| |
| ▲ | Dylan16807 a day ago | parent | next [-] | | > What do you mean by long term value? The current market value is typically the best estimate we have for their long term value. In situations where we still care about dollars, so no hyperinflation or total collapse of the United States, the current market value of a Treasury bond can't actually vary that much. And the amount it can reasonably vary is mostly proportional to how many years are left in the bond. By the time your bonds reach maturity, you always have more dollars than you started with. Long term you always profit. And you get to choose what length of bonds you buy, so if you want to you can guarantee your dollars increase in the medium or short term on top of the long term. > No one is talking about bank reserves. I'm talking about assets. I'm saying you're too worried about "withdrawal requests" a normal bank would see. | | |
| ▲ | eru a day ago | parent [-] | | > In situations where we still care about dollars, so no hyperinflation or total collapse of the United States, the current market value of a Treasury bond can't actually vary that much. And the amount it can reasonably vary is mostly proportional to how many years are left in the bond. Well, it was enough variance to bring Silicon Valley Bank down. > By the time your bonds reach maturity, you always have more dollars than you started with. Long term you always profit. I'd be very happy to have you as my investor in some long term bonds---with terrible below-market-but-barely-positive interest rates. > I'm saying you're too worried about "withdrawal requests" a normal bank would see. Silicon Valley Bank saw massive withdrawals, because their liabilities exceeded their assets. | | |
| ▲ | Dylan16807 a day ago | parent [-] | | Again, worrying about the long term value is an entirely different problem from worrying about your assets temporarily shrinking 10%. I was talking about the former. SVB, an example of the latter, does not affect my argument. And again, SVB could have used shorter term bonds to avoid that problem. > I'd be very happy to have you as my investor in some long term bonds---with terrible below-market-but-barely-positive interest rates. Very funny. Look, that's one feature of Treasury bonds, not the only feature. They get pretty good yields compared to gold in the long term, and you can trust them a lot. |
|
| |
| ▲ | littlestymaar 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | > The current market value is typically the best estimate we have for their long term value. It's not. The EMH has been empirically disproven in the 80s. | | |
| ▲ | eru a day ago | parent [-] | | Could you please link me to the evidence? Which version of the EMH has been disproven? EMH comes in multiple different strengths. The strongest version would be something comical like 'market prices are omniscient and perfectly predict future prices'. That's almost certainly wrong. Very weak versions are something like 'Don't bother actively trading on the news as a retail investor, because by the time you've heard them, the folks over at Goldman Sachs and the hedge funds and their computers will have traded on them a million times over already', and these are almost certainly true. (But even somewhat stronger versions are probably true.) | | |
| ▲ | littlestymaar a day ago | parent [-] | | See Bob Schiller's work (for which he received the econ Nobel prize in 2013). The “weak version of EMH” has nothing to do with markets being “efficient”, it's a property of random markets. Assimilating the two just Fama's motte-and-bailey fallacy. | | |
|
|
|
