Federal Reserve Economic Data

The FRED® Blog

Gauging returns and risk in the bond market

The term premium, risk premium, and yield curve

Investors in the corporate bond market routinely make decisions about which bonds to purchase; and they look at, among other things, the rates of return of those bonds. One way of computing a bond’s rate of return is to take into account all future streams of payments (interest coupons) as well as the difference between the price and the principal if the bond is held to maturity. This rate of return is known as the yield of the bond.

The yield on a security allows investors to decide whether to accept the riskiness and the cost of holding that security for an extended period or to invest in a safer, shorter-term bond. In other words, yields capture both a risk premium (the compensation for uncertainty in the streams of payments) and a term premium (the compensation for a longer delay in receiving payments). We can use FRED’s data and graphing tools to produce measures of both the risk premium and the term premium and see how these measures have evolved over time.

The first graph shows three interest rates: the 5-year yield on investment-grade corporate bonds, the 5-year Treasury rate, and the federal funds rate. These three interest rates provide us with information on the returns to a 5-year corporate bond, a 5-year Treasury bond, and an overnight bond. The graph shows that the federal funds rate is typically lower than the other two rates: Lenders require additional compensation to lend for longer periods (5 years in this case). Since both Treasury bonds and federal funds are extremely safe assets, the risk premium is negligible and any difference between the two arises from the term premium.

Mathematically, the term premium is the difference between the Treasury rate for a given maturity and the federal funds rate. The second graph plots the term premium since 1984. This indicator seems to be countercyclical—that is, it falls during expansions and rises during recessions. More interestingly, it tends to go negative right before a recession, and this is what people refer to when talking about a “yield curve inversion.”

As the first graph shows, the yield on 5-year corporate bonds exceeds the yield on 5-year Treasury bonds. Since these two groups of bonds have the same maturity, this difference cannot be explained by the term premium. Rather, it’s explained by the risk premium: the compensation lenders require to invest in a riskier asset (such as a corporate bond) as opposed to investing in a safer asset of equivalent maturity (such as a Treasury bond).

Mathematically, the risk premium is the difference between the yield on a risky bond and the yield on a Treasury bond of equivalent maturity. The third graph plots this difference. Again, this measure is countercyclical. See the prominent spike in 2008-09? The risk premium rose way above its historical average during the Great Recession following the Financial Crisis. If market participants anticipate an increase in risk, as they did in 2008, then the risk premium rises in response. Since the risk premium measures expectations of credit risk and default in the economy, it’s an important way to monitor markets to ascertain whether a downturn is expected in the near future.

How these graphs were created: For the first graph, search for and select the series “5-Year High Quality Market (HQM) Corporate Bond Spot Rate.” Use the “Add Line” option in the “Edit Graph” menu to search for and add the other two series: “5-Year Treasury Constant Maturity Rate” and “Effective Federal Funds Rate.” For the second graph, search for and select the series “5-Year Treasury Constant Maturity Rate.” Then use the “Edit Line 1” tab in the “Edit Graph” menu to add the series “Effective Federal Funds Rate” in the “Customize data” field. In the “Formula” box, type a-b. Repeat these steps for the third graph by searching for and selecting the series “5-Year HQM Corporate Bond Spot Rate” and the series “5-year Treasury Constant Maturity Rate.”

Suggested by Asha Bharadwaj and Miguel Faria-e-Castro.

View on FRED, series used in this post: FEDFUNDS, GS5, HQMCB5YR

Moonlighting in the spotlight

Trends for multiple jobholders

Today we’ll try to better understand moonlighting—that is, holding multiple jobs. The Bureau of Labor Statistics records the number of multiple jobholders, and FRED has the data all the way back to 1994. What can we learn from the graph?

Most multiple jobholders hold a full-time plus a part-time job (blue line in the graph), and this group now makes up about 3% of the working population in the U.S. The percentage of workers with this particular work arrangement has declined since at least 1994, when it was over 3.5%.

Those in the next-largest group hold two part-time jobs (red line). The percentage of workers with this arrangement is significantly lower than the first group—a little less than 1.5% of all employees—and has been quite stable over time.

Finally there’s a small group of workers with two full-time jobs (green line), which accounts for about 0.25% of workers. The percentage for this group has also been quite stable since 1994.

We can also see that recessions don’t seem to have a significant impact on these groups of workers with multiple jobs.

How this graph was created: Search for and select the monthly series “Multiple Jobholders, Primary Job Full Time, Secondary Job Part Time.” From the “Edit Graph” panel, use the “Edit Line 1” tab’s “Customize data” section to search for and add an additional series: “All Employees: Total Nonfarm Payrolls” (not seasonally adjusted option). Then type “a/b*100” into the formula box and click “Apply.” Repeat this process for lines two and three, with “Multiple Jobholders, Primary and Secondary Jobs Both Part Time” for line two and “Multiple Jobholders, Primary and Secondary Jobs Both Full time” for line three. All series should be not seasonally adjusted. Use the “Format” tab to select alternative colors for the lines.

Suggested by Makenzie Peake and Guillaume Vandenbroucke.

View on FRED, series used in this post: LNU02026625, LNU02026628, LNU02026631, PAYNSA

Is household wealth overvalued?

Fluctuations in household net worth relative to income

When economists look at household wealth, they’re often concerned about the individual assets that make up that wealth—specifically, that they may be overvalued. Thankfully, FRED has an indicator to help us evaluate household wealth: The ratio of household net worth to disposable personal income. This ratio remained nearly constant for 50 years before the dot-com bubble (roughly 1994-2000), when it started increasing. And an increasing ratio may signal that the assets underlying net worth are overvalued. Since 2017, household net worth relative to income (dashed blue line) generally has been above its previous record level from the year before the Great Recession.

We also include the value of financial assets, a component of net worth, relative to income (solid green line). Most variations in net worth relative to income are associated with changes in the value of financial assets, which is indicated by the way the two lines track closely together in the graph. Even when housing values were collapsing and net worth fell (from $6.64 billion to $5.25 billion, or 1.4 times disposable income), the decline in the value of financial assets was 50% of that decline in net worth (from $5.07 billion to $4.37 billion). In terms of the recovery of net worth relative to income, which didn’t start until late 2012, we see again that the majority (65%) is accounted for by the rise in the value of financial assets.

How this graph was created: Search for “Household net worth” and select  “Households and nonprofit organizations; net worth, Level.” From the “Edit Graph” panel, use the “Customize Data” option to search for “Disposable Personal Income” and select the quarterly series in billions of dollars. After adding this series, enter “a/b” in the “Formula” box. This will show the ratio of household net worth to disposable income. To add the second line, use the “Add Line” option to search for and add the series “Households and nonprofit organizations; total financial assets, Level.” Then repeat the same process of dividing by disposable personal income.

Suggested by Ryan Mather and Juan Sánchez.

View on FRED, series used in this post: DPI, TFAABSHNO, TNWBSHNO


Back to Top