Interest rate rise globally - bond selloff

The rise in bond yields is international because the problems are international. These problems are growing, not shrinking. In classical economics, bond yields would fall if the economy slowed into recession (due to lower demand for capital from businesses). But I think there’s a good chance that a recession would not lower bond yields because deficits would rise due to government unemployment insurance spending and lower tax receipts. Stagflation is a real possibility.

Bond investors are uneasy because the government deficits are still growing and inflation has been over the target for over 5 years. They (we) are especially backing away from long-term debt because yields may rise from here and the losses in long term bonds would be high.

As interest rates rise the value of existing bonds fall. The market calls this a “selloff” because bond holders are selling bonds instead of buying them at the offered yield.

https://www.nytimes.com/2026/09/01/business/bond-yields-debt.html

Global Bond Sell-Off Puts Investors on Edge

Government borrowing costs are hitting multi-decade highs around the world, reflecting anxiety about debt levels, deficits and inflation.

By Eshe Nelson, The New York Times, Sept. 1, 2026

A global sell-off in government bonds intensified on Tuesday, pushing up borrowing costs in some of the world’s largest economies to their highest in decades and rattling investors.

As rising oil prices compound worries about inflation, bond yields are testing fresh highs, squeezing government budgets and raising interest rates on a wide range of consumer and business loans. The yield on 10-year U.S. Treasury notes, perhaps the world’s most influential interest rate, reached its highest since January 2025, and the 30-year yield continued to hover around a two-decade high…

America’s rising borrowing costs have set off a battle between Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and bond investors, but the factors pushing up yields in the United States are also issues in other big markets…

Government debt levels, in some cases, have already reached eye-watering levels. America’s gross national debt topped $40 trillion for the first time last month, or more than 120 percent of the size of the economy. In France, public debt exceeded 3.5 trillion euros (about $4 trillion), which is 117 percent of the size of its economy. In Japan, the government is spending heavily despite a public debt pile that is more than twice the size of its economy…[end quote]

It’s absurd to say there’s a “battle” between the Treasury Secretary and bond investors. Bessent is trying to suppress the yield of long-term Treasuries by buying them with short-term T-Bills. In the scale of the ocean of debt, the amount he is moving is a drop in the bucket.

Treasury doesn’t have the power of fiscal manipulation like Congress (federal budget) or the Federal Reserve (QE with fiat currency).

The fundamental problems of government deficits, huge borrowing by AI companies, inflation caused by tariffs and supply/ demand and investors’ loss of trust in government spending ever returning to balance can’t be changed by a small action by Treasury. I don’t see these fundamentals changing soon so my bond investments are now relatively short-term (under 10 years) which I plan to hold to maturity for return of capital.

Wendy

7 Likes

They are also more or less back to where they were before the Great Recession (followed by a decade and a half in a zero interest environment). That zero-interest rate regime is the real anomaly.

DB2

6 Likes

@DrBob2 you are absolutely right. The historic real yield of the 10 year Treasury was 2.5% going back to 1930. (I did a study of this once.)

The FRED data only shows back to 1982 which was anomalous due to Fed Chair Volcker’s successful war on inflation. The 1990-2000 decade was normal compared with 1945 to 1970. After the dot-com stock market crash in 2000 the Fed began to actively suppress yields (2000-2008). After the Great Financial Crisis in 2008 and Covid in 2020 the Fed’s QE actively suppressed real yields.

The asset markets have become addicted to cheap (even free) credit for an entire generation. Return to a normal real yield will suppress the value of all assets, including stocks as well as bonds.

Wendy

11 Likes

Wendy,

I just saw Titanic for the first time. Great movie, with a young De Caprio.

We are coming up on the iceberg.

In real life Titanic could have done things differently even at the last before hitting the iceberg and after. We can’t do anything differently in the coming crisis.

Leap, you have been predicting an imminent crash for several years now. You risk becoming a perma-bear.

DB2

5 Likes

The government is going to continue to meddle in markets to keep them propped up. Only a black swan crisis will tumble it. No reason to try to predict it, no one can. The U.S. only has to be the best-worst system to stay on top.

5 Likes

Gave a rec, BUT you are evading the bigger problem of how very nasty overall fragility is, even for the sick dog at the very top of a teetering pile of dead dogs and a few cats….

6 Likes

Bob,

That risk has long past. I am a perma bear.

Pigs get slaughtered.

Bulls are about to get slaughtered.

Peter Lynch’s Market Observation: ‘Far More Money Has Been Lost By Investors Preparing For Corrections, Than Has Been Lost In Corrections Themselves’

So far, if one has been on the sidelines for the last 2 years, the S&P alone has increased by 38% over that period.

4 Likes

Good luck with that.

Not for me.

It is all speculation by most of the participants.

Unemployment is going to spike. Deflation might be possible. The trend in the USD tops and bottoms is appreciation. Yields are rising overall. Take from that what you will.

Markets go down, they go down a lot. Those that can’t handle that volatility should invest elsewhere. It’s the price and risk of equity investments. The reality is most people timing the market never get it right. Even if they do get the exit right, they are often too paralyzed by fear to aggressively buy in during the most volatile periods.

