Cotton Bond Bubble

A fascinating story, both a history and a modern caution.

...on Jan. 29, 1863, the Confederate Congress secretly authorized the Paris-based bankers at Erlanger et Cie. – which rivaled Rothschild for European royalty connections – to underwrite $15 million of Confederate bonds, denominated in British pounds or French francs.

But unlike ordinary bonds backed only by the faith and credit of the issuing country, at the option of the holder an Erlanger certificate could be converted into a receipt for a pre-specified quantity of cotton. Furthermore, the conversion rate was fixed at 12 cents a pound, regardless of the commodity’s market price, at the time about 48 cents. On top of that, the bonds paid a handsome 7 percent annual interest rate.

Put another way, a buyer of a £1,000 bond could convert it into 80 500-pound bales of cotton worth almost £4,000. If the price of cotton continued to rise, the underlying bond’s conversion-value would climb in lockstep. European investors flocked to the bonds, including the future British prime ministers William Gladstone and Lord Cecil.

But like any too-good-to-be-true investment, there was a catch: the cotton was located in the Confederacy. Upon conversion, Confederate authorities were obligated only to deliver the bales to a point within “ten miles of a navigable river or railhead,” where the new owner must arrange transport to the final destination.

ATSRTWT

Nod to JR, who asks:  "What would have happened in the war if they had followed Benjamin's way to sell cotton future instead of the banker's model?"
 

Holy Negative Spread, Batman!

Golly, this is remarkable.  Click through for commentary...

As Woj puts it:  This chart, more than almost any other, may highlight the potential harm induced by the Federal Reserve’s attempts to push private investors further out on the risk spectrum. Unless junk bond companies have truly become significantly less risky, when the next round of increasing defaults begins, investors will find that current yields fail to even remotely compensate for future losses. Stocks may currently be slightly overvalued from a historical perspective, but certainly not compared with junk bonds.

John-O:  waddya thank, m'brother?

Why Are 10 year T bonds Attractive?

So, I have been wondering.  A lot.  With the rate on 10 yr T's down to 1.6%, how can that be anything other than a sucker's bet?

I mean, do you seriously believe that there will be inflation rates of <=1% for the next ten years? 

And that the US is going to find a way to solve the rate of increase of the deficit?  I don't mean the debt, I just mean the deficit.  No plan out there to solve the debt.  We see Spain facing rates of 7%+.  If US rates go back up to just 3% or 3.5%, anyone holding 1.6% T's is going to get hammered.

However, here is an answer.  At least it gives a rational explanation.

Are You Kidding?

Ken Rogoff is a very serious man, so I know he is NOT kidding. But what he is proposing is theft, pure and simple.

"...the real problem is that the global economy is badly overleveraged, and there is no quick escape without a scheme to transfer wealth from creditors to debtors, either through defaults, financial repression, or inflation."

So, he proposes that "we" (meaning borrowers; you creditors can go screw!) simply inflate by 4%-6% a year until we have destroyed the value of the outstanding debt.

Remember, there is a huge amount of US sovereign and corporate debt, with fixed coupon rates, in the hands of foreign banks and governments. HUGE. Foreigners "own" nearly $5 trillion in US sovereign debt. I use the scare quotes because if we do the "Full Rogoff" then it turns out they don't own what they thought they owned, after all, which was a promise to pay back the loan.

Let's do an example. Suppose inflation is 2%, the "real cost of funds" is 2% (just say, okay, for simplicity) and has been for a while.

A bond with a par value of $1,000, a coupon rate of 4% (about what US Treasuries are going for) with a maturity 20 years from now, would then be worth its par value of $1,000 (inflation 2% plus cost of funds 2% = 4% current market rate = 4% coupon rate, and again just let me simplify it this way). (A calculator, if you want to try this at home)

Now...we go to 6% inflation, not anticipated but introduced overnight and everyone knows it, it's intentional and it is not going away anytime soon. And say real cost of funds is still 2%.

What is the bond worth now?

That would be $601.49.* $400 of the bondholder's wealth has been destroyed. Well, not destroyed, exactly: stolen. Because the debtors are now paying back in inflated, less valuable dollars.

That is Rogoff's solution? Kill the rich? Abuse the idiots who loaned us money? It's impressive how soon the rule of law dies when the wealthy elites of a nation find it to be in their interest.

To be fair, Dr. Rogoff does recognize the problem: "Of course, inflation is an unfair and arbitrary transfer of income from savers to debtors. But, at the end of the day, such a transfer is the most direct approach to faster recovery. Eventually, it will take place one way or another, anyway, as Europe is painfully learning."

That's a truly remarkable statement. This action, if consciously taken by the monetary authorities, would have the effect of saying that all debtors, ALL DEBTORS regardless of size, are "too big to fail."

Wow. Remember, Dr. Rogoff is the former chief econo-shaman at the IMF. The same IMF that tells poor countries they have to pay back 100% of THEIR debts.

**************************************
*Yes, that's assuming that the 2% cost of funds, 6% inflation are the new steady values. Rogoff wants 6% inflation to be temporary. But it would change expectations in a way that would make it hard to readjust very quickly. When the inflation (QE3? QE7?) ends, it would not work to say, "Okay, now we want to borrow at 4% again! We promise never to do that whole inflation thing again. That was only a one time thing."