Why YTM is higher than current yield in discount bond
Say you buy a bond that currently costs $950, and matures in one year, at $1000 face value. It has one coupon ($50 interest payment) left. The coupon, $50, is 50/950 or 5.26%, but you get the face value, $1000, for an additional $50 return. This is why the yield to maturity is higher than current yield. If the maturity were in two years, the coupons still provide 5.26%, and the extra 1000/950 is another 5.26% over 2 years, or (approx) 2.6%/yr compounded, for a total YTM of 7.86%. This is a back-of envelope calculation, the real way to calculate is with a finance calculator. Entering PV (present value) FV (future value) PMT (coupon payment(s)) and N (number of periods). With no calculator or spreadsheet, my estimate will be pretty close.
Why does the rising price of a bond pushes it's yield down? The bond price and its yield are linked; if one goes up, the other must go down. This is because the cash flows from the bond are fixed, predetermined. The market price of the bond fluctuates. Now what if people are suddenly willing to pay more for the same fixed payments? It must mean that the return, i.e. the yield, will be lower. Here we see that risk associated with the bonds in question has   skyrocketed, and thus bonds' returns has skyrocketed, too. Am I right? The default risk has increased, yes. Now, I assume that bonds' price is determined by the market (issued by   a state, traded at the market). Is that correct? Correct, as long as you are talking about the market price. Then who determines bonds' yields? I mean, isn't it fixed? Or - in the   FT quote above - they are talking about the yields for the new bonds   issued that particular month? The yield is not fixed - the cash flows are. Yield is the internal rate of return. See my answer above to your first question. A large number of bond holders decide to sell their bonds.  If they all decide to do this at the same time then there will be a large supply of bonds being sold in the market.  This will drive down the price of the bonds which will increase yields. Why do bond yields move inversely to bond prices? You purchase a $100 bond today that yields 5%.  You spent $100.  The very next day the same bonds are being sold with a yield of 10%.  If you wanted to sell your bond to someone you would have to sell it so it competed with the new bonds being sold.  You could not sell it for $100 which is what you paid for it.  You would have to sell it for less than the $100 you paid for it in order for it to have the equivalent yield of the new bonds being sold with a 10% yield.  This is why bond yields move inversely to bond prices. Why does rising yields increase the cost of borrowing? If someone is trying to sell new bonds they will have to sell bonds that compete with the yields of the current bonds already in the market. If yields are rising on the existing bonds then the issuer of the new bonds will have to pay higher interest rates to offer equivalent yields on the new bonds. The issuer is now paying more in interest making it more expensive to borrow money. What are the incentives for the bond vigilante to sell his/her bonds? One reason a bond holder will sell his/her bonds is they believe inflation will outpace the yield on the bond they are holding.  If a bond yields 3% and inflation is at 5% then the bond holder is essentially losing purchasing power if they continue to hold onto the bond.  Another reason to sell would be if the bond holder has doubts in the ability of the issuer to repay the interest and/or principal of the bond. You can look at TIPS (which have some inflation protection built in). Generally short term bonds are better than long if you expect rates to rise soon. Other ways that you can protect yourself are to choose higher yield corporate bonds instead of government bonds, or to use foreign bonds. There are plenty of bond funds like Templeton Global or ETFs that offer such features. Find one that will work for you. That's not what he's saying at all.  Basically most of his argument (4 of 6 points) is the connection between bond prices and equity prices. It's not particularly interesting but it definitely doesn't always apply either. If bond yields fall, then so too should equity earnings yields if spreads remain relatively constant, i.e. higher equity prices. Additionally, if bond yields are low, then any future equity growth gets capitalized at a much higher value because discount rates are much lower. Again, not particularly insightful.  The two interesting comments were about oil and cash as a % of assets at financial institutions. Both of these are likely linked to falling or low rates above, because banks can't invest profitably at low rates and hence hold cash and equivalents instead, and oil prices are more likely to fall in a low or falling inflation environment (implied by the low rates or Fed tightening).  Really, I think hes's saying something more obvious but not necessarily trivial, which is if one asset class goes up, so too is another related one. I haven't read the terms here but the question may not have a good answer.  That won't stop me from trying.   Call the real rate (interest rate - inflation) and you'll have what is called negative real rates. It's rare for the overnight real rate to be negative.  If you check the same sources for historical data you'll find it's usually higher.  This is because borrowing money is usually done to gain an economic benefit, ie. make a profit.  That is no longer a consideration when borrowing money short term and is IMO a serious problem.  This will cause poor investment decisions like you see in housing. Notice I said overnight rate.  That is the only rate set by the BoC and the longer rates are set by the market.  The central bank has some influence because a longer term is just a series of shorter terms but if you looked up the rate on long Canadian real return bonds, you'd see them with a real rate around 1%. What happens when the central bank raise or lowers rates will depend on the circumstances.  The rate in India is so high because they are using it to defend the rupee.  If people earn more interest they have a preference to buy that currency rather than others.  However these people aren't stupid, they realize it's the real rate that matters.  That's why Japan can get away with very low rates and still have demand for the currency - they have, or had, deflation.  When that changed, the preference for their currency changed. So if Canada hast forex driven inflation then the BoC will have to raise rates to defend the dollar for the purpose of lowering inflation from imports.  Whether it works or not is another story.  Note that the Canadian dollar is very dependant on the total dollar value of net oil exports. If Canada has inflation due too an accelerating economy this implies that there are profitable opportunities so businesses and individuals will be more likely to pay a positive real rate of interest.  In that scenario the demand for credit money will drive the real rate of return. Gundlach shared a chart that showed how investors in European “junk” bonds are willing to accept the same no-default return as they are for U.S. Treasury bonds. In other words, the yield on European “junk” bonds is about the same—between 2 percent and 3 percent—as the yield on U.S. Treasuries, even though the risk profile of the two could not be more different.  Sounds like a strong indicator to me. How might this play out in the US? "You may be thinking about this the wrong way. The yield (Return) on your investment is effectively the market price paid to the investor for the amount of risk assumed for participating. Looking at the last few years, many including myself would have given their left arm for a so-called ""meager return"" instead of the devastation visited on our portfolios.  In essence, higher return almost always (arguably always) comes at the cost of increased risk.  You just have to decide your risk profile and investment goals.  For example, which of the following scenarios would you prefer? Investment Option A  Treasuries, CD's Worst Case: 1% gain Best Case 5% gain   Investment option B  Equities/Commodities Worst Case: 25% loss Best Case: 40% gain" Consider the black-scholes-merton result.  Notice that the expected value of the bond is its present value, discounted from the expiration date. The same is not applied to the price of the stock. The further in the future you go, the less value the bond carries because it's being discounted into oblivion. Now, looking at d1, as time tends towards infinity, so does d1. N(d1) is a probability.  The higher d1, the higher the probability and vice versa, so as time increases, the probability for S trends to 100% while K is discounted away. Note that the math doesn't yet fully model reality, as extremely long dated options such as the European puts Buffett wrote were traded at ~1/2 the value the model said he should've. He still had to take a GAAP loss: http://www.berkshirehathaway.com/letters/2008ltr.pdf