u/Otherwise_Young52201

Making sense of the US Treasury Department's action to double bond buybacks

Making sense of the US Treasury Department's action to double bond buybacks

This is the best attempt of a layman in making sense of what the Treasury is doing. As such, this post might contain errors.

A recent announcement by the US Treasury Department stated the treasury department would double the size of bond buyback operations from the current $2 billion per operation to at least $4 billion per operation, effective September 9th this year. What does this mean? Well, the Treasury is buying back bonds from bond investors before maturity is reached. This is funded through the issuance of new bonds to investors, so essentially a refinancing of existing debt.

This doubling of bond buyback operations comes specifically for the US10Y, US20Y, and US30Y. To give a brief visualization of the magnitude of this change, as am example, in April 2026, the total sales of US10Y-US30Y were $74 billion. This number is and probably will be more or less typical across the entirety of 2026, looking at the rest of the chart for past and future bond sales. You can do the math yourself with 4-8 operations of buybacks happening per month, and the increase for buybacks going from $2 billion to $4 billion.

The mechanics of the buyback are also worth looking at: While the treasury has doubled its buyback program for long-term yields, it has NOT changed the composition of the bonds/notes they are selling. Meaning there is effectively a maturity swap from long-term yields to short-term ones. So less US10Y-US30Y supply, and more short-term supply. This has the effect of bringing the yields on long-term debt and short-term debt closer due to changes in supply, and also since typically long-term yields are higher than short-term ones. We can see this in action due to immediate changes in bond yields from the Treasury's announcement according to reporting by CNBC.

By converging yields between long-term yields and short-term yields, this also brings down real interest rates. Since long-term yields better reflect inflation-adjusted returns over time (because, y'know, they are longer-term, which is something investors look at) they are better used as a reference for real interest rates. Hence why long-term yields determine things like mortgages, automobile loans, loans for asset investments, etc. So doubling the size of buyback operations helps juice the economy.

Why might the Treasury be doing this? This might be a genuine play at reducing the burden of interest payments on the US government here. If the bet is that yields will eventually come down due to a number of factors (such as the Iran war ending or corporations cutting back AI spending, leaving more money for bond investment) then the swap from long-term yields to short-term yields makes sense because you could then refinance these short-term yields with long-term yields in the future that carry greater demand, thus lowering interest payments for the government relative to a baseline scenario with no changes.

(A side note, the reason why the Treasury might not want to keep all debt in short-term yields despite their yields being lower is because debt is rolled over more quickly, meaning if yields increase, debt payments will also increase more quickly. Hence why there are different time lengths for yields.)

If you're cynical, however, you might conclude that the Treasury, and by extension, Scott Bessent, have more nefarious motivations. And to be fair, there are reasons to be suspicious: The doubling of buybacks runs from September 9 to November 4, after which the "Treasury will provide more information about future buyback sizes at the next Quarterly Refunding, scheduled for November 4, 2026." and "An updated tentative Treasury buyback schedule will be released at a later date." So conveniently, the Treasury is dampening real interest rates right up until the midterm elections. Curious.

Edit: Don't know why this is restricted, but I initially put it to User Discussion...

Haley Stevens is El-Slayed: r/neoliberal reacts as Abdul El-Sayed wins the Michigan Democratic senate primary.

The recent Michigan Democratic primary concluded with Abdul El-Sayed, the progressive challenger against Haley Stevens, as the winner.

Abdul El-Sayed is a physician and former Detroit health commissioner and a champion for progressive policies. Apart from supporting Medicare for All, stronger labor protections, and other egalitarian programs, he is best known for being critical of the US-Israel relationship and especially American support for Israel's war in Gaza.

Haley Stevens, on the other hand, is the moderate incumbent (Edit: This is an error on my part, she isn't actually an incumbent, but is in a House seat) and generally has more cautious policies than El-Sayed, emphasizing tried and true polices like supporting manufacturing, particularly for the auto industry. Stevens also strongly supports the US-Israel relationship.

Below is a snippet of the drama from the thread discussing El-Sayed's win over Stevens.. There's also drama from the Discussion Thread that I thought you guys would enjoy. While I have three comments in the Discussion Thread, they they do not pertain to the drama itself. You can check my post history to confirm this.

Michigan senate primary thread drama

>I just hope he wins in November and we can all celebrate as a united party flipping the senate

>>I’m Jewish and I will not celebrate Abdul “Hurt People Hurt People” El-Sayed

>>>did you have a point? [deleted comment]

>>>>I think my point is clear, no? Fuck AES. [deleted comment]

>>>>>With all due respect you are an idiot [deleted comment]

>>>I’m also Jewish, and like the other 71% of Jewish Americans who broke for democrats in 2024, I hope he wins and will also celebrate if he does. Dont miss the forest for the trees.

>>>>Do you also believe the only reason an American Jew would support Israel is money?

