vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
"I used to work for one of the three ratings agencies. Awhile ago. First: There are lots of different ratings. The bulk of ratings are for corporate debt and public finance. So senior debentures (fixed income) and General Obligations e.g. tax-free muni bonds, respectively. Ratings agencies are NOT paid by the investment banks, they are paid by the corporations or city/ state that is issuing debt. The investment banks are the syndicate that pulls the transaction together and brings it to market. For mortgage-backed securities, collateralized debt CDO-CLO's, all of which are fancy structured securitizations, well, that is a different matter! Those transactions are the ones where there is an inappropriately close tie between the investment bankers and ratings agencies. And those were the ratings that blew out and caused problems. Ratings agencies continued to do a decent job with what WAS their traditional business, corporate and municipal bond ratings, as far as I know. What khajja said was 100% correct: S&amp;P's fees were paid by investors, the people who were purchasing the bonds, until about 50 years ago. Around the same time that McGraw-Hill purchased S&amp;P, in 1966, they departed from that model, and started charging the bond issuers for ratings. I don't know if that decision was driven by McGraw-Hill or not, though. One more thing: Not all credit ratings agencies are paid by the issuers. One of the 10 NRSRO's (a designation given by the S.E.C.) is Egan-Jones. Their revenue comes from the investors, bond purchasers, not the companies issuing bonds, unlike the S&amp;P/ Fitch/ Moody's ""business model"". So there is an alternative, which I consider hopeful and reason not to totally despair. EDIT: What xcrunna19 mentions is also totally accurate. The part about Nouriel Roubini (who is a professor at N.Y.U. or Columbia or such and a sensible though slightly high strung sort) is consistent with my impression.
no it would not. Did you read the article? corporations and funds are already paying the government to hold money short-term (negative real 2 year bond yields).   or are you advocating that the government place an additional tax on people who buy government bonds?
When you invest in an ETF or mutual fund, you're not investing in stocks or bonds. You're buying shares of a company that invests in stocks or bonds. This level of indirection is what makes it so bond funds do not 'mature.' Bonds inside of ETFs or mutual funds do have a maturity date. When they mature, the fund manager uses the principal value that is returned to purchase another bond that meets the investment objectives of the fund. So the fund never matures, since it is always investing in more bonds when the old ones mature. Unit investment trusts made of bonds do have a maturity date as well, since the portfolio does not change once the UIT is issued. As the individual bonds in the portfolio mature, the principle value is returned to investors. So the overall maturity date is effectively the maturity date of the last bond in the trust. All of the statements quoted above are accurate in explaining why there is no guarantee of a return of principle when investing in bond funds (ETF or open-ended mutual fund). The bonds they hold do mature, but are replaced within the fund as needed. The investor will never see it happen unless they watch the holdings reports filed by the funds.  The only way to have an assurance of the return of principle is to invest in individual bonds, or in unit trusts made up of bonds.
Banks don't pay high interest (and certainly wouldn't do so to each other) because of their intristic good will; they pay high interest because they cannot secure capital funding at lower rates. This is a large reason why the large banks will generally pay much lower interest rates than smaller niche banks; the larger banks are seen as more reliable in the bond market, so are able to get funding more cheaply by issuing bonds. Individuals will often buy bonds for the perceived safety. Depending on how much money you are dealing with (sold a large house recently?) it is quite possible even for individuals to hit the ceiling on deposit insurance, and for any of a number of reasons they might not feel comfortable putting the money in the stock market. Buying government bonds then becomes a relatively attractive option -- you get a slightly lower return than you might be able to get in a high-interest savings account, but you are virtually guaranteed return of the entire principal if the bond is held to maturity. On the other hand, it might not be the case that you will get the entire principal back if the bank paying the high interest gets into financial trouble or even bankruptcy. Some people have personal or systemic objections toward banks, limiting their willingness to deposit large amounts of money with them. And of course in some cases, such as for example retirement savings, it might not even be possible to simply stash the money in a savings account, in which case bonds of some kind is your only option if you want a purely interest-bearing investment."
So if it's a bridge loan they need a lot of money now to keep the trains running but expect to get the actual loan they need in the future at which point they pay off the bridge loan ideally after not having to make too many coupon payments. That's what it sounds like to me.  Scenario: I am building a large development, my main funding source is kaput for whatever reason, I need money now to make payroll, buy fuel, pay for that shipment of supplies etc, I don't have time to secure the huge loan I need in the future for the rest of the project so I get a loan to cover me until I secure that deal and put my building site as collateral against it, I get the full funding, pay off the bond in full and move on with the project.
