October 9, 2007
A TIPS CONUNDRUM?
By the government's reckoning, inflation could hardly be less of a threat. Why, then, have inflation-indexed Treasuries performed so well in the 21st century?
TIPS, after all, are designed to thrive on higher inflation. The higher inflation goes, the better TIPS will perform. Conversely, lower inflation implies lesser performance for TIPS, in both absolute and relative terms. Meantime, if inflation's under control, doesn't that imply that the unhedged bonds paying nominal yields will do better? If not, why would anyone buy unhedged bonds if they're doomed to underperform regardless of inflation's pace?
Before you answer, let's turn to the real world track records. For the year through August, the consumer price index (CPI) rose by just 1.9%. Rarely in the past 10 years has CPI's annual pace been so low, which is to say that it's usually been higher. This has a direct bearing on TIPS for the simple reason that the bonds' principal is directly tied to the fluctuations in CPI. Higher CPIs translate into higher TIPS values, and vice versa.
Speaking of facts, inflation-indexed Treasuries have been the clear winner compared with a variety of relevant fixed-income benchmarks that are unhedged when it comes to inflation. One example can be seen in our chart below, which compares the Lehman Bros. U.S. Treasury TIPS Index to the Lehman Bros. U.S. Aggregate Bond Index, a popular measure of the domestic universe of investment-grade bonds sans inflation hedges.
As you can see, TIPS are winning the race and the triumph has been unfolding for some time. Most of the superior performance has come since 2001. For the five years through last month, the LB TIPS Index posted an annualized 5.35% total return, well above the LB Aggregate's 4.13%. TIPS also held the lead for the past five years against other indices, such as the LB Government Intermediate and LB Government Long indices.
Why have inflation-indexed bonds enjoyed a performance edge over their nominal-rate counterparts? Conceivably, there are several answers, although one in particular begs for attention, namely: one corner of the bond market expects inflation will be higher than CPI suggests.
Skeptics might argue that the TIPS market is just wrong, and that inflation is contained and in no danger of causing trouble for the foreseeable future. The official inflation numbers published by the government suggest no less. Extending this line of thinking implies that TIPS have it all wrong. But can a liquid, widely analyzed corner of the government bond market be so wrong for so long?
It's anyone's guess if TIPS will continue to lead the fixed-income pack. Without benefit of knowing next year's inflation numbers, much less next month's, we're at a loss to venture a guess. The safest route is, of course, to own TIPS and conventional bonds.
That said, we'll conclude with one question: If TIPS have so done well in recent years when inflation has been officially reported as conquered, how might inflation-indexed Treasuries fare if inflation gathers a bit more upside momentum?
Posted by jp at October 9, 2007 9:57 AM
When TIPs first appeared, I thought "hmm, that rate (I recall it was like 3.7%) seems pretty high, since it provided a 100% certain portfolio survival with a 3.7% withdrawal rate compared to the 4% rate that many project to be safe, but that still has some risk." Compared to that, the current rate appears more sensible. The best investment I ever made was buying $8,000 in i-bonds right after 9/11. They still paid 3.3% or so even though the TIP rate had crashed. I only wish I could have come up with an arbitrage. On top of that, I put it on my Discover card and got a point back.
Posted by: Bill at October 20, 2007 1:10 PM
1) Even if actual inflation is below the official CPI numbers, TIPS investors are not hedged. They are getting paid CPI not a penny more.
2) So they must be expecting a higher inflation rate. Not so.
The break even spread between TIPS and nominal bonds is also low. So the expected inflation rate built into the TIPS remains low.
3) I am afraid that my best explanation is that the real rate has gone down to a very low level. around 2% for the past few yrs instead of the 4% in the latter half of nineties. Moreover, the real rates have gone down, both in TIPS and in nominal bonds and that is true across the world. It is as if the growth expectation has been ratcheted down. Although I think that is not the true story. The best explanation for the low real rates is the fact that central banks have not hiked enough and kept real rates low at the short end of the curve than has been usual in other business cycles. (And they blame it on market forces (Greenspan's explanation) or Global savings glut (bernanke's explanation)). I don't buy either. It is the central bank policy. Sorry, I do not believe the inflation explanation for TIPS outperformance.
Posted by: zao at October 10, 2007 11:21 AM
Tips - how about a 15-20% return like 90's ?
Posted by: Bill at October 10, 2007 6:38 AM
No conundrum. The free market has made its own assessment of the future of inflation and interest rates vs. government numbers.
Posted by: Max at October 9, 2007 4:17 PM