Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Couldn't possibly be because the yield curve has inverted. And that it's a reliable indicator of a recession.

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

This seems farcical, but does it roughly mean that the government considers itself in desperate need of money immediately, but assumes that any day now they'll be just fine and wont have to offer high rates anymore?

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Not really. The US government issues bills/notes/bonds (I'll just say bonds from here on) via auction with different frequencies depending on how quickly they mature. Basically, anyone can pay the federal government less than $100 for the promise to receive $100 at some point in the future. Once that bond has been sold, that person can then sell it to someone else. The market prices for bonds of different maturities forms the yield curve. In a healthy market, longer-term bonds will always have a higher yield (that is, you pay less for the right to receive $100 in the future) because you have to wait longer before the government gives you $100. What an inverted yield curve means is somewhat contested, but the gist is there's a drop in demand or increase in supply (or some combination) of short-term bonds that causes their price to drop relative to longer-term bonds, which increases their yield.

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Thank god for some useful conversation here. Thanks.

Inverted yield curve can be also be explained by an expectation that rates are temporarily high and will fall. People got used to unusually low rates over the past generation and seemed surprised they could ever rise, that might drive the expectation that "normal" rates are around 1%.

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Link copied to clipboard
Action successful!
Error, please refresh the page and try again.