‘Worse than Greece': Japan's bond vortex sends a global warning

(A war whose future, after Wednesday's ruling by the US Court of International Trade, is now uncertain).
Loading
And Japan's bond market, the third-largest in the world, is connected to the rest of the financial world's plumbing, especially with the US financial system.
For decades there has been a massive 'carry trade,' where Japanese institutions and investors, and foreign hedge funds, have borrowed very cheaply in Japan to invest in higher-yielding US assets, including US bonds.
The macro picture suggests that bond investors have, relatively recently, started demanding a bigger premium for the risk of holding long-dated bonds, particularly the ultra-long maturities of some of the Japanese bonds on issue.
There's a definite correlation between the April 2 announcement and the spike in Japanese and US bond yields, with Trump's aggressive tariffs casting a pall over the global economic outlook and the outlook for America's major trading partners, of which Japan is one.
America's assault on global trade, along with some of the Trump administration's other 'America First' policies, has ignited a 'Sell America' trade, which is being seen most obviously in the US bond market and the value of the US dollar, which has fallen 9.2 per cent against a basket of America's or trading partners so far this year, including 4 percentage points since April 2.
Some of the capital fleeing Trump's America has headed to Japan, with a surge in foreign purchases of Japanese shares and bonds since April 2. Europe has experienced something similar.
More threatening and potentially destabilising for the US is the potential for the Japanese carry trade to unwind.
Japan is the biggest holder of US bonds, with investments of more than $US1.1 trillion ($1.7 trillion), along with significant holdings of other financial assets. Even Japanese households, faced for decades with negative short-term bond yields in their home market, have chased the higher returns available in the US.
Now, with domestic yields rising and the US dollar tumbling, the risk-reward equation for Japanese investors is rebalancing and, after factoring in the cost of hedging the currency exposures, is starting to shift towards their home market.
The US is in an analogous fiscal position to Japan, albeit that its government debt isn't (yet?) at Japan's stratospheric levels. Its debt to GDP ratio is around 100 per cent, with Trump's 'One, Big, Beautiful Bill Act' projected to add $US3.8 trillion or more to debt over the next decade and to raise that rate to about 118 per cent 2034.
The BoJ has been reducing its purchases of government debt - it owns about 52 per cent of that debt – as it has begun normalising its monetary policies. It has been reducing its bond purchases by 400 billion yen (about $4.3 billion) each quarter.
The US Federal Reserve has, similarly, been allowing its holdings of bonds to shrink by not reinvesting the proceeds as the bonds mature.
In both markets, that means the former major buyer of the bonds is gradually withdrawing a key source of demand and liquidity for the bonds, even as their issuance continues to increase and, in the US, where there has been a focus on short-term debt issuance, the volume of maturing debt is surging.
Loading
In Japan, where life insurers and other institutions have been among the major non-government buyers, changed solvency requirements and heavy losses from existing holders – four major insurers lost more than $90 billion on their bond holdings between them in the first quarter – are also diminishing demand.
Less demand, coupled with greater supply, inevitably means higher yields and rising interest costs for already stretched government finances.
Japan's prime minister, Shigeru Ishiba, under pressure to cut taxes to blunt the impact of the rise in interest rates, said last week that it was important to recognise the dangers of a society and economy with (high) interest rates.
'Our country's fiscal situation is undoubtedly extremely poor, worse than Greece's,' he said, presumably a reference to the debt-inducted crisis Greece faced in 2009, when there was a serious risk that it would be forced from the European Union.
The US, of course, had its last remaining AAA credit rating withdrawn by Moody's earlier this month because of its strained and deteriorating public finances.
With an inflation rate above the yields on its bonds, despite their recent spikes, real interest rates in Japan remain negative, which may help with management of government debt but may also deter buyers if they doubt the BoJ's ability to bring inflation under control.
Growth isn't going to help much. After Trump announced his tariffs – Japan faces the baseline 10 per cent tariff, a 24 per cent 'reciprocal' tariff and the 25 per cent levy on its auto exports the US – the BoJ downgraded its outlook for economic growth this year from 1.1 per cent to 0.5 per cent and from 1 per cent to 0.7 per cent next year.
Japan's circumstances are difficult, and made more so by Trump's trade policies, which will hit Japan at a vulnerable moment.