Not really. You can have two bonds that have identical duration but vastly different convexity.   Pensions and insurance portfolio managers are most common buyers as they're trying to deal with liability matching and high convexity allows them to create a barbell around their projected liabilities.
"Oh I see, as a ""Chicagoan""? Well I guess if you were from Detroit, Stockton, Mammoth Lakes, Jefferson County, Harrisburg, Central Falls, or Boise County you might understand why it might be necessary to force a government entity to actually back up their retirement plans with real investments."
Because US bonds have had the prior impression of absolute invincibility and safety that has helped the dollar become the world's reserve currency and the United States borrow essentially at will. For the people that care what S&P says, the aura of invincibility is broken and it is conceivable, in SOME universe, for the US to default on its debt. This is of little practical importance on its own, but it's yet another signpost on the road to Chinese or European economic hegemony.
All investors of equal standing get the same proportion of the net assets on bankruptcy but not all shareholders are of equal standing. In general, once all liabilities are covered, bond holders are paid first as that type of investment is company debt, then preferred stock holders are paid out and then common shareholders. This is the reason why preferred stock is usually cheaper - it is less risky as it has a higher claim to assets and therefore commands a lower risk premium. The exact payout schedule is very corporation dependent so needs research on a per firm basis.
Treasury bonds (of the same date and maturity) are completely fungible. One is exactly the same as the other. It doesn't matter who the Fed buys it from in the long term: there will be fewer outstanding Treasury bonds and more outstanding US dollars, and the price of a Treasury bond will be higher. If Goldman Sachs owns US treasury bonds, they will benefit from quantitative easing one way or another, simply because the value of those bonds goes up when the Fed is willing to buy them at a good price. In the short term, banks might do things with money (like make loans and perform other investment activity) a little faster than the Treasury. (The Treasury might skip or reduce the size of future bond sales.) There is also the opportunity for a tiny amount of arbitrage between the market price of a bond and the price the Fed is willing to pay, but everyone with a big chunk of bonds is able to compete for that little bit of profit (which is why these things are called open market operations) so it's not really all that hot. Really, people! There are far more legitimate criticisms of QE2 than Goldman Sachs participating in the treasury auction process! For starters, consider criticisms of the effects of the policy.
"I think a lot of this goes to the short-sightedness of the government that was in place at the time of the first default. They caused it, and their attempt at cleaning things up just kicked the can down the road. If they would have added in a ""class action"" clause that most bonds now have, what they settled with a majority would apply to all bond-holders.   What they did was the opposite: added in a clause in which the low-water mark was set by the deal that was least favourable for them. It was probably a misguided attempt at assuaging the markets with the consequences we now see..."
"Just like foreclosing is less than optimal for the banks, a tax sale has drawbacks for the county.  At a minimum, there the manpower needed to process the foreclosure and sale, and in many cases the value for which the property can be sold is probably less than the taxes due.  The problem is this flies in the face of the ""personal responsibility"" talking point that many bankers have been spreading since the beginning of the financial crisis.  It's a moral failing for a homeowner to walk away from an upside-down mortgage, but when the bank does the same thing for a tax bill it's a simple business decision."
No, they do not. Stock funds and bonds funds collect income dividends in different   ways. Stock funds collect dividends  (as well as any capital gains   that are realized) from the underlying stocks  and incorporates these   into the funds’ net asset value, or daily share price. That’s why a   stock fund’s share price drops when the fund makes a distribution –   the distribution comes out of the fund’s total net assets. With bond funds, the internal accounting is different:  Dividends   accrue daily, and are then paid out to shareholders every month or   quarter.  Bond funds collect the income from the underlying bonds and   keep it in a separate internal “bucket.”  A bond fund calculates a   daily accrual rate for the shares outstanding, and shareholders only   earn income for the days they actually hold the fund.  For example, if   you buy a bond fund two days before the fund’s month-end distribution,   you would only receive two days’ worth of income that month.  On the   other hand, if you sell a fund part-way through the month, you will   still receive a partial distribution at the end of the month,   pro-rated for the days you actually held the fund. Source  Also via bogleheads: Most Vanguard bond funds accrue interest to the share holders daily.   Here is a typical statement from a prospectus: Each Fund distributes to shareholders virtually all of its net income   (interest less expenses) as well as any net capital gains realized   from the sale of its holdings. The Fund’s income dividends accrue   daily and are distributed monthly. The term accrue used in this sense   means that the income dividends are credited to your account each day,   just like interest in a savings account that accrues daily. Since the   money set aside for your dividends is both an asset of the fund and a   liability, it does not affect the calculated net asset value. When the   fund distributes the income dividends at the end of the month, the net   asset value does not change as both the assets and liabilities   decrease by exactly the same amount. [Note that if you sell all of   your bond fund shares in the middle of the month, you will receive as   proceeds the value of your shares (calculated as number of shares   times net asset value) plus a separate distribution of the accrued   income dividends.]
