there be a regulatory change that would be necessary? - Could we wait years and years, right? With basically no balance sheet, and then, you know, that 2008 head, and suddenly there's all these reserves, why can't we go back to, what would be the challenge to go back to it? - If we're going to leave it, we don't have that much of reserves. - So what would it take if for some reason, we thought this is very important, we want to get back to the real good old days of Fed balance sheet side. What would it actually take from a regulation perspective to get to just a 2005 looking banking system? - It's not going to happen, Joe, because back in 2005, liquidity regulations were much different, and the Fed didn't pay interest on reserves, so the banks were not in the least interested in holding reserves, because why would you hold reserves getting zero interest when you could invest the money in money markets and under a full market rate? Today, in order to control inflation, the Fed is forced to pay an interest rate to banks that's roughly the market rate, and so, you know, if you ask a bank, well, why don't you give up some of those reserves, they might say, well, why? They're so useful for meeting liquidity regulations, they pay a full market interest rate. They're perfect for payment services. What's not to like? It's the Swiss Army and IFA finance. We're not going to give those up easily, and right here in Jackson Hole in 2017, Viral Acharya and Raghu Rajan presented a paper describing a ratchet effect by which, every time the Fed increases its balance sheet and ads reserves, the banks get addicted to having more of that extremely useful asset reserves, and they're reluctant to give it up, and if you try to make them, markets get volatile, and the Fed has to back off. So a lot has changed. What would be your recommendation if you were on this task force? I think it's Stein who's heading it, but, you know, if War says, I want to shrink the size of the balance sheet, and we have this reserves problem, what would you do? It's Jeremy Stein, Raghu Rajan, the same economist that spoke here about the ratchet effect and Karen Dining, all very noted, very credible, extremely wise and articulate economists. What they're going to do, and what they're going to recommend, I don't know, but I think that they're going to take very wide lens look at this. They're not going to look only at size. They're going to look at the composition of the assets. I predict that they will, and this is with no information from them, I predict that they will recommend reducing the quantity of long-term treasury securities that the Fed holds and replacing those with treasury bills in order to reduce the volatility of the Fed's interest expense. So, for example, if you back the reserves one to one with treasury bills, then every time the Fed has to pay more interest to the banks to control inflation, it's getting more interest on their treasury bills one for one. Paper money, they could continue to hold long-term securities, and I don't think the Fed feels good about having mortgage-backed securities. I think they're just going to let those roll off. So, I think that could be in one area that they will get into is the composition of the assets. And on the liability side, it's hard to predict, in my own view, the Fed doesn't need to reduce the size of its balance sheet, but it should have the tools that would allow it to do that, because if my hunch that this has politics around it is correct, the Fed never wants to be put into a corner by Congress over the size of its balance sheet, without the tools that would allow the Fed to say, no, we're not going to increase our balance sheet as you would like us to do, and by the assets that you would like us to buy. But rather, we can control our own balance sheet by reducing it if we need to. And those tools exist in theory, but they haven't been developed in practice by the Fed yet. They have been for other central banks. - I have one more question, and it's not really a question, it's more of a favor, really. But can you convince Joe that the term premium is a useful concept? He doesn't believe in it. I think you believe it exists, but you don't believe that it's useful in any way. - You're not going to defend yourself, Joe. - I'm a simple man, I look at a 30 year yield, I think it looks like a 30 years worth of overnight rates, you just add them up, and that's how it would I assume, and then everyone's like, no, but the term premium. And then they say, and then I say, okay, but what does it look like? Well, we can't really measure it, and then all the models that we have to measure don't work. But trust us, it exists. - This is why they say useful. - And then they say, and then they say, well, they need Treasury investors need compensation for risk, to which I say, just Treasury investors, as if there's something special about it, I really struggle with it. So this is why we need a Stanford economist to straighten me out. - Yeah, it's an easily measured concept. So it tells everyone the value of short term versus long term money and interest rates, but then decomposing it is the hard part. So you've mentioned, there's the path of expected short term interest rates that's built in, that in itself reflects inflation, and then on top of that, there's a risk premium. And how to decompose that? Economists like John Cochran whom we mentioned earlier, with Monica Piazzesi, have done some of the best work on that decomposition, and it changes over time, depending on one of the things that we