Illustration: Lazaro Gamio/Axios

The difference between the yield on 10-year Treasury notes went further below the yield on 3-month bills Wednesday. The difference is the most since 2007 and suggests that the inverted yield curve may not be going away.

Why it matters: Since the 1970s, an inverted yield curve has preceded every U.S. recession. However, economists, fund managers and other experts have been waving off the inversion's importance so far this year in a way that's eerily familiar.

What they said before: When the yield curve inverted in January 2006, in much the way it has this year, former Fed Chair Ben Bernanke said not to worry. "In previous episodes when an inverted yield curve was followed by recession, the level of interest rates was quite high, consistent with considerable financial restraint," he said in a speech in March 2006. "This time, both short- and long-term interest rates — in nominal and real terms — are relatively low by historical standards."

  • Bernanke's predecessor, Alan Greenspan, labeled it a false indicator, noting that long-term yields were being held down by heavy investor demand, just as they are now.
  • The Wall Street Journal's Greg Ip wrote in January 2006 that it was foreign buying of U.S. bonds and exceptionally low yields on U.S. Treasuries (then about 4%, compared to today's yields which are closer to 2%) that was causing the inversion.

Yes, but: It wasn't just 2006 when experts were certain things were different this time.

  • "We said the same thing in 2000," Bank of America trading strategist Gerald Lucas quipped to the FT in January 2006, while noting that "the inversion was the result of scarcity value at the long end of the curve to do with Treasury buybacks."

Be smart: The experts also insisted that economic data was strong and the usual recession warnings signs — other than the inverting yield curve — simply weren't there.

  • "I think it sometimes portends a recession, sometimes not," said Marshall E. Blume, a finance and management professor at the University of Pennsylvania's Wharton School. This time, it probably does not, he added in 2006.
  • "All the forecasts are quite favorable. There aren’t any real excesses in the economy at the current time."

Go deeper ... Economic whiplash: Stocks are rising, but analysts still fear a recession

Go deeper

Felix Salmon, author of Capital
Updated 19 mins ago - Economy & Business

Trump risk rises for companies

Illustration: Aïda Amer/Axios

Donald Trump fancies himself a businessman — and has given himself a central role in determining the conduct and even the existence of major companies both domestic and foreign.

Why it matters: America has historically been a great place to operate a company under the rule of law, and not be beholden to political whim. Those days seem to be over — at least for companies in the communications industry.

Ben Geman, author of Generate
Updated 19 mins ago - Energy & Environment

China's split personality on climate

Illustration: Sarah Grillo/Axios

A new insta-analysis of China's vow to achieve "carbon neutrality" before 2060 helps to underscore why Tuesday's announcement sent shockwaves through the climate and energy world.

Why it matters: Per the Climate Action Tracker, a research group, following through would lower projected global warming 0.2 to 0.3°C. That's a lot!

Kayleigh McEnany: Trump will accept "free and fair" election, no answer on if he loses

White House press secretary Kayleigh McEnany said Thursday that President Trump will "accept the results of a free and fair election," but did not specify whether he will commit to a peaceful transfer of power if he loses to Joe Biden.

Why it matters: Trump refused to say on Wednesday whether he would commit to a peaceful transition of power, instead remarking: "we're going to have to see what happens."

Get Axios AM in your inbox

Catch up on coronavirus stories and special reports, curated by Mike Allen everyday

Please enter a valid email.

Subscription failed
Thank you for subscribing!