By the phrasing of your question it seems that you are under the mistaken impression that countries are borrowing money from other countries, in which case it would make sense to question how everyone can be a borrower with no one on the other side of the equation. The short answer is that the debt is owed mostly to individuals and institutions that buy debt instruments. For example, you know those US savings bonds that parents are buying to save for their children's education? Well a bond is just a way to loan money to the Government in exchange for the original money plus some interest back later. It is as simple as that. I think because the debt and the deficit are usually discussed in the context of more complex macroeconomic concerns people often mistakenly assume that national debts are denominated in some shadow banking system that is hidden from the common person behind some red-tape covered bureaucracy. This is not the case here. Why did they get themselves into this much debt? The same reason the average person does, they are spending more than they bring in and are enabled by access to easy credit. Like many people they are also paying off one credit card using another one.
Bonds are extremely illiquid and have traditionally traded in bulk.  This has changed in recent years, but bonds used to be traded all by humans not too long ago. Currently, price data is all proprietary.  Prices are reported to the usual data terminals such as Bloomberg, Reuters, etc, but brokers may also have price gathering tools and of course their own internal trade history. Bonds are so illiquid that comparable bonds are usually referenced for a bond's price history.  This can be done because non-junk bonds are typically well-rated and consistent across ratings.
"If you buy a long term bond with long term fixed interest rate, and then the interest rates increase, your bond is worth less. That's not a problem, because over the years the value of the bond will go back to its nominal value. If you have a bond that doesn't pay out annually but increases its value every year, you will get exactly the amount of cash when it pays out that you expected.  The problem is that if for 20 years interest rates were 8% while your bond only paid 4%, then you will have such an amount of inflation that the cash you get is worth much less than you hoped. You may have hoped that your bond would be worth ""one year average salary"", but it may be only worth ""six months of average salary"", even if the dollar amount is exactly what you expected."
Why can't the Fed simply bid more than the bond's maturity value to lower interest rates below zero? The FED could do this but then it would have to buy all the bonds in the market since all other market participants would not be willing to lend money to the government only to receive less money back in the future.  Not everyone has the ability to print unlimited amounts of dollars :)
I believe it’s because the old ticker machines only had 32 symbols making each symbol (1/32) a tick. (Back in the London Stock / Debt exchange in the 18th century) . The first ever government bond was issued by the Bank of England in 1693 to raise money to fund a war against France
"But on June 28, the 17,000-resident town authorized a declaration of fiscal emergency, a step California cities can take before bankruptcy. In this case, it gives officials in the affluent enclave the power to expedite a referendum on new fees to boost its revenue, which has been restrained by a lackluster retail base and property-tax limits the state enacted almost 40 years ago. “We just don’t have enough revenue to take us through the future for many more years before we would really be in some of the situations other cities are, where they’re laying off mass numbers of employees or declaring bankruptcy,” town manager Robert Priebe said in an interview. Get the latest on global politics in your inbox, every day. Get our newsletter daily. Enter your email Sign Up The community, where the median family income is $169,000 a year, illustrates an irony for some at the center of the California’s latest economic boom. While real estate prices have surged, the local tax collections haven’t necessarily followed the same trajectory because of Proposition 13, the 1978 ballot measure that keeps homeowners’ tax bills from rising by more than inflation or 2 percent a year. As a result, local government revenues are growing more slowly than the rest of the U.S., according to a state analysis, leaving some seeking other ways to raise money. In Moraga, where the council discussed establishing a poet laureate position before approving the fiscal distress declaration, lowering headcount isn’t the first priority. The town’s $8.5 million budget this year authorizes about 36 full-time workers. Members instead opted to reduce services such as park maintenance in the community about 20 miles east of San Francisco. “We’re not willing to hurt the public first,"" Priebe said. ""We’re not going to lay off half of our employees and have the quality of life of all of our citizens really be impacted.” Moraga’s declaration hasn’t affected its standing on Wall Street. Its $7.7 million in outstanding debt is rated AA+, second highest by S&amp;P Global Ratings.
