Friday, April 8, 2022

Better measures of the yield curve


The shape of the Treasury yield curve continues to be a subject of great interest to the market, due to the now-widespread belief that a flat or negatively-sloped yield curve is a sure-fire harbinger of recession. I've disagreed with this of late, because while a negatively-sloped yield curve has in fact preceded almost all of the recessions in the past 50 years (with the notable exception of the economic collapse brought on by Covid shutdowns), there are other indicators (e.g., real yields, swap spreads, credit spreads) which also must be observed if one is to reliably anticipate recessions.

So the shape of the yield curve can help, but it's not bullet-proof. And to complicate things further, there are a variety of ways to measure the shape of the yield curve, and they often give conflicting signals.

Most discussions of the shape of the yield curve revolve around the spread between 2- and 10-yr Treasuries (the 2-10 spread), but increasingly I'm seeing market pundits refer to the 2-5 spread, the 5-10 spread, and the 10-30 spread. Anyone attempting to follow these various spreads can become quickly confused. As I write this, the 5-10 spread is negative (-5 bps), while the 2-10 spread is positive (20 bps) and the 10-30 spread is almost flat (3 bps).

This begs the question: which measure of the slope of the yield curve is the most reliable guide to recessions?

The spread I have generally preferred is the 1-10 spread (shown in Chart #1), but there's one I think is even better: the spread between the real Fed funds rate and the real yield on 5-yr TIPS (Chart #2). Here I'm referring the real yield curve, not the commonly-used nominal curve. Real yields, after all, are far more important than nominal yields because they reflect the true cost of borrowing and the true returns to saving, and those are what create the most powerful incentives in the economy. The Fed is right when it says that it is not actually targeting the nominal Fed funds rate, but instead the real Fed funds rate; that is the best measure of the stance of monetary policy, and that is what a good yield curve analysis should focus on as its starting point (i.e., the overnight Fed funds rate after adjustment for inflation).

Chart #1

I have been featuring numerous updates of Chart #1 for as long as I can remember. It compares the real Fed funds rate (blue line), which is derived from the difference between the current funds rate and the most recent 12-mo. change in the Core Personal Consumption Deflator (the Fed's favorite measure of inflation), to the difference between the yield on 1- and 10-yr Treasuries (red line). Note that the red line is zero or less in advance of every recession and the blue line reaches at least 3-4%. I think it takes both conditions to equate to a high probability of an impending recession. Today, neither suggests an impending recession—not even close.

Chart #2

Chart #2 compares the real yield on 5-yr TIPS (red line) to the real Fed funds rate (blue line). (It only goes back to 1997 because that was the year the Treasury began issuing TIPS.) I would argue that this chart gives us a very accurate indication of the slope of the Treasury curve for several reasons: 1) it uses real yields, which are the best measure of how Treasury yields are perceived by the market and how they impact the economy, 2) the Fed itself prefers the real funds rate as the most accurate indicator of the effective stance of monetary policy, and 3) it uses 5-yr real yields on TIPS as the best measure of what the market expects Fed policy to do in coming years. (In bond market-speak, the real yield on 5-yr TIPS is equivalent to what the market expects the real Fed funds rate to average over the next 5 years.) According to this chart, the real yield curve is very positively sloped, with the difference between overnight real yields and 5-yr real yields being more than 5%.

So this chart shows us what the Fed is doing now and what it is expected to do in the future. Clearly, the Fed is "behind the curve" because it is going to have to be doing a lot of rate-hiking in coming years. That's what a very positively-sloped real yield curve tells us. The risk of recession will rise only as the real yield curve flattens. 

In other words, when the red line exceeds the blue line, the market is expecting the Fed to tighten policy in the future, whereas when the blue line exceeds the red line, the market is expecting the Fed to ease policy in the future. The former is consistent with the Fed being behind the inflation curve, and the latter consistent with being "tight." Note that each of the three recessions shown here were proceeded by a period in which the blue line exceeded the red line: those periods were witness to very tight Fed policy—so tight that the market became convinced that the Fed would inevitably ease policy because the economy would be negatively impacted. And the economy indeed subsequently collapsed.

17 comments:

Roy said...

"In other words, when the red line exceeds the blue line...And the economy indeed subsequently collapsed."

Perhaps I'm reading it wrong, but it seems to say that no collapse is imminent as there's still a long way to go.

