Back to News
Advertisement
Advertisement

⚡ Community Insights

Discussion Sentiment

61% Positive

Analyzed from 1634 words in the discussion.

Trending Topics

#debt#treasury#deficit#rates#fiscal#budget#higher#investors#https#fed

Discussion (59 Comments)Read Original on HackerNews

JumpCrisscross•about 2 hours ago
Treasuries are priced alongside term SOFR at one year [1][2]. The cost to insure U.S. debt is in line with where it's been for the last five years [3]. (And around where they were ten years ago.)

This has nothing to do with investors' perceptions of U.S. credit and everything to do with the financial rates environment.

[1] https://home.treasury.gov/resource-center/data-chart-center/...

[2] https://www.global-rates.com/en/interest-rates/cme-term-sofr...

[3] https://en.macromicro.me/charts/68239/us-5year-cds

lostnfound8778•about 1 hour ago
earlier this year the fed quietly ended QT and began "reserve management" so they're buying the front end and letting the long end do its thing.

then in steps kevin warsh... historical backdrop: warsh resigned from the fed in 2011 because the fed owned too many assets. since then the fed bought 4 trillion more more than doubling the size of the fed balance sheet

warsh wants to shrink the balance sheet. only way to do that is to buy less treasuries, but the only reason 30 year mortgage isn't >15% is because the fed is the biggest buyer of long dated treasuries and mortgage backed securities (as in MBS i.e. the paper not the prince) since 2009...

so if warsh gets what he wants the long end is guaranteed to spike

then you add in the executive branch trying to to re-engineer the current account balance w the mar-a-lago accord and the correct reaction is not "wow rates are high" its "wow its kind of amazing rates are as low as they are in the long end", especially with the private markets gulping down as much gpu collateralized debt as it can without dislocating a jaw...

epolanski•about 2 hours ago
> This has nothing to do with investors' perceptions of U.S. credit and everything to do with the financial rates environment

It absolutely is related to investors' perceptions of U.S. credit worthiness. The news is about the 13th of August 2026 auction.

Entities lending money to US want increasingly higher compensation, which is unsurprising considering that the US projected deficits are ballooning (an estimated 7.4% both in 2026 and 27). US has already blown past 1.8T in deficit in the first 6 months of 2026 alone. That's higher than the deficit for the entirety of 2025.

Finding money to absorb all this spending is not easy and lenders are spooked by inflation and borrowing levels.

JumpCrisscross•about 2 hours ago
> It absolutely is related to investors' perceptions of U.S. credit

Related to, not evidence of. I added a CDS reference which isolates the credit component.

> Entities lending money to US want increasingly higher compensation

Entities lending money in dollars want higher compensation. There is no evidence they demand a risk premium from the United States.

What we are seeing is an increasing term premium. But that doesn't have to do with the U.S.'s perceived creditworthiness, it's a function of money supply and demand.

toomuchtodo•about 2 hours ago
It’s absolutely a risk premium. The market is slowly pricing in no appetite to reduce the US deficit.

https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/econographics/are-risi...

> Several factors have driven the rise in bond yields, including higher inflation expectations amid elevated energy prices following the Iran war and uncertainty surrounding a new Federal Reserve Chair. But the more fundamental concern is the US fiscal position: persistently high budget deficits have reached 6 percent of GDP, while government debt now exceeds the size of the US economy.

> In Fiscal Year 2026, which ends in September, the US Treasury is expected to issue around $2 trillion of securities on a net basis. Gross issuance, meanwhile, could reach a staggering $20 trillion according to the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association. That gap reflects the sheer volume of debt that needs to be rolled over, much of it resulting from the Treasury’s decision under former Secretary Janet Yellen to favor shorter maturities when rates were lower and curves were upward sloping.

> US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent has been attentive to the resulting borrowing costs and their impact on the budget deficit, which is why the Treasury has sought to limit pressure on the US bond market from foreign central banks that need dollars. During a recent joint FX market intervention with Japan, the Treasury sold euros for yen rather than dollars, avoiding transactions that would have required selling Treasuries. It has also asked the Fed to raise the limit on its Foreign and International Monetary Authorities repo facility, allowing the Bank of Japan and other foreign central banks to borrow short-term dollars against Treasuries rather than sell them in the open market, which could put further upward pressure on yields.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2026-08-13/us-braces...

