3 ms·

Afaik inflation devaluates stock relative to bonds and its small 101 of economics but Im no expert

voisin 4y ago
I think you have this opposite. Bonds have a fixed nominal return, so if inflation picks up unexpectedly, that nominal return erodes in real (inflation adjusted) terms, so investors flee bonds. That said, stocks don’t tend to perform well either because of expectations over interest rates increasing to combat inflation and an ensuing recession.
wahern 4y ago
The Econ 101 is the complete opposite. Bonds usually have fixed rates, whereas stock prices are in principal tied to revenues, and nominal revenues should increase with inflation--companies increasing prices is literally how most people experience inflation. But Econ 101 also suggests that in the short term things will be more complex than all that because price adjustments won't be instantaneous. Fear and volatility will create demand for bonds, which could offset to some extent the clearly diminishing nominal value of fixed-rate bonds. Note that a key factor here isn't inflation, per se, but the rate of change in inflation. From an Econ 101 perspective 2% inflation is no different than 20% inflation if things are otherwise steady-state. Stocks are the better bet because in principal they should respond more quickly to changes in the inflation rate. If inflation is steady, bonds in principal are the simpler, cheaper instrument.
- mrep 4y ago
  I like your thought process on the "rate of change in inflation" but BND and VTI are both down 15% in the past year when inflation has had the greatest change in decades. I would have thought BND would have fallen a lot harder considering how much higher new bonds are paying but maybe the market is pretty good at pricing bonds based on their associated risk per length of bond time with inflation? IDK, what do you think?
merely-unlikely 4y ago
Depends on the sector. You would expect consumer staples (ie food stuffs) to perform well since higher prices can easily be passed to consumers who can't cut back (hence inflation). You would expect money losing tech stocks to suffer as interest rates (and thereby discount rates) rise. You would also expect bonds to perform poorly as their prices need to decline to make their yields competitive with those of new bonds issued at higher interest rates. Term loans should outperform since their interest rates are variable, making them safer in a regime of raising/fluctuating interest rates. Conversely, sometimes US treasuries will outperform if investors are fleeing to a safe haven against potential recision risks. There's always another variable.

I think you have this opposite. Bonds have a fixed nominal return, so if inflation picks up unexpectedly, that nominal return erodes in real (inflation adjusted) terms, so investors flee bonds. That said, stocks don’t tend to perform well either because of expectations over interest rates increasing to combat inflation and an ensuing recession.

wahern 4y ago

The Econ 101 is the complete opposite. Bonds usually have fixed rates, whereas stock prices are in principal tied to revenues, and nominal revenues should increase with inflation--companies increasing prices is literally how most people experience inflation. But Econ 101 also suggests that in the short term things will be more complex than all that because price adjustments won't be instantaneous. Fear and volatility will create demand for bonds, which could offset to some extent the clearly diminishing nominal value of fixed-rate bonds. Note that a key factor here isn't inflation, per se, but the rate of change in inflation. From an Econ 101 perspective 2% inflation is no different than 20% inflation if things are otherwise steady-state. Stocks are the better bet because in principal they should respond more quickly to changes in the inflation rate. If inflation is steady, bonds in principal are the simpler, cheaper instrument.

mrep 4y ago
I like your thought process on the "rate of change in inflation" but BND and VTI are both down 15% in the past year when inflation has had the greatest change in decades. I would have thought BND would have fallen a lot harder considering how much higher new bonds are paying but maybe the market is pretty good at pricing bonds based on their associated risk per length of bond time with inflation? IDK, what do you think?

merely-unlikely 4y ago

Depends on the sector. You would expect consumer staples (ie food stuffs) to perform well since higher prices can easily be passed to consumers who can't cut back (hence inflation). You would expect money losing tech stocks to suffer as interest rates (and thereby discount rates) rise. You would also expect bonds to perform poorly as their prices need to decline to make their yields competitive with those of new bonds issued at higher interest rates. Term loans should outperform since their interest rates are variable, making them safer in a regime of raising/fluctuating interest rates. Conversely, sometimes US treasuries will outperform if investors are fleeing to a safe haven against potential recision risks. There's always another variable.