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

7NEWS

2 hours ago

• 7NEWS

Scott Morrison: Donald Trump's strikes on Iran a necessary measure to achieve peace, not war in Middle East

The recent strike by the United States on Iran's nuclear facilities marks a critical turning point in global security. It is not just a matter for the Middle East or for U.S. foreign policy. It is a test for all nations that rely on the strength and credibility of the international rules-based order and the western alliance for their security, Australia included. Let me be clear, this strike was not an act of provocation. It was a necessary measure, undertaken as a last resort by a President who wants peace, not war. The purpose was clear, to disrupt the capabilities of a brutal authoritarian regime that has openly defied international norms, supported terrorist proxies, and pursued nuclear weapons with increasing brazenness. In times of geopolitical crisis, clarity of purpose and principle is essential. That is why I was compelled to speak out following the U.S. operation. What we have seen instead from the Australian government is a concerning lack of clarity and a reluctance to define where Australia stands when it matters most. It is in times like this when allies look around to see who is with them. For a country like ours, deeply integrated into global economic and security networks, reliant on open trade routes and US led allied deterrence, strategic ambiguity is not a strength. It is a vulnerability. Throughout my time as Prime Minister, I took the view that Australia's interests are best served when we speak plainly and act decisively in defence of our values. That is why we stood firmly with our allies against China's economic coercion. It is why we invested in AUKUS, strengthening our sovereign defence capabilities and deepening our technological integration with the U.S. and UK. it is why we worked so closely with our Indo-Pacific partners through the Quad to uphold regional stability. It is why we stood with Israel against those who sought their annihilation. In this context, the U.S. strike on Iran's nuclear facilities must be understood for what it is: an act of strategic deterrence, grounded in the reality that Iran has long been operating outside the bounds of good faith diplomacy. It is what President Trump meant when he spoke of peace through strength. For years, Iran has methodically violated its obligations under the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), enriching uranium well beyond civilian thresholds, restricting IAEA inspections, and hardening its facilities in preparation for exactly this kind of confrontation. Attempts to revive the nuclear deal have failed, not because the West abandoned diplomacy, but because Tehran refused to comply with the very terms it had previously accepted. The question facing policymakers in Washington and, indeed, in Canberra is not whether we prefer diplomacy over conflict. Of course we do. It is whether diplomacy alone can halt a regime that has no intention of negotiating in good faith. At a certain point, the cost of inaction outweighs the risk of confrontation. That is precisely where the United States found itself. Given Iran's refusal to cooperate with international monitors and its aggressive posture across the region, including arming Hezbollah, enabling Hamas to commit atrocities on innocent Israelis, supporting Houthi attacks on Red Sea shipping, the Trump administration concluded that a targeted strike was the only viable option left. Only the US could have taken this step and President Trump should be commended for his courage and leadership, especially by allies. This was not a broad campaign. It was a calibrated operation aimed at degrading the most advanced elements of Iran's nuclear infrastructure specifically, targeting Natanz, Isfahan and Fordow. The objective was not regime change. It was to halt Iran's progression toward nuclear weapons capability and to send a clear message that the West's red lines still mean something. Yet here in Australia, the official response from the government has been muted. No strong statement of support for the United States. That silence is telling. It suggests a reluctance to confront difficult choices and to support our most important ally in the righteousness of the actions that have taken. I believe that such an approach is short-sighted and fundamentally misjudges the nature of the challenge we face. Australia cannot afford to be passive in moments like this. Our voice matters, not just because we are a U.S. ally, but because we are a middle power with global responsibilities. We sit at the intersection of East and West, of advanced democracies and rising developing powers. Our stance sends signals across the region, from Beijing to Moscow, Jakarta to Seoul. We must make the case for resistance against authoritarian arrogance. That doesn't mean we should follow Washington blindly. It means we must be clear, consistent and credible in how we support a global order that has protected our prosperity and security for generations. This is a time for strategic clarity, not importantly, we must ensure our own defences are fit for purpose. AUKUS is not a theoretical construct. It is a practical framework for dealing with the kinds of threats we are now seeing unfold. That means accelerating delivery timelines, investing in sovereign capabilities, and ensuring that deterrence in our own region is not eroded by distraction or delay. The world is entering a more dangerous phase. The era of risk aversion is over. Strategic competitors are testing our resolve, our alliances, and our willingness to act in defence of shared values. The choices we make now will define the kind of world our children inherit. We must choose clarity over confusion. Strength over silence. And principle over passivity. We must know who we stand with. That is the standard Australia has upheld in the past. And it is the standard we must uphold again now

West Australian

4 hours ago

• West Australian

Scott Morrison: Donald Trump's strikes on Iran a necessary measure to achieve peace, not war in Middle East

