Upward Spike in US Treasuries despite S&P Downgrade in August 2011
The only resources or references you need are a chart showing you what happened in those months. The exuberance for US treasuries comes from the fact that there are no better options than them for putting cash. There are better sovereign debt instruments around the world depending on your goals, but they do not offer the same liquidity. US dollars and US Treasuries are equivalents in this context, so no matter if the wealthy speculator removed their cash from the stock market and put it in a bank or directly bought US treasuries (or their futures), this would increase the demand for treasuries. S&P Downgraded US treasures due to political instability in the United States, since inefficiencies in the country's political structure can prevent the Treasury from paying treasury holders (aka a default). Speculators know that this doesn't effect the United States resources and revenue collection schemes, as there is ample wealth public and private available to back the treasury bonds. US government bonds are where money goes when the markets are turbulent and investors are fleeing from risk, and that applies even if the risk is a downgrade of the US credit rating, because there's simply nowhere else to put your money if you're in search of safety. Most AAA-rated governments have good credit ratings because they don't borrow much money (and most of them also have fairly small economies compared with the US), meaning that there's poor liquidity in their scarce bonds.
"On a longer time scale, the plot thickens:  It almost looks random.  A large drop in real rates in the mid-70s, a massive spike in the early 80s, followed by a slow multi-decade decline. The chaos doesn't seem to be due to interest rates.  They steadily climbed and steadily fell:  All that's left is inflation:  First, real rates should be expected to pay a moderate rate, so nominal rates will usually be higher than inflation. However, interest rates are very stable over long time periods while inflation is not.  Economists call this type of phenomenon ""sticky pricing"", where the price, interest rates in this case, do not change much despite the realities surrounding them. But the story is a little more complicated. In the early 1970s, Nixon had an election to win and tried to lessen the impacts of recession by increasing gov't spending, not raising taxes, and financing through the central bank, causing inflation.  The strategy failed, but he was reelected anyways.   This set the precedent for the hyperinflation of the 1970s that ended abruptly by Reagan at the beginning of his first term in the early 1980s.  Again, interest rates remained sticky, so real rates spiked. Now, the world is not growing, almost stagnating.  Demand for equity is somewhat above average, but because corporate income is decelerating, and the developed world's population is aging, demand for investment income is skyrocketing.   As demand rises, so does the price, which for an investor is a form of inverse of the interest rate. Future demand is probably best answered by forecasters, and the monetarist over and undertones still dominating the Federal Reserve show that they have finally learned after 100 years that inflation is best kept ""low and stable"":  But what happens if growth in the US suddenly spikes, inflation rises, and the Federal Reserve must sell all of the long term assets it has bet so heavily on quickly while interest rates rise?  Inflation may not be intended, but it is not impossible." &gt;The financial press is full of articles about the massive flow of investors to Treasuries  Wow, yeah I mean if you read about it or saw it on the news, then it must be true.  But of course, if that were *really* true, then it would bring about the question... **[why the F! would the Fed have bought 61% of US Treasuries in 2011](http://www.moneynews.com/Headline/fed-debt-Treasury/2012/03/28/id/434106)???** One reason it matters whether or not you're beating the S&P 500 (or the Wilshire 5000, or whatever benchmark you choose to use) is to determine whether or not you'd be better off investing in an index fund (or some other investment vehicle) instead of pursuing whatever your current investment strategy happens to be.  Even if your investment strategy makes money, earning what the S&P 500 has averaged over multiple decades (around 10%) with an index fund means a lot more money than a 5% return with an actively managed portfolio (especially when you consider factors like compound interest and inflation). I use the S&P 500 as one of my criteria for judging how well (or poorly) my financial adviser is doing for me. If his recommendations (or trading activity on my behalf, if authorized) are inferior to the S&P 500, for too long, then I have a basis to discontinue the relationship. Check out this Wikipedia entry on stock market indices. There are legitimate criticisms, but on the whole I think they are useful. As an aside, the reason I point to index funds specifically is that they are the one of the lowest-cost, fire-and-forget investment strategies around.  