Please help me understand reasons for differences in Government Bond Yields
"The real question is what does FT mean by ""Eurozone Bond"". There is no central European government to issue bonds. What they seem to be quoting is the rate for German Bunds. Germany has a strong economy with a manageable debt load, which means it is a safe Euro denominated investment. Bunds are in high demand across the Eurozone, which drives their price up, and their yield down. Greek 10yr bonds, which are Euro denominated, are yielding over 8%." These are yields for the government bonds. EuroZone interest rates are much lower (10 times lower, in fact) than the UK (GBP zone) interest rates. The rates are set by the central banks.
The question in my view is going into Opinion and economics. Why would I buy a bond with a negative yield? I guess you have answered yourself; Although the second point is more relevant for high net worth individual or large financial institutions / Governments where preserving cash is an important consideration. Currently quite a few Govt Bonds are in negative as most Govt want to encourage spending in an effort to revive economy. It's misleading news. Comparing debt levels in nominal terms is completely pointless over a period of more than a few months.  The article you responded to quite literally quoted extracts from the article you subsequently posted and explained why they were misleading or incorrect. "Bonds might not be simple, but in general there are only a few variables that need to be understood: bid, coupon (interest) rate, maturity, and yield.  Bond tables clearly lay those out, and if you're talking about government bonds a lot of things (like convertibles) don't apply (although default is still a concern). This might be overly simplistic, but I view ETF's primarily as an easy way to bring somewhat esoteric instruments (like grain futures) into the easily available markets of Nasdaq and the NYSE. That they got ""enhanced"" with leveraged funds and the such is interesting, but perhaps not the original intent of the instrument.  Complicating your situation a bit more is the fee that gets tacked onto the ETF. Even Vanguard government bond funds hang out north of 0.1%. That's not huge, but it's not particularly appealing either considering that (unlike rounding up live cattle futures), it's not that much work to buy US government bonds, so the expense might not seem worth it to someone who's comfortable purchasing the securities directly.  I'd be interested to see someone else's view on this, but in general I'd say that if you know what you want and know how to buy it, the government bond ETF becomes a lot less relevant as the liquidity offered (including the actual ""ease of transacting"") seem to to be the biggest factors in favor. From Investopedia's description: The bond ETF is an exciting new addition to the bond market, offering   an excellent alternative to self-directed investors who, looking for   ease of trading and increased price transparency, want to practice   indexing or active bond trading. However, bond ETFs are suitable for   particular strategies. If, for instance, you are looking to create a   specific income stream, bond ETFs may not be for you. Be sure to   compare your alternatives before investing." The Government doesn't borrow money. It in fact simply prints it. The bond market is used for an advanced way of controlling the demand for this printed money. Think about it logically. Take 2011 for example. The Govt spent $1.7 trillion more than it took in. This is real money that get's credited in to people's bank accounts to purchase real goods and services. Now who purchases the majority of treasuries? The Primary Dealers. What are the Primary Dealers? They are banks. Where do banks get their money? From us.  So now put two and two together. When the Govt spends $1.7 trillion and credits our bank accounts, the banking system has $1.7 trillion more. Then that money flows in to pension funds, gets spent in to corporation who then send that money to China for cheap products... and eventually the money spent purchases up Govt securities for investments. We had to physically give China 1 trillion dollars for them to be able to purchase 1 trillion dollars in securities. So it makes sense if you think about how the math works in the real world. Haven't there been examples of governments defaulting, delaying payment and imposing haircuts on investors? Greece and Argentina come to mind. Quite a few Govt have defaulted in the past or were very of default or crisis. Most 3rd world countries or developing countries have under gone stress at some point. Greece was amongst the first example of Developed country going bankrupt. am I not better off if the fund invests solely in AAA corporate bonds, avoiding government bonds? Well that depends. Corporate bonds are not safer than Government Bonds. There have been instances of Corporate bonds not giving the required returns. Yield is the term used to describe how much income the bond will generate if the bond was purchased at a particular moment in time. If I pay $100 for a one year, $100 par value bond that pays 5% interest then the bond yields 5% since I will receive $5 from a $100 investment if I held the bond to maturity. If I pay $90 for the same one year bond then the bond yields 17% since I will receive $15 from a $90 investment if I held the bond to maturity. There are many factors that affect what yield creditors will accept: It is the last bullet that ultimately determines yield.  