The recent strike by the United States on Iran's nuclear facilities marks a critical turning point in global security. It is not just a matter for the Middle East or for U.S. foreign policy. It is a test for all nations that rely on the strength and credibility of the international rules-based order and the western alliance for their security, Australia included. Let me be clear, this strike was not an act of provocation. It was a necessary measure, undertaken as a last resort by a President who wants peace, not war. The purpose was clear, to disrupt the capabilities of a brutal authoritarian regime that has openly defied international norms, supported terrorist proxies, and pursued nuclear weapons with increasing brazenness. In times of geopolitical crisis, clarity of purpose and principle is essential. That is why I was compelled to speak out following the U.S. operation. What we have seen instead from the Australian government is a concerning lack of clarity and a reluctance to define where Australia stands when it matters most. It is in times like this when allies look around to see who is with them. For a country like ours, deeply integrated into global economic and security networks, reliant on open trade routes and US led allied deterrence, strategic ambiguity is not a strength. It is a vulnerability. Throughout my time as Prime Minister, I took the view that Australia's interests are best served when we speak plainly and act decisively in defence of our values. That is why we stood firmly with our allies against China's economic coercion. It is why we invested in AUKUS, strengthening our sovereign defence capabilities and deepening our technological integration with the U.S. and UK. it is why we worked so closely with our Indo-Pacific partners through the Quad to uphold regional stability. It is why we stood with Israel against those who sought their annihilation. In this context, the U.S. strike on Iran's nuclear facilities must be understood for what it is: an act of strategic deterrence, grounded in the reality that Iran has long been operating outside the bounds of good faith diplomacy. It is what President Trump meant when he spoke of peace through strength. For years, Iran has methodically violated its obligations under the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), enriching uranium well beyond civilian thresholds, restricting IAEA inspections, and hardening its facilities in preparation for exactly this kind of confrontation. Attempts to revive the nuclear deal have failed, not because the West abandoned diplomacy, but because Tehran refused to comply with the very terms it had previously accepted. The question facing policymakers in Washington and, indeed, in Canberra is not whether we prefer diplomacy over conflict. Of course we do. It is whether diplomacy alone can halt a regime that has no intention of negotiating in good faith. At a certain point, the cost of inaction outweighs the risk of confrontation. That is precisely where the United States found itself. Given Iran's refusal to cooperate with international monitors and its aggressive posture across the region, including arming Hezbollah, enabling Hamas to commit atrocities on innocent Israelis, supporting Houthi attacks on Red Sea shipping, the Trump administration concluded that a targeted strike was the only viable option left. Only the US could have taken this step and President Trump should be commended for his courage and leadership, especially by allies. This was not a broad campaign. It was a calibrated operation aimed at degrading the most advanced elements of Iran's nuclear infrastructure specifically, targeting Natanz, Isfahan and Fordow. The objective was not regime change. It was to halt Iran's progression toward nuclear weapons capability and to send a clear message that the West's red lines still mean something. Yet here in Australia, the official response from the government has been muted. No strong statement of support for the United States. That silence is telling. It suggests a reluctance to confront difficult choices and to support our most important ally in the righteousness of the actions that have taken. I believe that such an approach is short-sighted and fundamentally misjudges the nature of the challenge we face. Australia cannot afford to be passive in moments like this. Our voice matters, not just because we are a U.S. ally, but because we are a middle power with global responsibilities. We sit at the intersection of East and West, of advanced democracies and rising developing powers. Our stance sends signals across the region, from Beijing to Moscow, Jakarta to Seoul. We must make the case for resistance against authoritarian arrogance. That doesn't mean we should follow Washington blindly. It means we must be clear, consistent and credible in how we support a global order that has protected our prosperity and security for generations. This is a time for strategic clarity, not importantly, we must ensure our own defences are fit for purpose. AUKUS is not a theoretical construct. It is a practical framework for dealing with the kinds of threats we are now seeing unfold. That means accelerating delivery timelines, investing in sovereign capabilities, and ensuring that deterrence in our own region is not eroded by distraction or delay. The world is entering a more dangerous phase. The era of risk aversion is over. Strategic competitors are testing our resolve, our alliances, and our willingness to act in defence of shared values. The choices we make now will define the kind of world our children inherit. We must choose clarity over confusion. Strength over silence. And principle over passivity. We must know who we stand with. That is the standard Australia has upheld in the past. And it is the standard we must uphold again now Scott Morrison was Australia's 30th Prime Minister.

AU Financial Review

7 hours ago

• AU Financial Review

Trump's attack on Iran could wipe up to 10pc off equity markets

US President Donald Trump's decision to join the Israeli attacks on Iran on Sunday represents a wild card that many investors didn't expect, and certainly are not positioned for. This will rattle markets, and the scale of the damage depends almost entirely on Iran's next move, not America's. As we've argued consistently in the past week, investors were heavily leveraged to three TACO trades: that the tariff war was over, that Trump's threats against Federal Reserve chairman Jerome Powell were hot air, and that the United States wouldn't risk expanding the conflict with Iran.