>>I'm a Democrat and I would never vote for someone like El-Sayed. I don't think there's a single thing I agree with him on. MFA is a joke. I will always be a Zionist. We shouldn't abolish ICE. All of that makes him unacceptable, especially compared to Mike Rogers, who seems much less ideological and much more competent. One of the few places where I'll be hoping for a Republican victory. I have never voted for a Republican in my life, but if I were a Michigander, I'd for Rogers.

>>>I’m not thrilled about this dude either, but ice should most certainly be abolished.

>>>>This is a ridiculous slogan pandered around by leftists. How the hell are we going to execute our immigration policy without an agency to enforce it? Of course I agree that Trump has been excessive, but that doesn't mean ICE should be abolished, itt means the administration should be thrown out! This is like saying "income taxes are too high -- let's abolish the IRS"

>Damn this sub is full on lefty now huh, maybe it's just the specific people that decide to post on this, but kinda crazy. I get when people say this sub is mainly socdems now, but it seems to be moving demsoc at this point, multiple upvoted comments simping for DSA,, hopefully this is as low as this sub goes.

>>This "evidence-based" sub is really just r/democrats where people vote blue no matter who

>>>Well that's "evidence-based" applied to american politics, so I dont see why you would have an issue with that. Edit: i take that back, I know why: I think Friedmann flairs dont really like evidence.

>>It’s been brigaded by tankies and Abdul bots ever since we made arr Subreddit Drama yesterday

>>>SRD is still a thing? In 2026?

>>You must vote for the people who hate neoliberalism otherwise you don't belong on r/neoliberal - Succs and Loyal Liberals

>>>I think a lot of people here just care more about the Democrats defeating the Republicans than they do about fiercely defending the word neoliberal against anybody who criticizes it.

>>>>They also hate neoliberalism if you get rid of the "neo".

>Why are democrats allergic to winning

>>This shows how out of touch you are. You genuinely prefer Stevens, don't you?

>>>Out of touch with whom? College educated elites?

>>>>Are we still doing this stuff after we have new polling data https://www.theargumentmag.com/p/americans-know-who-the-real-elite and a grand total of 8% of Harris 2024 voters and a whopping 11% of Trump 2024 voters view people with graduate degrees as "the elites"?

>>>>>Doesn’t matter what random people think, a societal elite is a defined thing. It’s just not popular to self identify as an “elite” so everyone bucks the label to the groups above them. White college educated upper middle class people are the most culturally influential in American society (something that the left usually has no problem admitting), and they’re the ones who largely support these leftist candidates

>>>>>>Railing against the "elites" and claiming that all it takes to get you there is a college education makes you sound like a MAGA conspiracy theorist.

>>>>>>>I’m not railing against the elites, I probably fit the “educated elite” label myself, I’m specifically responding to the bizarre accusation that not supporting the guy who won the educated rich white population somehow makes me “out of touch”

>Welp, GOP couldn’t have asked for an easier candidate in purple Michigan. Democratic Party needs to kick out DSA rat fuckers who simply just want easy power when it suits them.

>>Abdul isn't part of the DSA. Also, if they win primaries because voters vote for them, how should the party kick them out?

>>>He’s as DSA as Hasan Piker. I got a bridge to sell you along with that bird that landed on Bernie’s podium when he was anointed as “da chosen one”. The far left likes to bum rush primaries because that’s the only way they can win in deep blue districts. Dude is going to lose big and take the Democratic Party in Michigan down as well. Michigan GOP all had a collective sigh of relief and democrats are fucked in Michigan. Fucking Dearborn and Hamatrack or whatever all went for Trump, this is just another rat fucking at the behest of MAGA.

Discussion Thread drama

>guy who supported "uncommitted" movement in 2024 becomes Dem senate nominee in 2026 what a joke. [deleted comment]

>>Are you pro-genocide or? [deleted comment]

>>>Are you pro 9/11? [deleted comment]

>>>>Well if Friedman flair is asking [deleted comment]

>I don't like him because of the pre-emptive election denialism he was engaging in. I'm tired of watching people destabilize this country and succumb to russian/chinese interests

>>You talk about russian/chinese interests yet literally the only reason this race was at all close was because Stevens had her campaign funded by an actual foreign country interest group.

>>>At the very least Israel doesn't want to see the US actively destabilized. The irony is you blurring the lines between US allies and US adversaries is exactly the point of many of the disinformation operations Russia/China has been engaging in

>>>>I think Bibi campaigning for Trump was pretty destabilizing imo! Our allies seem very non plussed about the shit he does.

>>>>>Israel is not trying to actively destabilize the US. If you can't tell the difference between something like the Likud making dumb self interested calculations and Operation doppelganger idk what to tell you. Russia and China are actively mindraping our population and are involved in just about every reason why our country is unraveling.

u/Otherwise_Young52201 — 15 days ago

Iran Risks Overplaying Its Hand On Hormuz

Let’s be honest. Iran has US President Donald Trump in a headlock over the Strait of Hormuz. The White House is fighting to reopen a waterway that wasn’t closed before the conflict started. But Tehran risks overplaying its hand: If it continues to squeeze, it will lose strategic leverage — not immediately, but over the next five years or so as its neighbors build more bypass routes.

