Why are U.S. Treasury interest rates are so low vs. other nearly risk-free rates?
As I'm sure you are reading in Hull's classic, the basic valuation of bonds depends on the chance of entity defaulting on those bonds.  Let's start with just looking at the US.  The United States has a big advantage over corporations in issuing debt as it also prints the same currency that the debt is denominated in.  This makes it much easier not to default on your debt as you can always print more money to pay it.  Printing too much currency would cause inflation lowering the value of debt, but this would also lower the value of US corporate debt as well.  So you can think of even the highest rated corporate bonds as having the same rate as government debt plus a little extra due to the additional default risk of the corporation. The situation with other AA rated governments is more complicated.  Most of those governments have debt denominated in their local currency as well so it may seem like they should all have similar rates.  However, some governments have higher and some actually have lower rates than the United States.  Now, as above, some of the difference is due to the possible need of printing too much currency to cover the debt in crisis and now that we have more than one country to invest in the extra risk of international money flowing out of the country's bonds. However, the bigger difference between AA governments rates depends more on money flow, central banks and regulation.  Bonds are still mostly freely traded instruments that respond to supply and demand, but this supply and demand is heavily influenced by governments.  Central banks buy up large portions of the debt raising demand and lowering rates.  Regulators force banks to hold a certain amount of treasuries perhaps inflating demand. Finally, to answer your question the United States has some interesting advantages partially just due to its long history of stability, controlled inflation and large economy making treasuries valuable as one of the lowest risk investments.  So its rates are generally on the low end, but government manipulation can still mean that it is not necessarily the lowest.
"True, absolutely safe are only death and taxes.  Apparently [US treasuries](https://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/data-chart-center/interest-rates/Pages/TextView.aspx?data=yield) yield far less than 3,5-4%, but I guess that's as ""100% safe"" as it gets.  However, best I could find while talking to various banks was a reverse convertible bond that yields 3,5% per year, tax excluded. Worst case scenario: 1) I got all my money back and gained 3,5% for one year. 2) after a few years, I find myself with pretty valuable shares and still cashed in the yearly 3,5%.  I was wondering if I got lucky with that, or if there are better things out there and if yes, where I should look. Honestly, in the age of negative interests, I'm more than happy to get enough interest to counter inflation." Yes, the interest rate on a Treasury does change as market rates change, through changes in the price. But once you purchase the instrument, the rate you get is locked in. The cashflows on a treasury are fixed. So if the market rate increase, the present value of those future cashflows decreases, so the price of the treasury decreases. If you buy the bond after this happens, you would pay a lower price for the same fixed cashflows, hence you will receive a higher rate. Note that once you purchase the treasury instrument, your returns are locked in and guaranteed, as others have mentioned. Also note that you should distinguish between Treasury Bills and Treasury Bonds, which you seem to use interchangeably. Straight from the horse's mouth, http://www.treasurydirect.gov/indiv/products/products.htm: Treasury Bills are short term securities with maturity up to a year, Treasury Notes are medium term securities with maturity between 1 and 10 years, and Treasury Bonds are anything over 10 years. Because giving someone a loan and paying them to take it isn't a loan anymore.  I'll grant you, some of the treasury bill auctions did slip below 0% -- people paid in slightly more than what the bill would pay out. In as much as this was done by actual investors (and not afore-mentioned helicopter Ben Bernanke keeping the printing presses running hot all night), it was major accounts fearful of the euro disintegrating and banks crashing, and so on, and needing a safe spot to stick their cash for a couple months.  Where the Fed is concerned, that interest rate he's referring to is lending they do to banks. So, how much would you take if you ran a bank and the Fed offered to pay you to take their money? A billion? A trillion? As much as you could cram in your vaults, shove in your pockets, and stuff down your favorite teller's blouse? Yea, me too. Generally, if you watch for the detail in the fine print, and stay away from non-FDIC insured investments, there is little difference, so yes, pick the highest you can get. The offered interest rate is influenced by what the banks are trying to accomplish, and how their current and desired customer base thinks. Some banks have customer bases with very conservative behavior, which will stick with them because they trust them no matter what, so a low interest rate is good enough. The disadvantage for the bank is that such customers prefer brick-and-mortar contact, which is expensive for the bank. Or maybe the bank has already more cash than they need, and has no good way to invest it. Other banks might need more cash flow to be able to get stronger in the mortgage market, and their way of getting that is to offer higher interest rates, so new customers come and invest new money (which the bank in turn can then mortgage out). They also may offer higher rates for online handling only. Overall, there are many different ways to make money as a bank, and they diversify into different niches with other focuses, and that comes with offering quite different interest rates. "If you invest in a foreign bank you are subject to their financial rules and regulations. If you put your money with their CD it will be converted to UAH (grivna) and you will be paid back in UAH, which introduces the exchange rate risk.  