No. of Recommendations: 2
The auction for the 4-week bill closed a couple of minutes ago, but Treasury Direct hasn't yet posted the rate for the bills to be issued this Thursday (4/6/06).

However, the discount rates for the 13- and 26-week bills (whose auctions were yesterday) are as follows:

91-day: 4.535%, which is 4 beeps up from last week's 4.495%.
182-day: 4.670%, which is 7 beeps up from last week's 4.600%.

So, possibly, the 28-day will show a proportional and similar increase, as the empire struggles to attract capital to service its debts.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
The auction for the 4-week bill closed a couple of minutes ago, but Treasury Direct hasn't yet posted the rate for the bills to be issued this Thursday (4/6/06).

They didn't post the rates yet because they don't know what they are yet. They only know what the rate is after the competitive bidding is over at 1PM eastern in about 25 minutes from now. Yes, I did purchase some more this week.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
markr33,

My mistake. Thanks for the correction. I thought 12 EST was the close of the window for submitting non-competitive bids, which I also assumed was the close of time for submitting all bids. 12 o'clock is the deadline I pace myself to, because there's been a couple of times when I was a few minutes late and my bid got bumped to following week.

I see that the rate for the 28-day has now been posted at 4.550%, which is down a bunch of beeps from last week's 4.630%, which was anomalously high. The temporary flood of tax receipts coming into the Treasury should depress the rate for the 28-day bill to more "normal" levels. But once the gov't chews through that money, I expect the 28-day to regain ground.

Again, thanks for the correction.

Charlie

Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
I see that the rate for the 28-day has now been posted at 4.550%, which is down a bunch of beeps from last week's 4.630%, which was anomalously high. The temporary flood of tax receipts coming into the Treasury should depress the rate for the 28-day bill to more "normal" levels. But once the gov't chews through that money, I expect the 28-day to regain ground.

This is useful information. Thanks.

Vickifool
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
" I see that the rate for the 28-day has now been posted at 4.550%, which is down a bunch of beeps from last week's 4.630%, which was anomalously high. The temporary flood of tax receipts coming into the Treasury should depress the rate for the 28-day bill to more "normal" levels. But once the gov't chews through that money, I expect the 28-day to regain ground.

This is useful information. Thanks. Vickifool"


Vicki,

What I wrote, and what you quoted, wasn't information. It was merely opinion. I'm guessing. I don't follow the Treasury market closely. I don't know the factors that control the 28-day rate as opposed to the 91- and 182-day rates. I'm guessing, just trying to explain to myself why the 28-day rate seems to behave differently than the other two when data sets are compared, such as yield-curve charts of all three over a two-year time frame. The 28-day makes occasional moves that seem independent of its longer-period peers. In short, I'm just a chartist looking for a fundamental explanation of why the chart is as it is.

I made the briefest attempt to game the moves and then decided:

(1) I couldn't do it
(2) it wasn't worth the money to be gained even if I could achieve a "normal" win/loss ratio, because I had no easy way to protect my downside.

So my response has been to stick with my investment plan of building ladders on an equally-weighted basis. (I don't vary the number of bills I buy each weeek in an effort to catch occasional surprises such as last week's permiumum offerred by the 28-week.) The reason for the premium interests me, and I'm willing to intellectaul speculate about its cause and reappearnce, but I'm not willing to speculatate on my speculations (aka, bet money), because the grief if I'm wrong outweighs the possible gains. I make plenty of bets and take plenty of risks. But gaming T-Bills isn't one of them. I'm using the instrument as a "safe harbor", and I need to adhere to that plan. (The big money in FI investing is to be made elsewhere.)

Charlie
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0

What I wrote, and what you quoted, wasn't information. It was merely opinion. I'm guessing. I don't follow the Treasury market closely. I don't know the factors that control the 28-day rate as opposed to the 91- and 182-day rates. I'm guessing, just trying to explain to myself why the 28-day rate seems to behave differently than the other two when data sets are compared, such as yield-curve charts of all three over a two-year time frame. The 28-day makes occasional moves that seem independent of its longer-period peers. In short, I'm just a chartist looking for a fundamental explanation of why the chart is as it is.,


OK.
I was thinking this was like "the January effect" in the major stock I follow. Not fool-proof, but worth thinking about.

Vickifool
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Vicki,

Yes, the phenomenon might be worth thinking about, and Jack did comment on it the first time I mentioned it a month or so back, suggesting that the 28-day rate was due to immediate funding needs versus the willingness of the big players to bid for bills.

As to seasonal effects, you'd have to get hold of the data series and then start looking for patterns. E.g., last year, mid-December, the 28-day bill had a pronounced and anomalous spike. (The Xmas shopping effect?)

The Treasury Direct website has links to their historical data. The data can be imported into Excel than then examined.

Charlie

Print the post Back To Top