Will Real Yields Decline Further if Inflation Rises?

Thursday, November 05, 2015

By David Andolfatto, Vice President and Economist

The most striking property of nominal interest rates in the U.S. in the post-Korean War period is their long climb up to and down from a peak of about 16 percent in 1981, as shown in the figure below.

interest rates and inflation rates

The conventional explanation for this secular dynamic is that loose monetary policy in the late 1960s and 1970s led to rising inflation and inflation expectations. In turn, bondholders demanded higher yields (lower bond prices) as compensation for the expected loss of purchasing power associated with higher inflation.1 Tight monetary policy initiated in the early 1980s had the opposite effect.

If inflation follows something close to a random walk, then realized inflation (plotted as the blue line in the figure above) serves as a reasonable proxy for one-year-ahead inflation expectations. The difference between the one-year nominal bond yield (the orange line in the figure above) and expected inflation then gives us a measure of the expected real rate of interest—the inflation adjusted return on U.S. Treasury debt. The figure below plots the inflation rate alongside the real rate of interest.

interest and inflation rates

Many commentators have noted that the real interest rate is presently very low by historical standards. But as the figure above reveals, this is not the first time that real bond yields have been so low. In particular, the real interest rate was negative for much of the 1970s. (It is also interesting to note that the real interest rate was unusually high in the early 1980s.)

In a 1983 paper, Joel Fried and Peter Howitt argued that the observed relationship between inflation and the real interest rate is consistent with an economic theory that recognizes the liquidity value of U.S. Treasury debt.2 When inflation is high, the real rate of return on money is low. One should expect that the real return on close money substitutes would follow suit. The converse should hold true in a low-inflation regime, as experienced during the transition from high to low inflation in the early 1980s.

The preceding explanation, however, cannot account for real interest rate behavior since 2000. Inflation has remained relatively low and stable for more than 25 years. Yet the real return on U.S. Treasury debt declined into negative territory.

Evidently, there are factors other than expected inflation that determine the value of U.S. Treasury debt. Nominally safe assets like U.S. government bonds are valued throughout the world as high-grade collateral in lending arrangements and as a (relatively) safe store of value in private and public savings funds. Recent changes to financial regulations have also contributed to the demand for safe assets. If calls for higher inflation and inflation targets are heeded, then the implication here is that real yields are likely to decline even further.

Notes and References

1 Bonds are a promise to future money, so what matters to the bondholder is the purchasing power of the future money.

2 Fried, Joel; and Howitt, Peter. “The Effects of Inflation on Real Interest Rates.” American Economic Review, December 1983, Vol. 73, Issue 5, pp. 968-80.

Additional Resources

Posted In Inflation  |  Tagged david andolfattointerest ratesinflationtreasury debtreal return
Commenting Policy: We encourage comments and discussions on our posts, even those that disagree with conclusions, if they are done in a respectful and courteous manner. All comments posted to our blog go through a moderator, so they won't appear immediately after being submitted. We reserve the right to remove or not publish inappropriate comments. This includes, but is not limited to, comments that are:
  • Vulgar, obscene, profane or otherwise disrespectful or discourteous
  • For commercial use, including spam
  • Threatening, harassing or constituting personal attacks
  • Violating copyright or otherwise infringing on third-party rights
  • Off-topic or significantly political
The St. Louis Fed will only respond to comments if we are clarifying a point. Comments are limited to 1,500 characters, so please edit your thinking before posting. While you will retain all of your ownership rights in any comment you submit, posting comments means you grant the St. Louis Fed the royalty-free right, in perpetuity, to use, reproduce, distribute, alter and/or display them, and the St. Louis Fed will be free to use any ideas, concepts, artwork, inventions, developments, suggestions or techniques embodied in your comments for any purpose whatsoever, with or without attribution, and without compensation to you. You will also waive all moral rights you may have in any comment you submit.
comments powered by Disqus

The St. Louis Fed uses Disqus software for the comment functionality on this blog. You can read the Disqus privacy policy. Disqus uses cookies and third party cookies. To learn more about these cookies and how to disable them, please see this article.

Subscribe to
On the Economy

Get notified when new content is available on our On the Economy blog.

Email Alerts  |  RSS

About the Blog

The St. Louis Fed On the Economy blog features relevant commentary, analysis, research and data from our economists and other St. Louis Fed experts.

Views expressed are not necessarily those of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis or of the Federal Reserve System.

Contact Us

For media-related questions, email mediainquiries@stls.frb.org. For all other blog-related questions or comments, email on-the-economy@stls.frb.org.