FDIC is not the only reason why a CD in a US bank pays a lower interest, but it could be seen as a contributing factor.  It all comes down to risk and what the bank is willing to pay for your money, when a bank issues a CD they are entering the debt market and competing against other banks, governments, or anyone looking for money. If the yield from lending to one bank is the same as the yield of another, the logical choice would be whichever loan is less risky. So in order for the riskier bank to receive loans they must entice investors by offering a greater rate of return. In addition, if a bank isn't looking for loans they might be less inclined to pay for them. - See ""What is the “Bernanke Twist” and “Operation Twist”? What exactly does it do?"" If your looking to invest in the CD's of foreign banks I would suggest doing research on their regulations. Especially if and how your money is protected in the event the bank goes bust." Russia has become more risky as an investment, thus investors, basically the market, wants to be paid more for investing in or owning those bonds. As yields go up, prices go down. So right now you can buy a low priced Russian bond with a high yield because the market views the risk involved as higher than risks involved in other similar securities. "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." As Sean pointed out they usually mean LIBOR or the FFR (or for other countries the equivalent risk free rate of interest). I will just like to add on to what everyone has said here and will like to explain how various interest rates you mentioned work out when the risk free rate moves: For brevity, let's denote the risk free rate by Rf, the savings account interest rate as Rs, a mortgage interest rate as Rmort, and a term deposit rate with the bank as Rterm. Savings account interest rate: When a central bank revises the overnight lending rate (or the prime rate, repo rate etc.), in some countries banks are not obliged to increase the savings account interest rate. Usually a downward revision will force them to lower it (because they net they will be paying out = Rf - Rs). On the other hand, if Rf goes up and if one of the banks increases the Rs then other banks may be forced to do so too under competitive pressure. In some countries the central bank has the authority to revise Rs without revising the overnight lending rate. Term deposits with the bank (or certificates of deposit): Usually movements in these rates are more in sync with Rf than Rs is. The chief difference is that savings account offer more liquidity than term deposits and hence banks can offer lower rates and still get deposits under them --consider the higher interest rate offered by the term deposit as a liquidity risk premium. Generally, interest rates paid by instruments of similar risk profile that offer similar liquidity will move in parallel (otherwise there can be arbitrage). Sometimes these rates can move to anticipate a future change in Rf. Mortgage loan rates or other interests that you pay to the bank: If the risk free rate goes up, banks will increase these rates to keep the net interest they earn over risk free (= Δr = Rmort - Rf) the same. If Rf drops and if banks are not obliged to decrease loan rates then they will only do so if one of the banks does it first. P.S:- Wherever I have said they will do so when one of the banks does it first, I am not referring to a recursion but merely to the competitive market theory. Under such a theory, the first one to cut down the profit margin usually has a strong business incentive to do so (e.g., gain market share, or eliminate competition by lowering profit margins etc.). Others are forced to follow the trend. You're mixing up two different concepts: low-risk and recession-proof. I'll assume I don't need to explain risk: there is always risk, regardless what form you keep your assets in. With bonds, the interest rate is supposed to reflect the risk. If a company offers bonds with too low an interest rate for the risk level, few people will buy them. While if a company offers bonds with too high an interest rate for the level of risk, they are gypping themselves. So a bond is a slightly more transparent investment from a risk assessment perspective, but that doesn't mean the risk is necessarily low: if you buy a bond with a 20% effective annual yield, that means there is quite a high risk that the underlying company will fold (unless inflation is in the double-digit range as well, in which case a 20% yield is not that much). Whereas with a stock, no parameter directly tells you anything about the risk. Recession-proof is not the same thing as low-risk. Recession-proof refers to investing in (or holding debt for) industries that perform better in a recession. http://www.investopedia.com/articles/stocks/08/industries-thrive-on-recession.asp. It can be zero or negative given the current market conditions. Any money parked with treasury bonds is 100% risk free. So if I have a large amount of USD, and need a safe place to keep, then in today's environment even the banks (large as well) are at risk. So if I park my money with some large bank and that bank goes bankrupt, my money is gone for good. After a long drawn bankruptcy procedure, I may get back all of it or some of it. Even if the bank does not go bankrupt, it may face liquidity crises and I may not be able to withdraw when I want.  