The reverse-sovereign-debt-crisis hits businesses, too

Now Unilever and Texas Instruments are the new safe havens.

It has long been clear that the world is experiencing, in the words of Business Insider's Joe Weisenthal, "the opposite of a sovereign debt crisis".

Governments, seen as one of the last safe havens for money in the world, have experienced collapsing bond yields, leading them, in many cases, to be paid to borrow money. This is partly borne out of fear of another banking crisis, but it's also due to a complete failure on the part of businesses to actually find anything to do with their record cash hauls. As tech investor Peter Thiel put it in a conversation with Google's Eric Schmidt:

Google is a great company. It has 30,000 people, or 20,000, whatever the number is. They have pretty safe jobs. On the other hand, Google also has 30, 40, 50 billion in cash. It has no idea how to invest that money in technology effectively. So, it prefers getting zero percent interest from Mr. Bernanke, effectively the cash sort of gets burned away over time through inflation, because there are no ideas that Google has how to spend money.

There was always going to be a limit to even what these risk-fearing companies were willing to accept when it came to negative yields, however, and the question was what would happen when they hit that floor.

Now we have our answer. Joe Weisenthal:

Unilever, the large European food conglomerate, just sold $550 million worth of 5-year notes with a coupon of just 0.85 percent. According to Bloomberg, this is the lowest ever borrowing cost for U.S. debt. . .

And just like that, Texas Instrument has broken a record for the lowest coupon on 3-year debt at just 0.45 percent according to Bloomberg.

When sovereign debt gets too expensive, then corporations the size of sovereigns become the new safe haven. Where will it end?

This chart, from the St Louis Federal Reserve, shows the average yield on Aaa rated corporate bonds.

Alex Hern is a technology reporter for the Guardian. He was formerly staff writer at the New Statesman. You should follow Alex on Twitter.

Photo: Getty Images
Show Hide image

The buck doesn't stop with Grant Shapps - and probably shouldn't stop with Lord Feldman, either

The question of "who knew what, and when?" shouldn't stop with the Conservative peer.

If Grant Shapps’ enforced resignation as a minister was intended to draw a line under the Mark Clarke affair, it has had the reverse effect. Attention is now shifting to Lord Feldman, who was joint chair during Shapps’  tenure at the top of CCHQ.  It is not just the allegations of sexual harrassment, bullying, and extortion against Mark Clarke, but the question of who knew what, and when.

Although Shapps’ resignation letter says that “the buck” stops with him, his allies are privately furious at his de facto sacking, and they are pointing the finger at Feldman. They point out that not only was Feldman the senior partner on paper, but when the rewards for the unexpected election victory were handed out, it was Feldman who was held up as the key man, while Shapps was given what they see as a relatively lowly position in the Department for International Development.  Yet Feldman is still in post while Shapps was effectively forced out by David Cameron. Once again, says one, “the PM’s mates are protected, the rest of us shafted”.

As Simon Walters reports in this morning’s Mail on Sunday, the focus is turning onto Feldman, while Paul Goodman, the editor of the influential grassroots website ConservativeHome has piled further pressure on the peer by calling for him to go.

But even Feldman’s resignation is unlikely to be the end of the matter. Although the scope of the allegations against Clarke were unknown to many, questions about his behaviour were widespread, and fears about the conduct of elections in the party’s youth wing are also longstanding. Shortly after the 2010 election, Conservative student activists told me they’d cheered when Sadiq Khan defeated Clarke in Tooting, while a group of Conservative staffers were said to be part of the “Six per cent club” – they wanted a swing big enough for a Tory majority, but too small for Clarke to win his seat. The viciousness of Conservative Future’s internal elections is sufficiently well-known, meanwhile, to be a repeated refrain among defenders of the notoriously opaque democratic process in Labour Students, with supporters of a one member one vote system asked if they would risk elections as vicious as those in their Tory equivalent.

Just as it seems unlikely that Feldman remained ignorant of allegations against Clarke if Shapps knew, it feels untenable to argue that Clarke’s defeat could be cheered by both student Conservatives and Tory staffers and the unpleasantness of the party’s internal election sufficiently well-known by its opponents, without coming across the desk of Conservative politicians above even the chair of CCHQ’s paygrade.

Stephen Bush is editor of the Staggers, the New Statesman’s political blog.