The past few weeks have been very interesting! And oh how recent events have been the best sort of fodder for click-baiting doomsayers.
A conversation I had the other day inspires me to revisit the recent interplay between US Treasury's Scott Bessent and the Japanese Ministry of Finance.
An acquaintance of mine had bought into the notion that the US is bailing out Japan... A notion that I'm certain he gathered via YouTube, Tick Tock, Twitter, Facebook even, or perhaps any combination of these and untold other such platforms.
Suffice to say that my attempt to disabuse him of what I presumed to be his social-media-induced-outrage was not nearly as exhaustive as what I'm about to write... For him I simply expressed that the treasury's intervention had zero to do with bailing out Japan, and everything to do with containing the long-end of the US treasury yield curve.
But, since you are particularly special to me, you get the following:
Here's the thing, the yen is presently exploring multi-decade lows, and that's becoming a real problem... After years of attempting to create a little inflation, well, now, the Japanese have it, and they don't quite know to do with it, especially when it's exacerbated by an uber-weak currency.
As for the currency itself, now that's something they can address in far-more immediate fashion than inflation, especially when their country owns more than a trillion US dollars worth of US treasuries.
Therefore, truth be told, this has absolutely nothing to do with the US sending Japan a lifeline... It has everything to do with multi-year-high long-term US yields, and Bessent doing his darnedest to keep Japan from having to prop up the yen by selling its treasury holdings into a market that's really not in the mood to buy them.
Simply put, Japan wants to strengthen the yen... To do that they'll have to sell dollars and buy yen... And if there's one thing Japan has, it's dollars, $1.1 trillion of them in the form of US treasuries... So if Japan were to decide to defend its currency on its own it'll be dumping US bonds into a market with less ready liquidity than you might otherwise think... And, make no mistake, that's a serious problem for Bessent (and us)!
So what actually happened? On July 31st the US and Japan got together and hatched themselves a plan -- with the US Treasury's contribution being somewhere between $5 and $10 billion... But what was truly creative (well, necessary, actually) was that the US bought the yen with euros, not with dollars... For Japan's part, we're talking $50 billion of other (than treasury) dollar reserves taken to the open market to additionally prop up the yen.
Now think about it, the US has its own currency to use, and it deliberately used a different one. Why? Because they clearly felt that making it a dollar operation -- i.e., the treasury in effect saying something about the dollar's level -- would be inconsistent with their present messaging.
So, again, there's this narrative floating around that the US just gifted billions to Japan to bail them out of their troubles... Wrong!! The US didn't send Japan a US dime, let alone a US dollar. It actually used euros held in the Exchange Stabilization Fund to buy yen in the open market for its own account... Nobody was handed anything!
I.e., in no way whatsoever is the US aiming to play benefactor, it's all about containing the long-end, by neutralizing the threat from Japan (despite claims to the contrary)... And now Bessent is pushing the Fed to expand its FIMA repo facility -- which would allow Japan to pledge its treasuries to the Fed overnight for cash instead of selling them (removing their need to use other dollar holdings)... Japan's own finance minister confirmed that's how intervention will get funded going forward... And that, by the way, is critical, as that $50 billion they used this last go-round came out of roughly $160 billion in non-treasury US dollar reserves... Another round or two of that and Tokyo will be getting into its treasuries whether anybody likes it or not.
In other words, the US is happy (desperate even) to help Japan defend the yen, as long as Japan agrees not to sell treasuries.
Thing is, and lastly, this was done with mere single-digit-billions (the US's part) against a market that trades trillions... Therefore, it was really about signaling, as opposed to any notion that the first such direct intervention since the late-90s would actually do the trick... And, to be sure, said signaling was not for the currency market -- it was a message to the bond market that there ain't no way long-end yields are going measurably higher... Not, that is, without a serious fight from the ultimate powers-that-be... So don't bother.
The more recent event garnering clicks for those who purposely hyperbolize such things also has everything to do with the treasury-will-do-whatever-it-takes message to markets... Which is covered in our weekly rundown below.
But first, our latest PWA Index scoring summary:
Week of August 17, 2026
Most weeks, the important economic news arrives on a schedule. This week it did not.
On Tuesday, the total federal debt passed $40 trillion — double what it was in 2017, and arriving months earlier than budget forecasters had projected. The same day, the yield on the thirty-year Treasury bond touched its highest level since 2007.
