Can someone explain how government bonds work?
"The short of it is that bonds are valued based on a fundamental concept of finance called the ""time value of money"". Stated simply, $100 one year from now is not the same as $100 now. If you had $100 now, you could use it to make more money and have more than $100 in a year. Conversely, if you didn't invest it, the $100 would not buy as much in a year as it would now, and so it would lose real value. Therefore, for these two benefits to be worth the same, the money received a year from now must be more than $100, in the amount of what you could make with $100 if you had it now, or at least the rate of inflation. Or, the amount received now could be less than the amount recieved a year from now, such that if you invested this lesser amount you'd expect to have $100 in a year. The simplest bonds simply pay their face value at maturity, and are sold for less than their face value, the difference being the cost to borrow the cash; ""interest"". These are called ""zero-coupon bonds"" and they're around, if maybe uncommon. The price people will pay for these bonds is their ""present value"", and the difference between the present value and face value determines a ""yield""; a rate of return, similar to the interest rate on a CD. Now, zero-coupon bonds are uncommon because they cost a lot. If I buy a zero-coupon bond, I'm basically tying up my money until maturity; I see nothing until the full bond is paid. As such, I would expect the bond issuer to sell me the bond at a rate that makes it worth my while to keep the money tied up. So basically, the bond issuer is paying me compound interest on the loan. The future value of an investment now at a given rate is given by FV = PV(1+r)t. To gain $1 million in new cash today, and pay a 5% yield over 10 years, a company or municipality would have to issue $1.629 million in bonds. You see the effects of the compounding there; the company is paying 5% a year on the principal each year, plus 5% of each 5% already accrued, adding up to an additional 12% of the principal owed as interest. Instead, bond issuers can offer a ""coupon bond"". A coupon bond has a coupon rate, which is a percentage of the face value of the bond that is paid periodically (often annually, sometimes semi-annually or even quarterly). A coupon rate helps a company in two ways. First, the calculation is very straightforward; if you need a million dollars and are willing to pay 5% over 10 years, then that's exactly how you issue the bonds; $1million worth with a 5% coupon rate and a maturity date 10 years out. A $100 5% coupon bond with a 10-year maturity, if sold at face value, would cost only $150 over its lifetime, making the total cost of capital only 50% of the principal instead of 62%. Now, that sounds like a bad deal; if the company's paying less, then you're getting less, right? Well yes, but you also get money sooner. Remember the fundamental principle here; money now is worth more than money later, because of what you can do with money between now and later. You do realize a lower overall yield from this investment, but you get returns from it quickly which you can turn around and reinvest to make more money. As such, you're usually willing to tolerate a lower rate of return, because of the faster turnaround and thus the higher present value. The ""Income Yield %"" from your table is also referred to as the ""Flat Yield"". It is a very crude measure, a simple function of the coupon rate, the current quote price and the face value (R/P * V). For the first bond in your list, the flat yield is (.04/114.63 * 100) = 3.4895%. This is a very simple measure that is roughly analogous to what you would expect to make on the bond if you held it for one year, collected the coupon payment, and then sold the bond for the same price; you'd earn one coupon payment at the end of that year and then recoup the principal. The actual present value calculation for a period of 1 year is PV = FV/(1+r), which rearranges to r = FV/PV - 1; plug in the values (present value 114.63, future value 118.63) and you get exactly the same result. This is crude and inaccurate because in one year, the bond will be a year closer to maturity and will return one less coupon payment; therefore at the same rate of return the present value of the remaining payout of the bond will only be $110.99 (which makes a lot of sense if you think about it; the bond will only pay out $112 if you bought it a year from now, so why would you pay $114 for it?). Another measure, not seen in the list, is the ""simple APY"". Quite simply, it is the yield that will be realized from all cash flows from the bond (all coupon payments plus the face value of the bond), as if all those cash flows happened at maturity. This is calculated using the future value formula: FV = PV (1+r/n)nt, where FV is the future value (the sum of the face value and all coupon payments to be made before maturity), PV is present value (the current purchase price), r is the annual rate (which we're solving for), n is the number of times interest accrues and/or is paid (for an annual coupon that's 1), and t is the number of years to maturity. For the first bond in the list, the simple APY is 0.2974%. This is the effective compound interest rate you would realize if you bought the bond and then took all the returns and stuffed them in a mattress until maturity. Since nobody does this with investment returns, it's not very useful, but it can be used to compare the yield on a zero-coupon bond to the yield on a coupon bond if you treated both the same way, or to compare a coupon bond to a CD or other compound-interest-bearing account that you planned to buy into and not touch for its lifetime. The Yield to Maturity, which IS seen, is the true yield percentage of the bond in time-valued terms, assuming you buy the bond now, hold it to maturity and all coupon payments are made on time and reinvested at a similar yield. This calculation is based on the simple APY, but takes into account the fact that most of the coupon payments will be made prior to maturity; the present value of these will be higher because they happen sooner. The YTM is calculated by summing the present values of all payments based on when they'll occur; so, you'll get one $4 payment a year from now, then another $4 in two years, then $4 in 3 years, and $104 at maturity. The present value of each of those payments is calculated by flipping around the future value formula: PV = FV/(1+r)t. The present value of the entire bond (its current price) is the sum of the present value of each payment: 114.63 = 4/(1+r) + 4/(1+r)2 + 4/(1+r)3 + 104/(1+r)4. You now have to solve for r, which is difficult to isolate; the easiest way to find the rate with a computer is to ""goal seek"" (intelligently guess and check).  Based on the formula above, I calculated a YTM of .314% for the first bond if you bought on Sept 7, 2012 (and thus missed the upcoming coupon payment). Buying today, you'd also be entitled to about 5 weeks' worth of the coupon payment that is due on Sept 07 2012, which is close enough to the present day that the discounted value is a rounding error, putting the YTM of the bond right at .40%. This is the rate of return you'll get off of your investment if you are able to take all the returns from it, when you receive them, and reinvest them at a similar rate (similar to having a savings account at that rate, or being able to buy fractional shares of a mutual fund giving you that rate)."
US government bonds are where money goes when the markets are turbulent and investors are fleeing from risk, and that applies even if the risk is a downgrade of the US credit rating, because there's simply nowhere else to put your money if you're in search of safety. Most AAA-rated governments have good credit ratings because they don't borrow much money (and most of them also have fairly small economies compared with the US), meaning that there's poor liquidity in their scarce bonds. weird holdover from the bad old days when you had to do arithmetic by hand I would guess.  Stocks used to trade in 1/8ths, so bonds trading in even smaller increments makes sense.  Also (and I am unsure if this is still true) U.S. bonds trade on a 360 day year (or used to anyway) for the same reason... 360 divides well into months and quarters (for easier math) whereas 365 is considerably harder.  Most of the world now trades in decimals and 365/365 years so I am unsure why the U.S. doesn't.  Institutional inertia I would guess. 230 government agencies by law have to buy treasury bonds with their excess cash. Those agencies hold 30% of the debt. The rest is by anyone else who purchased bonds on the open market when the treasury sold them. Are you fucking stupid? You think the government just printed 20 trillion dollars with nothing to back it? No hedge funds bought them. China, Japan, Britain, bought them. "Other than the inconvienent fact that Treasury cannot sell to the Fed by law your theory is nice. You forget the step where the open market buys from the Treasury since they desire bonds to invest in, and the Fed can buy only from the open market.  Secondly, the Fed does not give cash to the Treasury. The mint (a branch of the Treasury, not the Fed) prints cash.  So it seems your understanding of how the money system works is quite wrong, yet since this is the Economy subreddit instead of the Economics subreddit, I expect you to get upvotes for saying what is popular even though it is laughably incorrect.  You seem to not like cash that was not ""even existing previously"". All cash was not existing previously. How do you expect people to make transactions? Barter?  You call them interest free loans (but above claimed they will never be paid back?), but then the Fed is making a profit on them? It seems you contradict yourself with all that handwaving.  It would be interesting for you to explain how (and why) money (not cash) gets added and removed to the economy.   