I'm wondering if this chart is still reliable, though, considering that it also shows the unprecedented gap following 2020. As you say, the Fed is so far behind the curve.

Personally, I think the market is slumbering because QT didn't really start yet. Something is off.

Tom L said...

Thank you Scott, appreciate your continued insights. What are your thoughts on the Fed balance sheet unwinding and the timing of doing it? Thanks!

Salmo Trutta said...

AD = M*Vt where N-gDp is a subset and proxy. The suppression of interest rates, negative real rates of interest, has a multifaceted transmission mechanism. But ultimately, it is transmogrified into a larger volume of new money, higher money flows, culminating in a stagflationary outcome.

As long as the rate-of-change in money flows, the volume and velocity of money, is positive, R-gDp will remain positive.

link: Daniel L. Thornton, Vice President and Economic Adviser: Research Division, Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, Working Paper Series

“Monetary Policy: Why Money Matters and Interest Rates Don’t”
bit.ly/1OJ9jhU

Salmo Trutta said...

"In January 2019, the FOMC announced its intention to implement monetary policy in an ample reserves regime" But interest is the price of loan funds. The price of money is the reciprocal of the price level. The money stock can never be properly managed by any attempt to control the cost of credit.

alpacino said...

Thanks for the post Scott! Have you looked at Truck Tonnage lately? Seems like freight prices are dropping hard. TY

Macronim said...

Thank you Scott for another great contribution. Your blog is my favourite "macro" blog.

I'm wondering if the slope of the real yield curve might be biased by purchases of relevant debt instruments by FED. Do you think the curve would be different in absence of QE?

RJ said...

@alpiacino What Truck Tonnage are you looking at?
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/TRUCKD11

alpacino said...

@RJ I never said truck tonnage was falling. Freight prices are falling.

RJ said...

@ alpiacino. You asked Scott if he had seen the Truck Tonnage lately followed by a comment on freight prices “dropping hard.” I misunderstood your inference. Thanks for the clarification. The Baltic Dry Index is defiantly down, but still well above long term averages. Any other indexes you are tracking?

Benjamin Cole said...

Interesting post. Well, people are criticizing the Fed and maybe they deserve it. On the other hand, there has been a run of bad luck with Covid-19 (and bungled government response), oil prices, and now the Ukraine catastrophe.

I wonder if reducing the Fed's balance sheet will accomplish anything, except levering up taxpayers again. Dumping a lot of bonds on global capital markets might modestly influence stock and bond prices in a downward direction, but what effect on consumer prices? Likely none.

Well, tough year ahead.

Scott Grannis said...

Tom L, re Fed's balance sheet: the Fed is soon going to be shrinking its balance by not reinvesting maturing securities up to a monthly cap of about $95 billion. The Fed will not be selling any of its securities holdings, so this is a very gradualist policy and as such is not likely to have much effect on the economy or inflation or interest rates. Considering the Fed holds almost $9 trillion worth of Treasuries and MBS, this "balance sheet runoff" is small potatoes. The only thing that would make a difference at this point is a very aggressive hike to short-term interest rates on the order of at least 400-500 bps.

In short, don't expect Fed "tightening" as currently defined (i.e., $95 billion in runoff plus maybe a 250 bps hike in short rates by year end) to have a major adverse impact on anything.

alpacino said...

@RJ Wondering why freight rates are falling? US trucking stocks have dropped quite a bit the past week. Is it because the US consumer is pulling back? China lockdowns? Thx

Unknown said...

Do you really believe the FED leads the Bond Market...or is it really the other way around?

Scott Grannis said...

I've argued in the past that the Fed has a strong tendency to follow the market. But it's a complicated dance, where the lead sometimes switches. Today, for example, the Fed is "leading" by talking about what it might do in the future. That gives the Fed a chance to watch for the market's reaction and to adjust their "lead" accordingly.

Unknown said...

Hi Scott. Thanks for your great charts and posts.... and this quick response. Having watched this game since 1977, I would say the T Bond market is the 800 pound gorilla in the room and calls the shots. The FED can pretend all it wants, but they really do not lead the markets....just my opinion

Scott Grannis said...

Volcker might have been the last Fed Chair to actually lead the markets, with his laser focus on growth of M2.

Unknown said...

I think that is correct....