The other factors feed into the creditor’s desire to hold money today versus receiving money in the future.  I desire money in my hand more than a promise to receive money in the future.  In order to entice me to lend my money someone must offer me an incentive.  Thus, they must offer me more money in the future in order for me to part with money I have. A yield curve is a snapshot of the yields for different loan durations.  The x-axis is the amount of time left on the bond while the y-axis is the yield.  The most cited yield curve is the US treasury curve which displays the yields for loans to the US government.  The yield curve changes while bonds are being traded thus it is always a snapshot of a particular moment in time. Short term loans typically have less yield than longer term loans since there is less uncertainty about the near future. Yield curves will flatten or slightly invert when creditors desire to keep their money instead of loaning it out.  This can occur because of a sudden disruption in the market that causes uncertainty about the future which leads to an increase in the demand for cash on hand. The US government yield curve should be looked at with some reservation however since there is a very large creditor to the US government that has the ability to loan the government an unlimited amount of funds. Why does selling a bond drive up the yield? The bond will pay back a fixed amount when it comes due. The yield is a comparison of what you pay for the bond and what will be repaid when it matures (assuming no default). Why does the yield go up if the country is economically unstable? If the country's economy is unstable, that increases the chance that they will default and not pay the full value of the bonds when they mature. People are selling them now at a loss instead of waiting for a default later for a greater loss. So if you think Greece is not going to default as it's highly likely a country would completely default, wouldn't it make sense to hold onto the bonds? Only if you also think that they will pay back the full value at maturity. It's possible that they pay some, but not all. It's also possible that they will default. It's also possible that they will get kicked out of the Euro and start printing Drachmas again, and try to pay the bonds back with those which could devalue the bonds through inflation. The market is made of lots of smart people. If they think there are reasons to worry, there probably are. That doesn't mean they can predict the future, it just means that they are pricing the risk with good information. If you are smarter than the herd, by all means, bet against them and buy the bonds now. It can indeed be lucrative if you are right, and they are wrong. Your question asked about a specific time the yield curve flattened or inverted.  There are other times when the yield curve inverted or flattened.  You also imply in your question that investors were flocking to long term bonds which lowered their yields.  I don't believe this is the case.  I believe investors were fleeing from short term bonds causing the yields on short term bonds to rise to meet those of long term bonds. The chart below shows the history of yields on US bonds over time.  The shaded areas are where the yield curve flattened or inverted.  Notice that after 1982 it is the short term yields that rise sharply to meet or cross the yields on longer term bonds.  The yields on longer term bonds move little compared to the movement in yields on the short term bonds.  Thus it is investors moving out of short term bonds that cause the yield curve to flatten or invert.  These investors are not moving into longer term bonds since the yields on the longer term bonds do not move much at all at these times.  In fact, in 2006 the longer term bond market was only 25% of the total US public debt while short term bonds made up 75%.  It would take less money to move the yields on longer term bonds than it would on short term bonds yet the longer term yields did not move near as much as short term yields.  So why are investors or banks moving out of short term bonds causing their yields to rise?  I believe this happens for one of two reasons:  they are moving into higher yielding investments or they need to raise cash to cover bad investments.  Charts and more information here. The forward curve for gold says little, in my opinion, about the expected price of gold. The Jan 16 price is 7.9% (or so) higher than the Jan 12 price. This reflects the current cost of money, today's low interest rates. When the short rates were 5%, the price 4 years out would be about 20% higher. No magic there. (The site you linked to was in German, so I looked and left. I'm certain if you pulled up the curve for platinum or silver, it would have the identical shape, that 7.9% rise over 4 years.) The yield curve, on the other hand,  Is said to provide an indication of the direction of the economy, a steep curve forecasting positive growth. "Its because of the economic uncertainty in the world. They are the ""risk-free"" investment as it is an almost guaranteed return if you exclude inflation and US gov't defaulting. A lot of people are afraid to invest elsewhere given the current economic climate.  The yield on bonds is also low due to government intervention. Quantitative easing 1 and 2 and operation twist has forced yield this low, as that is what the government wants." This is a perfect example of why bonds are confusing at first glance.  