> “Investors are being asked to absorb a growing supply of government debt globally at a time when deficits remain large, inflation uncertainty persists” and the Federal Reserve is no longer a major buyer, said Michal Stanczyk, portfolio manager for the global fixed income team at Allspring Global Investments.

> “If investors continue demanding greater compensation for inflation and fiscal risks, long-term yields could move higher and away from 5% even if Treasury auctions remain well covered,” he said.

Risk premium!

epolanski•about 2 hours ago
Do you know how bond auctions work? It's based on a price-discovery mechanism.

The treasury announces it wants to sell $ 25B of 30Y bonds.

Then investors submit offers saying in effect how much yield they demand to buy them.

Then the treasury fills bids from the lowest yield upwards in tranches.

kasey_junk•about 1 hour ago
It feels weird to focus on US debt here when the entire west is facing similar challenges (except Switzerland…)

The UK bonds are the highest since the 90s and Japanese debt has never been higher.

There is a fiscal problem but it’s not an _American_ one unless you just assume all international finance is a US issue.

atmavatar•about 1 hour ago
What's really interesting is where exactly the debt is going.

If the US were funneling money into long-term programs designed to improve the country and its residents' lives and/or earn some return on investment, that would be one thing.

Instead, it seems focused on continually increasing military spending (to little effect - see: Straight of Hormuz) and reducing the proportion of the tax revenues coming from its wealthiest individuals while taking a chainsaw to programs helping the poorest without any significant savings to show for it.

You couldn't do a worse job if you were following step-by-step instructions by an adversary for sabotaging the country from within.

kasey_junk•about 1 hour ago
It’s going to paying for an aging demographic and medical care. The same as literally every western country. Which is why I don’t view this as a particularly American issue.

America is doing a bad job of addressing this, but it also has more leeway.

ceejayoz•about 1 hour ago
> unless you just assume all international finance is a US issue

Why wouldn't you? 2008's collapse of the US housing market caused a global recession. It's the single largest economy on the planet.

kasey_junk•about 1 hour ago
Because the US does not control other countries fiscal policy which is where government debt rates come from. Germany and the UK have entirely different ways to determine fiscal and currency policy from each other, not to mention from the US.

If there is correlation between those things it’s either by choice (the German people tieing their government to the US) or it’s demographic.

ceejayoz•about 1 hour ago
> Because the US does not control other countries fiscal policy…

I can't even begin to imagine how someone says this with a straight face.

rbanffy•about 2 hours ago
Hear that? It’s the sound of an empire collapsing.
zeroonetwothree•about 2 hours ago
Did it collapse in 2001?
ceejayoz•about 2 hours ago
Did the British Empire collapse during the Suez Crisis of 1956, when it was embarassingly unable to open a major shipping chokepoint via military force?

Did we know it had by 1957, or did that take a little longer to confirm the shape of the decline?

kasey_junk•about 2 hours ago
India was already independent by then. That seems like it would have been a pretty strong signal.
nostrademons•about 2 hours ago
Kinda, yes. Osama Bin Laden's express goal was to bankrupt the U.S. by provoking it into a war it could not win. Three wars in the Middle East later, and $33T in additional government debt, and hear we are.
lopsotronic•about 1 hour ago
9/11 was arguably the most effective asymmetric attack in the annals of military history, in terms of simple weapon effect.

At the same time, it spells out the limits of seeing the world in terms of weapon effect: an American population brutalized by twenty years of occupation; Israel binding tight alliance with Saud; a resurgent heretic Shia power; a meteoric rise of China - historically far more of a foe to Islam than the West. None of these are what you might call brilliant for Bin Laden's ultimate goals.