Don’t take my word for it. Listen to what Iranian officials say themselves. “The strait is valuable while the traffic through it increases day by day, not when it decreases,” Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, the Iranian parliament speaker and top negotiator, told state television earlier this month. “We must not turn the strait against itself.”

And yet, that’s precisely what the Islamic Republic is doing. By striking oil tankers off the coast of Oman, it has convinced every one of the Persian Gulf states, as well as oil importers including deep-pocketed nations such as China and Japan, that the only way to guarantee future oil flows is to invest billions of dollars in new pipeline capacity.

Sure, Iran will win some short-term battles; the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. can prevent ships from crossing the strait, maybe even for an extended period. If so, oil prices will increase, piling economic and political pressure on Trump. Only the use of the US strategic petroleum reserves, alongside China reducing its oil purchases dramatically, will stop the energy market from exploding. But over the longer term, Iran’s ability to hold the global economy to ransom will fade as transit over the longer term, Iran’s ability to hold the global economy to ransom will fade as transit overground displaces seaborne passage via Hormuz — which will happen relatively quickly.

Before the war started, Hormuz carried about 20% of the world’s oil, split between 15 million barrels a day of crude and another five million barrels of petroleum-refined products. Iran itself accounted for about three million barrels a day of crude and refined products, leaving 17 million barrels from its neighbors traversing the strait. Of that, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates have already re-routed about five million barrels a day via pre-existing pipelines.

So the race is on to find alternative routes for the remaining 12 million daily barrels needing to avoid the waterway. Oil pipelines are straightforward engineering projects, and can be built at what feels like lightning speed compared with other infrastructure. Consider, for example, the so-called Tapline, a 1,640-kilometer (1,019-mile) conduit that once ran from Saudi Arabia to Lebanon, crossing on the way Jordan and Syria. It was built in just three-and-a-half years and was completed in 1950. In the 1980s, other major regional pipelines, including the two phases of the Iraq-Saudi pipeline, or IPSA , were built in less than four years.

But politics, rather than steel welding and pumping capacity, pose the main obstacle to construction. Projects become pieces in a game of Middle East diplomacy the moment they need to cross an international border — and only Riyadh and Abu Dhabi can build new pipelines within their own territory. Everyone else must cross at least one border, if not more, to reach the sea.

For decades, the region has struggled to build — and then operate — regional culverts. The rusted remnants of old channels, built from the 1950s to the 1990s and since abandoned, bear witness to the numerous failed projects to ship oil from the Middle East bypassing Hormuz. Tapline is itself one of those examples. But the ongoing battle between the US and Iran, alongside the end of the Syrian civil conflict, have shifted regional dynamics. Today, Damascus and Riyadh can do business, as can Baghdad and Ankara. What once looked impossible appears increasingly feasible.

Abu Dhabi is already moving ahead; once its half-built new pipeline, with a capacity of about a 1.5 million barrels a day, enters operation by the end of 2027, it will reduce the amount of oil that needs to cross Hormuz to about 10.5 million barrels. Moreover, the UAE is mulling quickly building a third pipeline that would further narrow the shortfall to about 9 million barrels.

The Saudis will do the same. In private, the kingdom is already drawing plans for new bypass projects, expanding the capacity of its vast East-West pipeline and its two Red Sea oil terminals, in Yanbu and Al Muajjiz. Saudi plans remain vague, but the kingdom can easily add another 2 million to 4 million barrels a day of overland capacity before 2030 if Riyadh gives the go-ahead soon. Saudi Arabia can act, too, as a channel for Kuwait; the smaller emirate, sandwiched at the very end of the Persian Gulf, is already in talks with its neighbor about circumvention plans. In total, the daily Hormuz gap could be reduced to five million barrels. That’s still quite a lot, but far more manageable than the current status quo.

And then there’s Iraq. Baghdad is looking north, via Turkey, and west, via Syria, to export its oil via the Mediterranean Sea. Unfortunately, that’s in the backyard of Europe, a declining market for oil, rather than Asia, where demand is still growing. Still, it’s better than nothing. Washington, keen to re-integrate Damascus into the global economy after it lifted sanctions, is pressing Baghdad to consider routes across Syria. Today, those projects may seem unlikely — but don’t underestimate the combined power of diplomacy and money to dissolve frictions.

Oil pipelines aren’t a failsafe workaround: The conduits are themselves vulnerable to attack, as are the ports at which they culminate. But the current war has demonstrated that they’re far more resilient than naysayers had argued. Tehran’s efforts, for example, have failed to disrupt the Saudi and UAE ones.

The War of Hormuz could last a while yet. Iran may win several battles, but by 2030, the strait won’t be the major oil chokepoint that it is today, as millions of barrels take evasive action. Ghalibaf knows this — hence his framing of the waterway as a valuable asset so long as it’s a vital route for the region’s output. It’s unclear, however, whether his brothers-in-arms at the IRGC have got the message.

bloomberg.com
u/Otherwise_Young52201 — 1 month ago