But pennsylvania didnt pay anything. Not collecting taxes is not the same thing as paying somebody. The municipalities are investing in their future by offering lucrative deals to attract business in order to collect taxes later and benefit their citizens by providing jobs. If it doesnt work out, you dont actually lose anything because the factory didnt exist in the first place.
There's a premium or discount for various stocks subject to influence by the alternatives available to investors, meaning investments are susceptible to the principle of supply and demand. This is easily seen when industries or business models get hot, and everybody wants a tech company, a social media company, or a solar company in his portfolio.  You'll see bubbles like the dotcom bubble, the RE bubble, etc., as people start to think that the industry and not its performance are all that matters.  The stock price of a desired industry or company is inflated beyond what might otherwise be expected, to accommodate the premium that the investment can demand. So if bonds become uniformly less attractive in terms of returns, and certain institutional investors are largely obliged to continue purchasing them anyway, then flexible investors will need to look elsewhere.  As more people want to buy stocks, the price rises.  Supply and demand is sometimes so elementary it feels nearly counter-intuitive, but it applies here as elsewhere.
QE is artificial demand for bonds, but as always when there are more buyers than sellers the price of anything goes up. When QE ends the price of bonds will fall because everyone will know that the biggest buyer in the market is no longer there.  So price of bonds will fall. And therefore the interest rate on new bonds must increase to match the total return available to buyers in the secondary market.
My answer is not specific, or even maybe applicable, to Microsoft. Companies don't want to cut dividends. So they have a fixed expense, but the cashflow that funds it might be quite lumpy, or cyclical, depending on the industry. Another, more general, issue is that taking on debt to retire shares is a capital allocation decision. A company needs capital to operate. This is why they went public in the first place, to raise capital. Debt is a cheaper form of capital than equity. Equity holders are last in line in a bankruptcy. Bondholders are at the front of the line. To compensate for this, equity holders require a larger return -- often called a hurdle rate. So why doesn't a company just use cheaper equity, and no debt? Some do. But consider that equity holders participate in the earnings, where bondholders just get the interest, nothing more. And because lenders don't participate in the potential upside, they introduce conditions (debt covenants) to help control their downside exposure. For a company, it's a balance, very much the same as personal finances. A reasonable amount of debt provides low-cost capital, which can be used to produce greater returns. But too much debt, and the covenants are breached, the debt is called due immediately, there's no cash to cover, and wham! bankruptcy. A useful measure, if a bit difficult to calculate, is a company's cost of capital, and the return on that capital. Cost of capital is a blended number taking both equity and debt into account. Good companies earn a return that is greater than their cost of capital. Seems obvious, but many companies don't succeed at this. In cases where this is persistent, the best move for shareholders would be for the company to dissolve and return all the capital. Unfortunately, as in the Railroad Tycoon example above, managers' incentives aren't always well aligned with shareholders, and they allocate capital in ways advantageous to themselves, and not the company.
Yes this would be the same as when a corporation sells bonds. If it is the same as you describe. A product page would make it possible to give you a definitive answer. Also I strongly advice against taking out this type of loan if not for investment
"Well there are a couple reasons that people from various countries use specific currencies:  1.  Government courts will recognize the settlement of contracts if they are paid with their local currency.  So even if you wanted to be paid in Swiss Francs, your contracting partner can choose to pay you in USD instead.  This artificially inflates the value of the local currency by increasing demand for it.  2.  You're only allowed to pay your taxes in the local currency.  This also artificially increases the demand for it, and it's the ""root value"" of the currency - people clamor for bits of green paper because if they don't have enough of it to pay off the tax man, they'll go to jail."
It's in their interest to deal with assets denominated in USD (i.e. T-Bonds) in order to avoid this. So now because the Saudis want T-Bonds as well, the additional demand pushes the market price of our bond from $100 to $102. And the effective one year borrowing rate for the Government goes from 5% to 2.9%. (105 - 102)/102 = .029411 = 2.9% And there you have it, cheaper borrowing. It's also worth noting how this encourages business around the world to deal in dollars which are directly controlled by the federal reserve. This makes the US's position extremely powerful.