When we fire a gun we don't know what that bullet does twenty years from now.

bayarearefugee•about 2 hours ago
Entire global society collapse is probably less than 25 years away due to climate change spiraling out of control. Relative to that the US national debt hardly even matters.
CamperBob2•about 2 hours ago
I dunno, guys, maybe hiring a guy who bankrupted 4 casinos wasn't the right way to go after all
lubujackson•about 2 hours ago
Hey, he's a businessman! He extracts value for shareholders!
jimt1234•about 2 hours ago
I fully support blaming Orange Foolius for, well, everything. But hasn't every administration since Reagan contributed to this?
mostlysimilar•about 2 hours ago
Not exactly.

> Blinder and Watson reported that budget deficits tended to be smaller under Democrats at 2.1% potential GDP versus 2.8% potential GDP for Republicans, a difference of about 0.7 of a percentage point. They wrote that higher budget deficits should theoretically have boosted the economy more for Republicans, and therefore cannot explain the greater GDP growth under Democrats.[3] Since 1981, federal budget deficits have increased under Republican presidents Ronald Reagan, both Bushes, and Trump, while deficits have declined under Democratic presidents Clinton and Obama. The federal government ran surpluses during Clinton's last four fiscal years, the first surpluses since 1969. The deficit was projected to decline sharply in Biden's first fiscal year.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._economic_performance_by_p...

twoodfin•about 1 hour ago
That’s a really small data set to draw any strong conclusions from.

None of these big swings between administrations had much to do with policy:

Clinton inherited the end of the Cold War and resulting “peace dividend”.

Obama inherited a Federal government already spending hundreds of billions to address the GFC.

Similarly, Biden inherited a Covid recovery budget spending an additional trillion or so.

HumblyTossed•about 2 hours ago
Including Reagan.

And so much of it has to do with the influence of The Heritage Foundation.

stock_toaster•about 2 hours ago
> Orange Foolius

As a kid in the 80s/90s who spent a non-zero amount of time in a mall, I just wanted to highlight how great this name is.

CoastalCoder•about 2 hours ago
Those things were delicious.
hdgvhicv•about 2 hours ago
Just the Republcian ones.

Clinton changed a 300b deficit into a 100b surplus. Obama reduced it from 1.4t to 500b.

Biden also slashed it but that’s a little unfair due to covid.

twoodfin•about 1 hour ago
The last pre-GFC Bush II year of 2007 had a federal budget deficit of $163B. The budget deficit in 2016, Obama’s last year, was $587B.

The last pre-Covid Trump I year of 2019 had a $984B deficit. After Covid, Biden’s final full year deficit was $1.83T.

There’s a non-zero correlation between any number of policy choices by both parties and the GFC or Covid, but it’s hard to see these primarily as anything but exogenous shocks.

linuxhiker•about 2 hours ago
Yes
runako•about 2 hours ago
Except Clinton.
HumblyTossed•about 2 hours ago
Didn't the rules for how CEOs are paid change under Clinton?
mattnewton•about 2 hours ago
Congress sets the budgets (well, is supposed to, but yes there has been pretty excessive delegation to the executive) so you really want to say every Congress # + White House.

When you break it up that way, there have been several fiscally conservative congresses + good presidency combos, most notably under Clinton where they reformed welfare, increased taxes and managed to get a budget surplus one year. The formula seems to be slim Democratic Party majorities in Congress with a Democrat president.

So yes it’s rare but good governance + rising tides can make a difference.

storus•about 2 hours ago
Another wave of inflation is coming in the next 6 months or what?
JumpCrisscross•about 2 hours ago
> Another wave of inflation is coming in the next 6 months or what?

No, at least according to Treasury buyers [1].

[1] https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/T10YIE

ceejayoz•about 2 hours ago
Looks right about like when we entered 2008, if you zoom out.
downrightmike•about 2 hours ago
Great economy you got there. Couldn't bribe Japan to not sell off their US Bonds and now they need to attract bag holders by raising rates.
josefritzishere•about 2 hours ago
The US is going the way of Zaire.
netsharc•about 2 hours ago
If only it could get fucked in isolation like that country. It's basically Rome and the whole planet is its empire, whatever happens the shockwaves affect everyone on the planet.