Talk of an inverted US yield curve flagging a recession is completely misplaced, says Robeco investor Lukas Daalder.
Fears have grown that a flattening in the curve that depicts the difference in yields between shorter-dated and longer-dated government bonds is a bad omen. “This has triggered a lot of concerns, with people claiming that this is a sign that US expansion is coming to an end,” says Daalder, Chief Investment Officer of Robeco Investment Solutions.
“People are worried mostly because since the mid-1970s, all recessions have been preceded by a period when the yield curve was inverted, meaning that the 10-year yield was lower than the 2-year yield. This correctly signaled five out of five recessions: neither economists (‘zero out of the last seven’) nor the stock markets (‘nine out of the past five’) can boast such a strong track record of predictions.”
“So although this does look like a reliable leading indicator, there are a number of reasons why we think the whole ‘a-recession-is-around-the-corner’ theme is overdone right now.”
Daalder says firstly, the notion that an inverted yield curve is an early warning system is not infallible, particularly if the bond durations used are changed, as shown in the chart below. “Things look somewhat different when we extend the timeframe, such as by switching from a 2-year Treasury yield to a 3-month interest rate,” he says.
“Here we now have two false signals: neither the inversion of 1966, nor that of 1998 were precursors of a recession. Not every inverted yield curve ‘leads’ to a recession, apparently. It is clear that the yield curve has not always acted as a reliable early warning system, and it can be questioned whether in this day and age of central bank intervention in bond markets, it still has the same predicative qualities that it used to have.”
So why does this fear persist, when the US is nowhere near an inverted yield curve using either 2-year bonds or 3-month rates at the short end? It stems from the Fed signaling that it expects to make three quarter-point rate hikes in 2018, which would bring policy rates above 2% for the first time since 2008, Daalder says.
“If you add the 75 basis points of rate rises to the 2-year yield while keeping the 10-year yield unchanged, voila! … you end up with an inverted yield curve,” he says. “If only things were that simple. There are a number of important assumptions being made here, all of which can be questioned.”
“First, in recent years we have seen that the Fed’s expectations are usually too optimistic when it comes to rate hikes. Not surprisingly, financial markets only expect rates to rise by 50 basis points, as can be deduced from the December 2018 Federal Funds Future.”
“Second, the link between the Federal Funds rate and 2-year yields is fuzzy at best. But by far the biggest – and the mostly unlikely – assumption however is that 10-year yields will remain unchanged during 2018. This would imply that the Treasury market will not be affected by the steady unwinding of the Fed’s bond holdings, along with other issues such as the Trump tax cuts and a tighter labor market.”
“In other words, the Fed would be raising rates as a result of an ongoing improvement in growth, but we are assuming here that bonds would not be impacted by that same underlying momentum improvement. This is a story that does not sound very plausible.”
Daalder says that even if the yield curve does eventually invert, this still does not mean that a recession is around the corner. “Historically, on average it has taken another 18 months before the recession started,” he says. Given the fact that stocks typically start their descent four months prior to a recession, it is clear that this is not a very reliable sell signal, at least for the time being.”
“Another misnomer is that the steepness of the yield curve is an indicator for the underlying strength of an economy. If this is indeed true, then it is clear why there is rising concern about the flatter yield curve: the flattening would signal an even lower growth rate than the one we have seen in recent years.”
“However, historically there has not been a clear-cut relationship between the two. Neither in the late 1980s, nor in the late 1990s, did the flattening of the yield curve coincide with a lower growth rate; instead, it coincided with a higher one. In fact, looking at growth and the yield curve during the current expansion phase, one might even claim that the relationship seems to have been inverse.”
当資料は情報提供を目的として、Robeco Institutional Asset Management B.V.が作成した英文資料、もしくはその英文資料をロベコ・ジャパン株式会社が翻訳したものです。資料中の個別の金融商品の売買の勧誘や推奨等を目的とするものではありません。記載された情報は十分信頼できるものであると考えておりますが、その正確性、完全性を保証するものではありません。意見や見通しはあくまで作成日における弊社の判断に基づくものであり、今後予告なしに変更されることがあります。運用状況、市場動向、意見等は、過去の一時点あるいは過去の一定期間についてのものであり、過去の実績は将来の運用成果を保証または示唆するものではありません。また、記載された投資方針・戦略等は全ての投資家の皆様に適合するとは限りません。当資料は法律、税務、会計面での助言の提供を意図するものではありません。
商号等： ロベコ・ジャパン株式会社 金融商品取引業者 関東財務局長（金商）第２７８０号
加入協会： 一般社団法人 日本投資顧問業協会