Comments by "" (@TheDavidlloydjones) on "How Negative Yields Work | WSJ" video.

@Cromwellian Republican That is exactly not an argument made in this bogus farrago and is, in any event, an example of a positive expected value, not a negative return.
9
@sanronronaldinho No. Nobody can explain it because it's nonsense. On the other hand, the guy has shown himself fully qualified for YouTube.
9
It can't. This whole thing is nonsense. The man is confused about the meanings of "yield," slipping unconsciously from one to another. His logic is very close to that of the paradigmatic Fallacy of the Undistributed Middle: Half a ham sandwich is better than complete happiness. Half a ham sandwich is better than nothing, and nothing is better than complete happiness, so aren't you glad you asked?
4
@felixf4378 And your real-world example of such a bond is...? Where and when has anyone in any secondary market paid more than the redemption price for a zero-coupon bond?
2
@gauravbansal148 A capital gain both shows a profit and reduces yield -- in strict inverse proportion incidentally. Modulo the fact that you don't get the capital gain until you've sold the asset, and which point its yield to you is nothing... As we learned in 1991, 2008, and every now and then back to 1884, people in, uh, "financial risk management" need to be bailed out by governments every few years. Imho, the main yield of financial risk management, so-called, is talking points for the salesmen, who actually make the money in securities markets. And my GMAT score was 750.
2
@gauravbansal148 A bond's yield is its coupon divided by its price. They are strictly inverse. The informal, indeed sloppy, term "yield to maturity" combines yield plus anticipated profit or loss, assuming it pays off.
2
If a bond's yield is the inverse of its yield, as claimed at 1:43, than a negative yield can only come from a negative price. Where do I find these bonds that have negative prices, i.e. that people are paying me to own?
1
@ravitejaspark25 Good try, but I think not. They may trade at a loss to the original investor, but only at a positive yield to the purchaser.
1
@gauravbansal148 You're mixing up capital gain or loss with yield, two different things.
1
@gauravbansal148 Good work: you're beginning to make some of the correct distinctions which are so totally missing from the original silly presentation.
1
@gauravbansal148 "By the way, I am in financial risk management, so i use these concepts in my day to day work." You're aware, then, that the argument from authority is one of the world's most common logical fallacies.
1
@gauravbansal148 Gaurav, You are not in the game. "Yield" takes its meaning from its context. E.g. "A bond with a 5% yield" means a bond paying 5% of its face value. If you paid $200 for a bond of this sort with a par of $100 then the bond's yield is 5% but your yield on that investment is half that, 2.5%, because you paid twice par. Your "implied to yield to maturity" is word salad slopping around inside your head. If you mean yield to maturity, as opposed to face yield, the annual yield on what you paid for your investment, or maybe your expected overall yield consisting of both coupons and the capital gain you hope for, then you have to say so. You have picked an argument, tried to pull rank by waving your job title around, and now you're trying to intimidate me by talking about some secret implication you had hidden inside your head. No go.
1