Yay for ignorance!" If the government defaults on its debt, the holders of the debt get hung out to dry. You'll personally still owe just what you owed before, but the risk profile for the lender just shot up through the roof if the debt they hold is government-backed. no it would not. Did you read the article? corporations and funds are already paying the government to hold money short-term (negative real 2 year bond yields).   or are you advocating that the government place an additional tax on people who buy government bonds? "you want more information on what? The general bond market? This article is getting at something different, but the first several pages are general background info on the corporate bond market.  http://home.business.utah.edu/hank.bessembinder/publications/transparencyandbondmarket.pdf  If you are trying to relate somehow the issue of federal debt ( a la treasuries) to corporate debt you will find that you are jumping to a lot of conclusions.   Debt is not exactly currency, only the promise of repayment at a certain date in the future. The only reason that U.S. treasuries ( and those of certain other highly rated countries ) is interchangeable is because they are both very liquid and have very low risk.   There is very little similarity to this in the corporate bond market. Companies are no where near to the risk level of a government (for one they can't print their own money) and when a corporation goes bankrupt it's bondholder are usually s.o.l (recovery rates hover at around 50% of the notional debt amount). This is why investors demand a premium to hold corporate debt. Now consider even the best of companies, (take IBM ) the spread between the interest the government must pay on a treasury bond and that which IBM must pay on a similar bond is still relatively large.   But beyond that you run into a liquidity issue. Currency only works because it is highly liquid. If you take the article about Greece you posted above, you can see the problem generated by lack of liquidity. People have to both have currency and be willing to accept currency for trade to occur. Corporate bond are notoriously illiquid because people are unwilling to take on the risk involved with holding the debt (there are other reasons, but I'm abstracting from them). This is the other reason treasuries can be used as ""currency"" there is always someone willing to take your treasury in trade (for the most part because there is almost zero risk involved). You would always be much more willing to hold a treasury than an equivalent IBM bond.   Now take that idea down to a smaller level. Who would want to buy the bonds issued by the mom and pop down the street? Even if someone did buy them who would in turn take these bonds in trade? Practically speaking: no one would. They have no way to identify the riskiness of the bond and have no assurance that there would be anyone willing to trade for it in the future.   If you read the whole post by the redditor from your first link this is precisely why government backed currency came about, and why the scenario that I think you are positing is very unlikely." The assumption that bonds have been issued with a negative coupon is not correct, or at least is has not occurred thus far.  We'll look at this future possibility in the final paragraph. For now, lets look at the current bond market. The issuance of government bonds which carry a negative gross redemption yield is the result of governments issuing bonds at an issue price which exceed the nominal/redemption price and any coupon yield receivable over the life of the bond.  I can find no instances of bonds with a negative coupon, though many have tiny positive coupon yields. The short seller of a bond with a negative gross redemption yield will be liable to pay the buyer the interest amount determined by the coupon.  If the short seller has borrowed the bonds in order to sell them, then the short seller will receive the interest due from the lender to offset the interest paid to the buyer.  If the short seller has not borrowed the bonds, but has sold them using some sort of synthetic contract such as a Contract for Difference, then the short seller will pay the coupon without receiving any offsetting payment. I thought this was an interesting question and it will be interesting to see if, at some time in the future, governments do ever issue bonds with a negative coupon.  To date, this does not appear to have happened. So what would happen if we assume that a government issues a bond with a negative coupon.  The buyer of the bond would be required to pay the equivalent yield to the government according to the bond contract specification.  If an investor sells short such a bond, they would then become entitled to receive the interest from the buyer.  If they have borrowed the bonds in order to sell them short, then they would pay any interest received back to the lender - this chain should eventually end with the ultimate owner/lender paying the government their dues.  If they have sold short using a synthetic contract, then presumably they would keep the interest from themselves. Why can't the Fed simply bid more than the bond's maturity value to lower interest rates below zero? The FED could do this but then it would have to buy all the bonds in the market since all other market participants would not be willing to lend money to the government only to receive less money back in the future.  