What would you pay for a bond that offered to pay you $1/year, but would increase its payment by 3.4% each year?? Assume that bonds that offer no increase in payment, but offer $1/year currently yield 4.4%, for a price of $22.73.? Assuming there is no doubt about the creditworthiness of the issuer, one should be willing to pay $94.48 for the bond increasing its payment at 3.4% per year, accepting an initial current yield of 1.06%.
That is part of the idea behind bonds that Dr. Schiller is proposing.? These bonds called trills would:
- Pay one trillionth of GDP as interest each year.
- Would be full faith and credit bonds of the US Government.
- Would be consols — perpetual bonds that never pay the principal back.
The key here is how fast GDP grows in nominal terms.? TIPS increase at the rate of the CPI-U.? If there is growth over the inflation rate, a trill would? be more valuable than TIPS, and at equivalent interest rates, people would pay more for trills.
My interest rate models indicate that if the US were to issue a consol, a perpetual bond, it would have a yield near 4.4%.? Here’s the question: what do you think nominal GDP growth will be on average? forever?? If it is above 4.4%, one should be willing to pay an infinite amount to buy it.? At lower rates of nominal GDP growth, the security will have a finite value that declines rapidly with lower nominal GDP growth.
Trills would be volatile securities.? The prices would fall hard during periods where long term interest rates are rising, but where GDP is not expected to be growing as rapidly.? Conversely, they would rise rapidly when long term interest rates are falling, but where GDP is not expected to be shrinking as rapidly.
I would not want the US Government to issue trills.? Why?? They suck a lot of money in, and do not consider what it will do to the government in future years.? I can say with confidence that a large issuance of trills would lead to the demise of the US Government.? There is no way that the government could keep up with the payments, because most finance today relies on the idea that the economy can grow out of the debt burden.? With trills, that is not possible.
Trills sound like a nifty idea, an to indebted governments, they offer very cheap finance in the short run, but the eventual end is the insolvency of the government that cant keep up with the increase in interest payments.
Governments want to keep the option of inflating away their debts if they can.? Don’t tell governments in the EU about this though.? They sold that option too cheaply.
In summary, trills are a bad idea.? They are just another way for the government to suck in a lot of money in the short run, while paying out far more forever.
I like Dr. Shiller. However, this might be the worst idea I’ve ever heard of. In fact, it is so bad that Dr. Shiller has lost some credibility (with me at least). I know you think they are bad idea but I don’t think “bad” properly describes trills. “Absolutely ruinous” is more appropriate.
At this point it is vividly clear even to the blind that the ruling Financial Oligarhy is plain nuts.
I would have titled Dr.Shiller’s NYT article:”Flying over CUCU’s land.”
THE GAME IS OVER.
>> Would be consols ? perpetual bonds that ***never pay the principal back***
At least that part is honest!
If he was really in the government’s corner he’d have them issue zero coupon perpetuities!
You write about trills that they:
do not consider what it will do to the government in future years
I think that consideration is there. If nominal GDP grows more slowly then the effective rate of interest is lower.
Brent, they can’t be inflated away, and the government would not shrink the economy to make trills cheaper.
David, thank you for your reply.
I understand that trills can’t be inflated away. I’m not saying that government would choose deflation as a policy goal. I am saying that in a case of unexpected deflation, trills would turn out to be less burdensome than was previously expected.
“Here?s the question: what do you think nominal GDP growth will be on average forever? If it is above 4.4%, one should be willing to pay an infinite amount to buy it. At lower rates of nominal GDP growth, the security will have a finite value that declines rapidly with lower nominal GDP growth.”
ahem… risk premium? but yes, why shouldn’t they fluctuate in value since they are effectively a claim on bond, stock and real property markets.
“They suck a lot of money in, and do not consider what it will do to the government in future years. I can say with confidence that a large issuance of trills would lead to the demise of the US Government. There is no way that the government could keep up with the payments, because most finance today relies on the idea that the economy can grow out of the debt burden. With trills, that is not possible.”
as the same logic applies, I guess developing nations should stop issuing US dollar denominated debt too?
I would like to think that both the buyers and sellers of such securities wouldn’t take the implications lightly. In any case, provided the govt does not issue vast sums, I can’t see the harm. Moreover, their pricing might yield useful signals to policy makers (especially the Fed)
Why not just give
Them an expiration
Date? A bond directly linked to
GDP is an interesting idea, but why make it last
Forever?