Practical analysis for investment professionals
08 August 2016

James Grant: Negative Interest Rates Will End — Badly

James Grant: Negative Interest Rates Will End — Badly

Negative interest rates are unsustainable and once investors decide to stop paying for the privilege of holding government debt, a banking crisis could result, says James Grant.

The founder of Grant’s Interest Rate Observer was one of several speakers at the New York Society of Security Analysts (NYSSA) Annual Benjamin Graham Conference to remark on the ramifications of unprecedented loose monetary policy.

Historic Lows

Central banks are treading in uncharted waters. Sidney Homer and Richard Sylla, the authors of A History of Interest Rates, found no instance of negative rates in 5,000 years. Now there are $11.7 trillion invested in negative-yield sovereign debt, including $7.9 trillion in Japanese government bonds and over $1 trillion in both French and German sovereign debt.

Grant posed a tongue-in-cheek question: “If these are the first sub-zero interest rates in 5,000 years, is this not the worst economy since 3,000 BC?”

This is not a bad economy by most measures. Household wealth in the United States has grown steadily since the Great Recession. If these gains were the result of greater productivity, interest rates would not need to stay at historic lows. Grant says they are “a sign of someone’s thumb on the currency.” Negative rates are propping up risk assets. He critiqued US Federal Reserve chair Janet Yellen’s touting of the bull market in equities as a sign of prosperity by alluding to Brexit voters.

“Asset prices have failed to pacify the world’s unprofitable voters,” Grant said.

The War on Cash

Investors have fallen into the trap of thinking that the future will be like the past, Grant says. The period of falling yields and rising bond prices that began in 1981 is entering its 35th year. He noted that a 35-year bear market preceded this. Yet the yield curve for Swiss bonds is sub-zero for the next 30 years, thereby implying that investors expect negative rates to persist for a long time.

Another reason to think rates must begin to rise: Bonds with negative yields are worse investments than cash. That has always been the reason for zero lower bound in monetary policy. So far, investors have been willing to pay for the convenience and security of storing wealth in banks and bonds, but if yields become sharply negative, some savers will no longer be able to accept guaranteed compounded losses. Then, conventional wisdom says, they will hoard cash, which returns 0%.

To maintain increasingly lower interest rates would require a “war on cash,” Grant said. He envisions a means by which the Fed would discourage and stigmatize using cash, and ultimately implement an unfavorable exchange rate on physical currency.

Central Bank Acrobatics

Central bankers have taken the evolution of currency from a measure of value to a macro-policy tool to, and perhaps beyond, its limits, Grant says. A federal funds rate below zero charges banks to store deposits at the central bank. These negative rates are passed on to depositors, which incentivizes them to spend rather than save. To avoid paying negative rates, banks and individuals buy bonds, so yields fall below zero when demand and price spike.

These “central bank acrobatics” create distortions, like inflated equity prices. Another example: Italian 10-year notes yield roughly 20 basis points (bps) less than US notes. If this is not evidence of the European Central Bank (ECB)’s currency manipulations, Grant said, then investors must expect “a return to the glory of Rome.” Even as the pound fell 12% after Brexit, 10-year gilt yields fell below 1%.

“Where is the pushback from the market?” Grant asked.

Yellen has said the Fed could set the funds rate below zero in the event of a recession. Grant put the odds of sharply negative rates in the case of a recession at “perhaps not 60%,” but noted a confidence in negative rates among central bankers. After the Great Recession, a near-zero funds rate and quantitative easing (QE), which raised inflation expectations, had already reduced real yields to below zero.

Looming Crises

Though savers are yet to hoard cash in their mattresses, negative rates could have other consequences. Negative funds rates squeeze banks’ profit margins. Low enough rates could cause many to become unprofitable. Pension funds depend on bond yields to meet their payment requirements. Grant says it is now impossible for them to hit 7% return targets. Insurance companies invest their premiums in fixed income, and are “dying on the vine” according to Grant.

If interest rates rise due to inflation or pushback from the market, several countries could have difficulty coping with the higher costs of borrowing. Italian stocks tumbled after Brexit, indicating that investors may fear a debt crisis. Japan will have even more difficulty disposing of its debt. Japan has the highest debt-to-GDP ratio in the world at over 200%, in part due to Abenomics intended to prop up stock prices and inflation. Grant also thinks China’s wealth management products are a threat to default.

Gold: An Investment in Monetary Disorder

Grant acknowledged that gold is “the asset class of choice for calamity hounds,” but suggested that investors consider it. The case for gold, he says, has more to do with the state of money and credit than with Brexit. Grant characterizes the value of gold as the reciprocal of the world’s trust in central banks.

“Radical monetary policy begets more radical policy,” he said. “It seems to me, at some point, markets or voters will put a stop to this.”

If and when that time comes, investors will be looking for physical stores of wealth.

“The case for gold is not as a hedge against monetary disorder, because we have monetary disorder, but rather an investment in monetary disorder,” Grant said.

More Advice for Investors

Grant was not the only speaker to address the current condition of money and credit:

  • David Poppe on why value stocks have underperformed growth stocks: “Low interest rates have made it very cheap for companies to grow. Higher ROI will outperform when capital becomes more expensive.”
  • Jason Karp on dividend-paying stocks: “Retirement flow is coming from low rates because you can’t earn from bonds. Stocks have to be your bond proxy.”
  • Leon Cooperman, CFA, on the end of the bond bull market: “Buying bonds is like walking in front of a steamroller to pick up a dime: You might get away with it, but it’s very risky . . . there’s no coupon to bail you out.”

If you liked this post, don’t forget to subscribe to the Enterprising Investor.


All posts are the opinion of the author. As such, they should not be construed as investment advice, nor do the opinions expressed necessarily reflect the views of CFA Institute or the author’s employer.

 Image credit: Courtesy of NYSSA

About the Author(s)
Matthew Borin

Matthew Borin was an intern at CFA Institute. He was pursuing a bachelor's degree in economics from Williams College, Williamstown, Massachusetts.

15 thoughts on “James Grant: Negative Interest Rates Will End — Badly”

  1. Per Kurowski says:

    At what point do negative rates on government debt become absolutely incompatible with its zero % risk weight?

    http://teawithft.blogspot.com/2016/08/at-what-point-do-negative-rates-on.html

  2. Howard Slobodin says:

    Lenny Bruce famously said: “a knowledge of syphilis is not an instruction to get it”

  3. pebblewriter says:

    Excellent comments from Jim Grant, always one of the smartest guys in the room.

  4. Bruno Maniccia says:

    This year, gold mines will produce one gram of gold for every thousand dollars printed by central banks. ($43 vs $1,000.).
    That excess of over two Trillion Dollars increase in the aggregate must find its way somewhere. Whatever is not being destroyed by politicians must flow into asset prices.
    Our parents thought that money does not grow on trees. Today it is grown with keystrokes on central bank computers.
    This game will most certainly not end well.

  5. Sanjay Mittal says:

    The whole idea that interest rate adjustments are a good way of regulating aggregate demand is nonsense. Some of the reasons are in Part III (sections 10 & 11) here:

    https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/78896/1/MPRA_paper_78896.pdf

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *



By continuing to use the site, you agree to the use of cookies. more information

The cookie settings on this website are set to "allow cookies" to give you the best browsing experience possible. If you continue to use this website without changing your cookie settings or you click "Accept" below then you are consenting to this.

Close