just discussed earlier, which is the volume of Treasury issuance, that elevates the entire curve, and it elevates it more in the future, if you don't think that the fiscal deficits are gonna go down. - All right, Joe's going home from his podcast with Homework, yeah. - I'm gonna do some reading, yeah. - A signed reading, all right. Darryl Duffy from Stanford, thank you so much for coming back on Allpods, really appreciated. - Gracie, Joe, it's always a pleasure. Ask me back. - We'll definitely do it again. Thank you so much. (upbeat music) - So Joe, that was great. I know we've been meaning to talk about the Treasury buyback, so I'm glad we could get into that. I was thinking, you know, he mentioned the Treasury general accounts at the Fed, which is like the Treasury's tracking account. - It was there, yeah. - And you always hear the stat that it covers five days of government expenses or something like that. And I always think about the headlines saying, oh, ordinary Americans, you know, half of ordinary Americans only have enough money to cover three months' expenses. And then I'm like, what about the Fed? - I'm being somewhat facetious, sorry. What about the Treasury? But like, it is kind of crazy, five days. - Yeah, I guess it is kind of crazy, but, you know, just thinking I'll just issue more debt if you work out. - What if Trump bomb, actually bombs the bond market? What happens to the Treasury account? - It is weird that we actually, I actually haven't talked about that quote very much, but such is life. - We'll find the perfect guess to talk about it. - Such as life in 2026. I thought that was really good. I actually did not fully understand previously why buybacks exist in the normal template. - Yeah. - Okay, so figure aside why there's the deviation from the typical schedule, why they exist in the first place, and this idea that what is the point of having be sort of off the run, we're, you know, is that some 27 year bond that's sitting out there that no one wants, whatever, that it just sort of makes sense to have a regular, a regular sweep of that. You know what they call it in crypto world? - What? - It's dust. - Oh. - So for example, like a band in assets kind of. - It's kind of like if there'll be little flex of like 0.002 Bitcoin on like some wall or something. But because there's a transaction fee with all of them, you can accumulate this dust, and it's not economical to move it off of them that create all kinds of issues and stuff. It's sort of similar. - I remember weren't there some startups at one point who were trying to like collect all the dust and roll it up into something substantial? - Yeah. - The other thing I was thinking just about the buyback program now is, I mean, you almost have an issue with the reaction function of the treasury now, if it's citing market liquidity in order to increase the size of the buybacks, but the treasury market seems to be operating pretty normally. - Yeah. - And then everyone starts focusing on the yield as Darryl was saying, like, oh, it seems like Vescent just doesn't think the yield is at the right level. Well, then suddenly you have this target that investors are maybe gonna be watching for signs that the treasury is gonna come back in. - I think Vescent really just misses being a hedge fund. Like it's like, he's like, no, this is like, the yield is too high. It's like an opportunity to buy, right? I mean, like intervening in the yen and stuff. I think this is like, he's in his comfort ground when he's making moves like-- - Well, I will say, as of the moment we're recording, he's probably above water on his treasury purchases. - Well, so I thought so too, except Evan. So this is what I thought. I was like, oh, this is a good trade. Evidently, the purchase, this is what someone on two people on Twitter told me this 'cause I thought that too-- - It must be true, yeah. - The purchase is start September 9. So there was the announcement that came-- - I see. - So had he, anyway, but I had that same thought, oh, it's looking like a pretty good trade now. - All right, stay tuned for the All Lots episode tracking Besson's trade, but shall we leave it there for now? - Let's leave it there. - Okay, this has been another episode of the All Lots podcast. I'm Tracy Alloway, you can follow me at Tracy Alloway. - And I'm Joe Wiesenthal, you can follow me at the stalwart. Follow our producers, Carmen Rodriguez, @CermanArmenDash, she'll bend it at Dashbot, Kale Brooks, at Kale Brooks, and Kevin Luzano at Kevin Lloyd, Luzano. - And for more All Lots content, you should check out our daily newsletter. You can find that at Bloomberg.com/AllLots. And you can chat about all of these things. 24/7 in our Discord, Discord.gg/AllLots. - And if you enjoyed this conversation, then please leave a comment or like the video or better yet, subscribe. - Thanks for watching, listen. (upbeat music) (upbeat music) - Healthcare doesn't always work great. That's the kind of stuff optimum is changing. Cheaper prescriptions that are easier to get and care that looks at the whole person, how you need it. - Join Bloomberg for the Canadian Finance Conference proudly sponsored by National Bank of Canada Capital Markets on September 29th in New York. Here from influential corporate and government leaders as they discuss the strategies shaping Canada's economic future, connect with senior decision makers, gain actionable insights, and be part of the conversations driving business forward. Register at bloomberglive.com/canadianfinance. That's bloomberglive.com/canadianfinance.