Hence it's safer to keep it in Treasury bonds even though I may not gain any interest, or even lose a small amount of money. At least it will be very safe.   Today there are very few options for large investors (typically governments and institutional investors.) The Euro is facing uncertainty. The Yuan is still regulated. There is not enough gold to buy (or to store it.) Hence this leads towards the USD.  The very fact that USD is safe in today's environment is reflected in the Treasury rates. "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." "Let's talk interest rates on your junk bonds. Even after all that the US has been through (and is still going through), the United States dollar is widely regarded as one of the safest safe havens for your money. As such it serves as a de facto baseline against which all other investments can be measured, the bar everyone has to pass: if you could earn 4% on a 5-year US Treasury bond, or earn 4% on anything else over the next 5 years, you pick the Treasury bond. In many ways this means that the interest rate on a Treasury bond is the closest single measure we have to the price of money all by itself. If someone is loaning you money, they could be loaning it to the Treasury instead; they are losing out by making this loan to you, and must charge you at least this rate just to break even. But most people/governments/countries aren't as credit-worthy as the US Treasury. A few are (the US treasury isn't magical, after all, just really good at what it does), but generally they are not. There is a possibility when loaning money to these entities that you will not get your money back. That is risk. All entities have some risk (even the US treasury!), and some have more than others; ""junk bonds"" have a somewhat elevated level of this risk. Now, you don't just take a risk on for free (unless you're being charitable or something, but I hope you can find better beneficiaries of charity than the average junk bond). You need to be compensated for that risk. Lenders will demand compensation commensurate with that risk - or they will just walk away without making any loans or buying any bonds because it's not worth it. The difference between the interest rate on a US Treasury bond and the interest rate on another bond, such as a junk bond, is the risk premium - the cost of carrying that risk. Therefore you can see that the interest rate on a junk bond is the price of money plus the risk premium. Now, the Federal Reserve adjusts the price of money from time to time, by buying and selling US Treasury bonds until the price is something they like. This means that one component of interest rate on a junk bond is the interest rate on the US Treasury bond, and it is effectively controlled by the Federal Reserve (through that layer of indirection). The other component of the interest rate on a junk bond is the risk premium. It's not generally possible to know in advance whether or not some company will actually default. People have to guess, and decide how comfortable they are taking that risk. This means that risk is more expensive (and interest rates are higher) when they think the companies in question are going through some hard times, and risk will also be more expensive when people decide that they can't take as many risks (perhaps they've already lost some money and need to take additional steps to protect the rest). It's definitely very hard for an individual to decide what the risk on a particular bond is. The good news is that you generally don't have to. There are a bunch of rich jerks, hedge funds, retirement funds, insurance companies, and other investment entities out there who spend all day looking at things like bonds, trying to estimate the risk. Their willingness to exploit minuscule differences between the interest rate on a bond and the real risk means that the average bond on the market will be fairly priced, according to what all those people think. Plenty of them can still be wrong, mind you (cf. mortgage-backed securities) but in the general case the price of any security reflects all the information everyone in the world has on it on average, so if you're wrong you're in good company. When you buy a nice diversified bond fund, you have access to a bunch of bonds at a pretty-standard price.  So that's interest rates for you. But you asked about prices. As it turns out, they're the same thing! - just expressed slightly differently.  