I try to buy shares in businesses conservatively financed with well defined moats and able to weather the inevitable ebbs and flows of the overall economy. The business and market will then do whatever it does.

I’m actually most fearful of holding cash that continues to lose value as the govt printing press continues to debase the currency. So far, cash has been the worst performing asset over the last several years. One of the best pieces of investing advice I ever received was just to ignore the macro noise that cannot be directly tied to a specific business. But, I guess that’s the problem if you’re the one making the noise.

Good luck with that.

That is not how investing works. The lower the risk, the higher the returns.

Look, old men acting as financial salesmen tell folks to take risks. Some folks realize at any age that is a fool’s errand.

Actually, the correct statement is higher risk does not always equate to higher returns. (Howard Marks).

But, any equity investing carries a baseline of risks and volatility that may not be suitable for certain investors. You may be one of those but it sounds more like you are trying to time the market, unsuccessfully so far.

3 Likes

I am not sure that is sound advise. The inflation of 2022 was macro noise not directly tied to a specific business and ignoring it would have been a terrible mistake.

The early days of Covid was macro noise not directly tied to a specific business. It was not wise to have ignored it.

The subprime crisis that proceeded the financial crisis of 2008 was macro noise…

You get the picture. Macro noise, by its very nature, is likely to hit more than one business and more than one industry. It is the reason for the board no less.

5 Likes

I held all of what I view as my best investments up to and through 2022. They have for the most part gone on to reach new highs. Selling would have only resulted in tax consequences and the risk of not getting back in. Apple corrected by 30% and then went on to go up another 130%.

If you owned a bunch of speculative businesses not make money, SPAC’s another other risky assets, yeah, it was a good time to exit but that’s more trading and buying lottery tickets, IMO.

In the end, the creme rose back to the top. Again, the idea is owning businesses that can ultimately survive and endure in a wide range of market environments. But, if you can show me a successful batting average with that approach rather than few good at bats, I’m always open minded to other styles. For the most part, I just see little value in macro predictions as actionable info for long term investors, traders may be a different story.
Most of the GFC investors I know that dodged the worst of it ended up late getting back into the party. Almost all of them got it wrong at some other point, looking for similar downturns that never ended up materializing. Their performance and overall portfolio returns seem mixed as a result. As Munger would say, the best way to earn high returns is by not interrupting its compounding growth. His own portfolio was cut in 1/2 on three different occasions but accepted as the consequence of equity investments.

Howard Marks of Oaktree Capital may have framed it best.

"macroeconomic forecasting as largely pointlessness because the economy is an incredibly complex system whose future is fundamentally unknowable, meaning most macro information provides only an “illusion of knowledge”. The co-founder of Oaktree Capital Management has long maintained that trying to predict broad economic shifts—like interest rates, inflation, or GDP—does not add value to an investment portfolio

Was it? 2022 was a great time to be buying stocks.

But of course not all investments are in taxable accounts. Regardless, you are using your anecdotal situation to drive your decision-making and that is contrary to general advice of not listening to macro data.

So what? The market has ALWAYS eventually gotten back to its original ATH. Even profitable companies can take a long time to recover. JPMChase was famously profitable throughout the financial crisis of 2008 but it lost over 50% during that macro crisis and it took six years before it achieved a new ATH. Saying investments will eventually recover is not an argument to ignore major risks.

Not until near the end of 2022. It fell nearly all year. It peaked on 1/3/2022:

Same story for the NASDAQ:

1 Like

I am but no one seems to ever provide proof of a long term portfolio strategy based on decisions based on the Macro.

That’s not what I am saying. I am saying that the successful strategies seem to be based on identifying great businesses and holding through for the most part. It’s not about ignoring macro risks. It’s that the macro information is not very consistent in predicting the future and that great businesses, not all businesses, tend to continue on.

Again, show me where this type of decision making has resulted in above average returns over the long haul for your portfolio. I suspect if this is something you employ moving in and out of the market, it’s probably missed the mark as much if not more than it has worked.

1 Like

I have posted here more than once how I chose to go to cash in all investment accounts just prior to Liberation Day. It helped me earn somewhere around 55% last year when the two major indices earned about half as much. If I had simply stayed the course, I would have still had a good return, but only about half as much.

On the flip side, there was a significant macro opportunity immediately after the Covid shock that I was able to take advantage of. There was a law change that allowed anyone to claim a Covid 401k hardship withdrawal if their income was impacted due to Covid. Being in sales, my income was certainly impacted (honestly, by only 3% but it counted). I was able to take a 100k distribution from my 401k and indirectly roll it to an IRA - where I was able to invest it significantly more aggressive than I was able to do within my 401k - it was a macro opportunity that was not industry specific. That 100k distribution, a little over five years ago, is worth over 600k today; approximately 250k more than it would have been if I had left it in my 401k.