On Wednesday, the Treasury Department did something unusual. Just two weeks after publishing its quarterly plan, it announced without warning that it would at least double the size of its purchases of long-term government bonds — from $2 billion to at least $4 billion per operation — beginning September 9. Long-term rates fell sharply on the news. The thirty-year yield dropped nearly a tenth of a percentage point in a single afternoon.
By Thursday, the entire move had been erased. The thirty-year yield finished the week within a hair of exactly where it started.
We think that sequence is the most important thing that happened this week, and it deserves explaining in plain terms.
What the Treasury did, and what it did not do
When the government buys back its own bonds, it is not paying down debt. It is buying older, less actively traded bonds and funding those purchases by issuing new ones. The total amount of government borrowing does not change. The purpose is to improve how smoothly the bond market functions — to make it easier for dealers and investors to trade — not to reduce the amount the government owes.
That distinction matters, because it explains why the effect did not last.
The government currently borrows roughly $6 billion every day. More than half of that is interest on debt it already owes. Against that, an operation of $4 billion is small. Investors did the arithmetic quickly, and long-term rates went back to where they had been.
We would not characterize this as a failure. We would characterize it as information. The Treasury acted because long-term borrowing costs had become uncomfortable enough to require a response, and the market's answer was that the problem is not one that a bond-buying program can solve.
Why this matters to you directly
We have written for some time about a distinction between short-term and long-term interest rates. Short-term rates follow the Federal Reserve. Long-term rates are set by the supply of government borrowing, private demand for capital and the market's prevailing view on where growth and inflation are headed.
This week made that distinction concrete in an unusually clear way. Minutes from the Federal Reserve's July meeting, released Wednesday, were more hawkish than expected — several officials had wanted to raise rates immediately, and many said further tightening would likely be necessary if inflation did not come down.
The practical implications for households are unchanged and worth repeating. Mortgage rates are set off long-term yields, not off the Fed's policy rate. The average thirty-year mortgage rate barely moved this week, ending at roughly 6.65%, and mortgage applications declined. A Federal Reserve that stops raising rates does not automatically produce cheaper mortgages, in fact, in times like these, quite the opposite.
The American consumer: the picture got clearer, and it is not encouraging
Last week we wrote that July's weak retail sales report was one month of data and that we would need more evidence before concluding anything. That evidence arrived this week, from the companies themselves.
Walmart reported that sales at its U.S. stores open at least a year grew 2.6% — the slowest quarterly increase in six years, and well short of what analysts expected. Its shares fell more than 9%. Home Depot reported that comparable sales declined 4.5% and cut its outlook for the year. TJX, the parent of TJ Maxx, saw sales growth slow from 6% to 1%. Target reported more shoppers coming through the door, but spending no more per visit.
That is a consistent picture across the four retailers with the widest view of American household spending: people are still shopping, but they are buying less each time.
Both Walmart's management and the National Association of Home Builders pointed to the same cause — gasoline and diesel prices above $4 a gallon. This is the mechanism we have been describing all year. Higher energy prices raise the cost of nearly everything, including the cost of getting to the store and the cost of building a house. When paychecks are not keeping pace, something gets cut.
For the fourth consecutive month, price increases have outpaced wage growth.
The other economy is accelerating
Here is what makes this period genuinely difficult to summarize: the business side of the economy is not merely holding up. It is speeding up.
Two regional Federal Reserve manufacturing surveys came in at their strongest levels in four and five years respectively, both roughly double what economists had forecast. One of them — the Philadelphia Fed's measure of how manufacturers expect conditions to look six months from now — reached its highest reading since 1983. Business investment plans in the same survey jumped sharply.
On Friday, a broad survey of private-sector activity registered its fastest expansion since April 2022, led by services, with companies hiring at the quickest pace since early last year. The Conference Board's index of leading economic indicators posted its first positive six-month growth rate in more than four years.
Industrial production illustrates the split as neatly as anything we have seen. In the same monthly report, output of business equipment rose 0.8% while output of consumer goods fell 0.4%.
Same economy. Same month. Opposite directions, depending on who the output is for.
The same pattern appeared in China's monthly data, where consumer spending grew just 0.6% while production of electronic equipment — much of it tied to artificial intelligence infrastructure — grew more than 19%.