One way or another a bond is essentially meant to be a stream of payments worth a certain amount in the end - this is why you'll hear them referred to sometimes as a ""fixed-income security"". The interest rate is essentially the difference between the price you pay now, and the value you receive later, except expressed as a rate. Technically, you could structure the bonds differently (e.g. does the bond pay little bits of interest as you go along, or just pay one big lump sum in the end?) but you can use Math to convert between these two situations, and figure out how much money is worth which when, so it doesn't really matter. Anyway. This means that rising interest rates means lower bond prices on bonds you already own (and falling interest rates means higher bond prices). So if the Federal Reserve increases interest rates, the face value of your bond funds will fall. Also, if people think that the companies issuing the bonds are too risky, the face value of those bonds will also fall. (You were probably expecting the latter effect, though.) Mind you, you will still get the same amount of future money out of them as you would otherwise: that's why they're fixed-income securities. However, a higher interest rate means ""I can get more money in the future for less money now"", and so people will be willing to pay you less for your bond in the present. This is known as interest rate risk. It is higher on longer term bonds, because those have more time to earn interest." I would also like to have this discussed, alongside the issue that the US has gone into some type of [recession](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c0/US_Treasuries_to_Federal_Funds_Rate.png) roughly every ten year. So with the prospect of a possible recession with a close to 0% cash rate looming, what tools will the FED employ to keep Banks borrowing while maintaining inflation rates? "I think this is a good question with no single right answer.  For a conservative investor, possible responses to low rates would be: Probably the best response is somewhere in the middle: consider riskier investments for a part of your portfolio, but still hold on to some cash, and in any case do not expect great results in a bad economy. For a more detailed analysis, let's consider the three main asset classes of cash, bonds, and stocks, and how they might preform in a low-interest-rate environment. (By ""stocks"" I really mean mutual funds that invest in a diversified mixture of stocks, rather than individual stocks, which would be even riskier.  You can use mutual funds for bonds too, although diversification is not important for government bonds.) Cash. Advantages: Safe in the short term.  Available on short notice for emergencies. Disadvantages: Low returns, and possibly inflation (although you retain the flexibility to move to other investments if inflation increases.) Bonds. Advantages: Somewhat higher returns than cash.  Disadvantages: Returns are still rather low, and more vulnerable to inflation.  Also the market price will drop temporarily if rates rise. Stocks. Advantages: Better at preserving your purchasing power against inflation in the long term (20 years or more, say.)  Returns are likely to be higher than stocks or bonds on average.  Disadvantages:  Price can fluctuate a lot in the short-to-medium term.  Also, expected returns are still less than they would be in better economic times. Although the low rates may change the question a little, the most important thing for an investor is still to be familiar with these basic asset classes.  Note that the best risk-adjusted reward might be attained by some mixture of the three." "I'll answer your question, but first a comment about your intended strategy.  Buying government bonds in a retirement account is probably not a good idea.  Government bonds (generally) are tax advantaged themselves, so they offer a lower interest rate than other types of bonds.  At no tax or reduced tax, many people will accept the lower interest rate because their effective return may be similar or better depending, for example, on their own marginal tax rate.  In a tax-advantaged retirement account, however, you'll be getting the lower interest without any additional benefit because that account itself is already tax-advantaged. (Buying bonds generally may be a good idea or not - I won't comment on that - but choose a different category of bonds.) For the general question about the relationship between the Fed rate and the bond rate, they are positively correlated.  There's not direct causal relationship in the sense that the Fed is not setting the bond rate directly, but other interest bearing investment options are tied to the Fed rate and many of those interest-bearing options compete for the same investor dollars as the bonds that you're reviewing.  That's at a whole market level.  Individual bonds, however, may not be so tightly coupled since the creditworthiness of the issuing entity matters a lot too, so it could be that ""bond rates"" generally are going up but some specific bonds are going down based on something happening with the issuer, just like the stock market might be generally going up even as specific stocks are dropping. Also keep in mind that many bonds trade as securities on a secondary market much like stocks.  So I've talked about the bond rate.  The price of the bonds themselves on the secondary market generally move opposite to the rate.  The reason is that, for example, if you buy a bond at less than face value, you're getting an effective interest rate that's higher because you get the same sized incremental payments of interest but put less money into the investment.  And vice versa."