Think about it this way...  You buy a 30-year Russian Bond at 4%.  An event happens that makes Russia risky to invest in.  You want to buy another bond but fuck 4%, you and the rest of the market want 6% to compensate you for the risk.  Now let's say you want to sell your 4% bond... Well you're going to have to drop the price of that bond in order for it to appeal to an investor that could go out and get a 6%. On a 30-year bond of that kind, you're looking at about 75% of what you bought it for.   So to wrap it up, high bond yields are great for buyers that don't already own them, but bad for sellers who want to get rid of their old ones. It is the opposite intuition as stocks and almost everything else. Public Securities Association Standard Prepayment Model is what the acronym psa stands for.  My understanding is that it allows for adjustments in monthly pre-payment amounts, which will then affect the yield of the bond.  Not really sure what the most important bond measure would be... but if I had to guess I'd say its the mechanical bond price/ bond yield relationship.  Yields go down, prices go up and vice versa. A bond fund has a 5% yield. You can take 1/.05 and think of it as a 20 P/E.  I wouldn't, because no one else does, really. An individual bond has a coupon yield, and a YTM, yield to maturity. A bond fund or ETF usually won't have a maturity, only a yield. "Bingo, great question.  I'm not the original poster, ""otherwiseyep"", but I am in the economics field (I'm a currency analyst for a Forex broker).  I also happen to strongly disagree with his posts on the origin of money.  To answer your question:  the villagers are forced to use the new notes by their government, which demands that their income taxes be paid with the new currency.  This is glossed over by otherwiseyep, which is unfortunate because it misleads people who are new to economics into believing the system of fiat money we have now is natural/emergent (created from the bottom-up) and not enforced from the top-down.  Legal tender laws enforced in each nation's courts mean that all contracts can be settled in the local fiat currency, regardless of whether the receiver of the money wants a different currency.  These laws (and the income tax) create an artificial ""root demand"" for the fiat currency, which is what gives it its value.  We don't just *decide* that green paper has value.  We are forced to accumulate it by the government.  Fiat currencies are not money.  We call them money, but in fact they are credit derivatives.  Let me explain:  A currency's value is inextricably tied to the nation's bond market.  When investors buy a nation's bonds, they are loaning that nation money.  The investor expects to receive interest payments on the bonds.  The interest rate naturally rises as the bonds are perceived to be more-risky, and naturally falls as the bonds are perceived to be less-risky.  The risk comes from the fact that governments sometimes get really close to not being able to pay their interest payments.  They get into so much debt, and their tax-revenue shrinks as their economy worsens.  That drives up the interest rate they must pay when they issue new bonds (ie add debt).  So the value of a currency comes from tax revenue (interest payments).  If a government misses an interest payment, or doesn't fully pay it, the market considers this a ""credit event"" and investors sell their bonds and freak out.  Selling bonds has the effect of driving interest rates even higher, so it's a vicious cycle.  If the government defaults, there's massive deflation because all debt denominated in that currency suddenly skyrockets due to the higher interest rates.  This creates a chain of cascading defaults - one person defaults, which leads another person, and another, and so on.  Everyone was in debt to everyone else, somewhere along the chain.  In order to counteract this deflation (which ultimately leads to the kind of depression you saw in 1930's US), governments will print print print, expanding the credit supply via the banks.  So this is what you see happening today - banks are constantly being bailed out all over the Western world, governments are cutting programs to be able to meet their interest payments, and central banks are expanding credit supplies and bailing out their buddies.  Real money has ZERO counterparty risk.  What is counterparty risk?  It's just the risk that the guy who owes you something won't honor his debt.  Gold and silver and salt and oil aren't IOU's.  So they can be real money." Option liquidity and underlying liquidity tend to go hand in hand. According to regulation, what kinds of issues can have options even trading are restricted by volume and cost due to registration with the authorities. Studies have shown that the introduction of option trading causes a spike in underlying trading. Market makers and the like can provide more option liquidity if there is more underlying and option liquidity, a reflexive relationship. The cost to provide liquidity is directly related to the cost for liquidity providers to hedge, as evidenced by the bid ask spread. Liquidity providers in option markets prefer to hedge mostly with other options, hedging residual greeks with other assets such as the underlying, volatility, time, interest rates, etc because trading costs are lower since the two offsetting options hedge most of each other out, requiring less trading in the other assets.