That is one successful strategy, but not the only one. I don’t care so much about individual businesses. I buy industries or indexes and I don’t fret about specific companies. Macro noise, as you called it, can harm businesses even when there is nothing that business has done wrong. Again, that is the entire point of this board - to discuss macro trends and risks. If you don’t care about such, then why spend such an inordinate amount of time here?

I did. I can’t give you the specific dates [edit: I guess I can as I was able to find those details below] as I changed brokerages between now and then but you can do the math on the total return of QLD, which I invested 100k on roughly 5/1/2020 (could have been sooner as the law made it retroactive to 1/1/2020) through today.

Then, compare the total return of SPY (analog for what I had in my 401k) over the same time period. That is the 600+k vs. the 250k I mentioned previously.

Additionally, here is one my IRAs around the time I went to cash last year. This is of course longer than a year but I only own index funds in this account - and the market certainly has not performed as well as I did by going to cash. Note the 93% return since March 4th of last year. The S&P is up 33% since that date and the NASDAQ is up 45% since that date. March 4th is the date I opened that account and I funded it with $317k in cash and two small index positions worth roughly 100k in total. On April 15th, I sold one of those small index positions and I took all the cash and purchased UPRO.

image

Here is my post from 2/12/2025 where I stated I was going to cash:

I proceed to go to cash in all self-directed investments (not including my 401k, which is only about 10% of my total investable assets so I left it alone).

Here is a follow-up post in that same thread I made on 3/10:

The rest is history.

2 Likes

No, CEOs with PhDs do not lead the majority of the most profitable corporations, but when they do lead a company, data shows they achieve statistically better profit margins than their peers without a PhD. [1, 2]

A standard-setting study by Andrew Urquhart and Hanxiong Zhang published in European Financial Management highlights that firms led by PhD CEOs outperform their peers by 3.03% in general performance. This outperformance jumps to 4.65% if the CEO earned their PhD from a highly ranked university. [3, 4]

The nuances of how a PhD impacts corporate profitability rely on several distinct factors:

1. Market Scarcity vs. Disproportionate Return

PhDs remain a “rare breed” at the helm of massive, highly profitable corporations.

  • The Minority: Data shows only 11 out of the Fortune 500 CEOs hold a PhD. The vast majority of top-tier leaders hold standard corporate credentials, led by Master of Business Administration (MBA) degrees (held by roughly 41% to 45% of Fortune 500 CEOs) or undergraduate degrees in operations, finance, and engineering.
  • The Performance Premium: While rare, companies with a PhD at the helm see an improved profit margin. Researchers attribute this directly to the intensive training of a research degree, which cultivates superior skills in controlling costs and cash flow management. [1, 2, 3]

2. Industry Dependence

A CEO with a PhD provides conditional value based on the type of business environment:

  • High Innovation: A study in the Journal of Business Research notes that a PhD is linked to much higher Post-IPO performance when specialized knowledge is prioritized—such as in small, young, or R&D-intensive companies. This explains why they are most concentrated in the biotech, pharmaceutical, and technology sectors (e.g., Dr. Lisa Su at AMD or Dr. Arvind Krishna at IBM).
  • Massive Scale: Conversely, traditional MBAs excel at managing systemic organizational complexity, supply chains, and larger firm sizes where pure operational management overrides technical innovation. [11, 12]

Summary of Educational Impacts on Firm Success

CEO Education Level Impact on Profitability / Performance Primary Strength
PhD (Research Doctorate) Boosts overall performance by 3.03% to 4.65%. Strict cost controls, cash management, and R&D direction.
MBA (Business Master) High correlation with larger company scale. Organizational complexity and general management.
Undergraduate / No Graduate Degree Statistically little explanatory evidence of changing margins, though they lead the majority of the Fortune 500. Real-world tenacity, operations experience, and timing.

Are you asking to evaluate a specific sector (like Tech vs. Pharma), or are you trying to decide between pursuing an MBA vs. a PhD for a corporate career track?

AI responses may include mistakes.

[1] https://www.surrey.ac.uk/research-projects/should-your-next-ceo-be-phd-phd-ceos-and-firm-performance

[2] https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/should-your-next-ceo-phd-ceos-firm-performance-

[3] https://www.researchgate.net/publication/351499746_PhD_CEOs_and_firm_performance

[4] https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/eufm.12316

[5] https://www.linkedin.com/posts/tahir-mahmood-b5370024_based-on-recent-analyses-of-fortune-500-ceo-activity-7391379743977152512-jkHx

[6] https://www.gmac.com/resources/learners/business-careers/career-planning/fortune-500-ceos-mba

[7] https://www.forbes.com/sites/kimberlywhitler/2019/10/12/new-study-on-ceos-is-marketing-finance-operations-or-engineering-the-best-path-to-the-c-suite/

[8] https://www.linkedin.com/posts/tahir-mahmood-b5370024_based-on-recent-analyses-of-fortune-500-ceo-activity-7391379743977152512-jkHx

[9] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CjjzdUJFZ6M

[10] https://www.reddit.com/r/PhD/comments/1e03rmw/any_important_ceos_who_have_phds/

[11] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0148296322010256

[12] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0148296322010256