Not everyone has the ability to print unlimited amounts of dollars :) Without getting to hung-up on terminology here, the management of a company will often attempt to keep stock prices high because of a number of reasons: Ideally companies keep prices up through performance.  In some cases, you'll see companies do other things spending cash and/or issuing bonds to continue to pay dividends (e.g. IBM), or spending cash and/or issuing bonds to pay for stock buybacks (e.g. IBM).  These methods can work for a time but are not sustainable and will often be seen as acts of desperation.  Companies that have a solid plan for growth will typically not do much of anything to directly change stock prices. Bonds are a bit different because they have a fairly straight-forward valuation model based on the fact that they pay out a fixed amount per month.  The two main reason prices in bonds go down are: The key here is that bonds pay out the same thing per month regardless of their price or the price of other bonds available.  Most stocks do not pay any dividend and for much of those that do, the main factor as to whether you make or lose money on them is the stock price. The price of bonds does matter to governments, however.  Let's say a country successfully issued some 10 year bonds last year at the price of 1000.  They pay 1% per month (to keep the math simple.)  Every month, they pay out $10 per bond.  Then some (stupid) politicians start threatening to default on bond payments.  The bond market freaks and people start trying to unload these bonds as fast as they can.  The going price drops to $500.  Next month, the payments are the same.  The coupon rate on the bonds has not changed at all.  I'm oversimplifying here but this is the core of how bond prices work. You might be tempted to think that doesn't matter to the country but it does.  Now, this same country wants to issue some more bonds.  It wants to get that 1% rate again but it can't.  Why would anyone pay $1000 for a 1% (per month) bond when they can get the exact same bond with (basically) the same risks for $500?  Instead they have to offer a 2% (per month) rate in order to match the market price. A government (or company) could in fact put money into the bond market to bolster the price of it's bonds (i.e. keep the rates down.)  The problem is that if you are issuing bonds, it's generally (caveats apply) because you need cash that you don't have so what money are you going to use to buy these bonds?  Or in other words, it doesn't make sense to issue bonds and then simply plow the cash gained from that issuance back into the same bonds you are issuing.  The options here are a bit more limited.  I have to mention though that the US government (via a quasi-governmental entity) did actually buy it's own bonds.  This policy of Quantitative Easing (QE) was done for more complicated reasons than simply keeping the price of bonds up. Bond prices move inversely to their yields.  So when you sell bonds and create a supply side deluge, bond prices will fall.  Since bond prices are falling, yields go up.  (The dollar amount that the bond pays out is the same.  It's simply that since the bond price has fallen, that dollar amount paid out expressed in percentage terms of the bond price has risen). The only reason I can think of is that the bonds are bought automatically by some investment pools, groups or institutions. That will stop very quickly once the management finds some other place to put the money. There are some important thing you need to understand about bonds, and how they work:  * A bond doesn't need an active market - like a stock, for example - to have value.    * Nonetheless, there exist active markets for all of these bonds.    * The purpose of buying these bonds was not to step in due to the absence of a market.  Rather, the purpose was to deliberately bid up the price of these bonds (ahead of the market), causing their price to rise and yields (interest rates) to drop.  * The Fed can hold any and all of these bonds to maturity, while receiving contractual payments all the while, and never sell a single bond back to the market. This article is 100% incorrect. The governments main concern is to PREVENT depositors and tax payers from losing funds in the case of bank default.  How?  By having debt holders being forced to converted into equity to create a capital buffer to keep a bank solvent which will help protect depositors and prevent tax payers from having to bail the banks out.  Please ask me more questions on this as I have done a lot of work on this topic as of late. Tbonds are on nobody's books when they are bought back.  Feds or Treasury department credits your account plus any interests when you sell the bonds back to them.  The Tbonds are then destroyed.  The govt is forever solvent when paying Tbonds.  They just click a few buttons and bam!! A check is written to you or your checking account is increased for turning in the matured bonds.