I recently read an opinion piece in the Financial Times arguing that 5% is the "magic number" for the U.S. 10-year Treasury yield and that yields are unlikely to move sustainably higher. The writer is Karen Ward, who is the chief market strategist for Europe, Middle East and Africa at JPMorgan Asset Management.
Karen framed the discussion around
three arguments for higher yields:
1. AI-driven productivity
gains have raised the neutral rate of interest.
2. Investors should demand a
larger premium because of deteriorating U.S. fiscal policy.
3. Bonds have lost their diversification benefits.
What struck me was that the author treated these three arguments very differently.
For the first argument, she discussed why AI productivity gains would need to be exceptionally large to justify materially higher yields and pointed to signs that higher rates are already affecting the economy. However, she never clearly stated, "I am skeptical of this view." The reader is left to infer her position.
The second argument was similar. She acknowledged that U.S. fiscal policy likely deserves some additional risk premium, but then emphasized the Federal Reserve's credibility in controlling inflation. Again, she never directly stated whether she believed fiscal concerns were large enough to drive yields materially higher. Here again, we are left to wonder what her stance is.
The third argument was different. There, the author explicitly stated, "This is wrong." She rejected the idea that bonds have permanently lost their diversification value, arguing that if the AI boom weakens and growth slows, Treasuries could still provide significant portfolio protection through falling yields and Fed rate cuts. To me, there is nothing particularly revelatory about her observation because that is largely what has transpired in recent years, although I would argue that this view rests on shakier foundations than many investors assume.
Let’s go back to her points. Note the asymmetry in treatment for each one. Given that the author is a chief strategist at a large asset manager, this may not be accidental. Institutional market commentary often leaves room for multiple outcomes. Strongly rejecting an argument can be costly if events later prove otherwise.
The important takeaway of Karen's view is that it's broadly representative of the prevailing Wall Street narrative that yields are approaching a ceiling and are unlikely to move sustainably higher. However, it largely dismisses the fact that Treasury yields have been on a sustained upward trajectory since 2020. In April 2020, the 10-year Treasury yield was roughly 0.61%, and by September 24, 2026, it had risen to 5.18%. I do not yet see evidence that the forces driving higher yields have gone away.
Conclusion:
Beware when reading market views of institutional players because incentives may be misaligned. That does not mean that the analysis is wrong, but incentives are a big deal to determine credibility. When a strategist at a major institution publishes an opinion piece, from their perspective there is often value (incentives) in leaving room for multiple outcomes.
As an independent observer, my incentives are gaining wisdom, knowledge, and understanding and conveying what I see to the broader public. Unlike institutional strategists, I am not tasked with representing a large asset-management business.
There is nothing magical about
5%, or 4.99%, or 6%. People (or the markets) give meaning to those numbers. What
matters is the trend. As I've pointed out previously, the upward trend in
yields remains firmly entrenched. Given the amount of liquidity and fiscal
spending in the system, I believe it will become increasingly difficult for the
FOMC to prevent bond vigilantes from demanding higher yields.
Posts