We would be doing you a disservice if we pretended these two pictures resolve neatly. They do not. Our working interpretation is that measures of business activity capture how much is happening, while household data captures what families can actually afford after prices. Both can be true at once, and historically that combination has a name. But we hold that interpretation loosely, and the August retail sales report in mid-September is a real test of it.
Where our internal conditions gauge stands
Our internal conditions gauge declined for a second consecutive week.
Nevertheless, this reading has been exceeded in only eight of the past two hundred seventeen weeks, and its typical reading over that period has been substantially negative. The gauge has now given back a little over half of the sharp advance it made in late July and early August.
We would make the same mechanical point we made last week, because it is easy to misread these moves. The gauge tracks sixty-seven separate readings and moves in fixed increments as individual readings change category. This week's decline represents a net change in two of those sixty-seven. Our count of positive readings did not change at all for the second week running — the shift was entirely within the negative and neutral categories.
We would also note something about our own record. Last week's internal write-up stated explicitly that if the incoming data pushed the gauge to this level, it would still be a top-decile reading and not a signal of a turn. It landed there. We see no reason to revise that assessment now that it has.
Energy remains the unfinished business
Oil rose more than 5% for a second consecutive week, with U.S. crude ending near $86 a barrel and the international benchmark near $93. Both are now more than 10% higher than two weeks ago.
The Treasury Secretary has said that details of sweeping new measures to isolate Iran's economy will be announced Monday. Those measures may extend to countries that continue to trade with Tehran.
We continue to weight observed shipping volumes over diplomatic announcements. The U.S. Energy Information Administration now estimates that oil moving through the Strait of Hormuz averaged 4.9 million barrels a day in the second quarter, against roughly 21.6 million before the conflict began, and it expects some level of disruption to persist into 2027.
How we are positioned
Our positioning is unchanged, and this week reinforced several of the views behind it while complicating one.
Reinforced. Our real asset and precious metals exposure had a strong week. We would draw your attention to when it was strong: the largest single day for gold came on Wednesday, on the Treasury's bond announcement — not on the Middle East headlines. That is consistent with how we have always understood these holdings. We own them as a hedge against the long-run consequences of government borrowing and monetary policy, not as a bet on geopolitical conflict, and this week the market treated them exactly that way.
Our industrial, infrastructure and technology-capital-investment exposure sits in front of the strongest forward-looking business data we have seen in this cycle. Our energy exposure was again among the best-performing parts of the portfolio.
Complicated. Consumer-facing exposure. We had been treating July's weakness as provisional. After this week's retail earnings, we no longer are, and we are reviewing that part of the portfolio accordingly.
We have deliberately built the portfolio to hold positions that do not move together. This week is another reasonable illustration: the same five days that were difficult for consumer-facing and technology holdings were strong for energy, precious metals and health care.
What we are watching
The Federal Reserve's annual Jackson Hole symposium runs next Thursday through Saturday, with Chairman Warsh delivering his first keynote as Chair on Friday morning. Surveys suggest most investors expect an uneventful speech, which is precisely what makes it worth watching. In our view the question is not what he signals about the September meeting — it is whether he says anything about long-term rates, now that the Treasury has attempted to influence them and been overruled.
Before that, the Federal Reserve's preferred inflation measure and a revised reading on second-quarter growth arrive Wednesday morning, alongside earnings from the largest company in the artificial intelligence supply chain that evening.
And the August employment report lands September 4. That remains the single most informative item on our calendar.
This commentary is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute an offer to sell, a solicitation of an offer to buy, or a recommendation regarding any security, sector, or investment strategy. The views expressed reflect the opinions of Private Wealth Advisors as of the date written and are subject to change without notice. Information has been obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but its accuracy and completeness are not guaranteed. Past performance is not indicative of future results, and all investing involves risk, including the possible loss of principal. Nothing contained herein should be construed as personalized investment, tax, or legal advice.
*The section titled "The Week the Government Tried to Lower Long-Term Interest Rates" was drafted with the assistance of artificial intelligence tools under the direction and editorial review of Marty Mazorra, Chief Investment Officer of Private Wealth Advisors. All analysis, conclusions, and final content are his own.
No comments:
Post a Comment