If you compare the return of the S&P 500 index over multiple decades with most actively managed mutual funds, the S&P 500 index comes out ahead. "If they made deposits 20 years ago, and none since, the S&P is up over 300% since then. i.e. a return of $40,000 on $10,000 invested. We wouldn't expect to see that full return, as a prudent mix of stock and bonds (or any treasury bills/CDs, etc) would lower the overall return during this period.  Advice ""Transfer the money, directly to an IRA at a broker, Fidelity, Schwab, Vanguard, etc.""  For most people, going after the advisor isn't worth it, unless the sums are large and the poor management, pretty clear.  The lesson for readers here - monitor your investments. Ask questions. It's not about ""beating the market"" which can actually create more risk, but about understanding the returns you see, and the fees you are spending. The mistake didn't occur at the time the money was invested, but every year it wasn't monitored." "This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](http://www.reuters.com/article/us-global-markets/feds-great-unwinding-lifts-dollar-china-rating-gets-the-chop-idUSKCN1BW03Z?il=0) reduced by 83%. (I'm a bot) ***** &gt; NEW YORK - The U.S. Treasury yield curve flattened to a two-and-a half month low and key world stock markets fell on Thursday, as investors assessed indications from the U.S. Federal Reserve that it may raise interest rates a third time this year.  &gt; U.S. stocks pulled back from their all-time highs, though bank stocks cheered the prospect of higher interest rates which should help their profits.  &gt; China&amp;#039;s markets were already closed by the time it came but it kept the pressure on emerging markets stocks.   ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/71lga0/feds_great_unwinding_lifts_dollar_china_rating/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ ""Version 1.65, ~214093 tl;drs so far."") | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr ""PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome."") | *Top* *keywords*: **percent**^#1 **market**^#2 **rate**^#3 **U.S.**^#4 **more**^#5" From your own cite:  &gt; Sales were offset by China increasing its holdings   But it's an article from March.  From the same source, but in June:  &gt; [Global investors have piled into US government bonds this year, drawn by the allure of high yields.](http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/6907c2a0-f24a-11e3-ac7a-00144feabdc0.html#axzz3AlhYHl8A)  &gt; At a time when the Federal Reserve has steadily reduced bond purchases since January and announced a further reduction at Wednesday’s policy meeting, foreign buyers have effectively stepped up, followed by domestic banks. Since 1971, mortgage interest rates have never been more than .25% below current rates (3.6%).  Even restricting just to the last four years, rates have been as much as .89% higher.  Overall, we're much closer to the record low interest rate than any type of high.  We're currently at a three-year low.   Yes, we should expect interest rates to go up.  Eventually.  Maybe when that happens, bonds will fall.  It hasn't happened yet though.  In fact, there remain significant worries that the Fed has been overly aggressive in raising rates (as it was around 2008).  The Brexit side effects seem to be leaning towards an easing in monetary policy rather than a tightening. "As Michael McGowan says, just because gold has gone up lots recently does not mean it will continue to go up by the same amount. This plot:  shows that if your father had bought $20,000 in gold 30 years ago, then 10 years ago he would have slightly less than $20,000 to show for it. Compare that with the bubble in real estate in the US:  Update: I was curious about JoeTaxpayer's question: how do US house prices track against US taxpayer's ability to borrow?  To try to answer this, I used the house price data from here, the 30 year fixed mortgages here and the US salary information from here. To calculate the ""ability to borrow"" I took the US hourly salary information, multiplied by 2000/12 to get a monthly salary. I (completely arbitrarily) assumed that 25 per cent of the monthly salary would be used on mortgage payments.  I then used Excel's ""PV"" (Present Value) function to calculate the present value of the thirty year fixed rate mortgage. The resulting graph is below.  The correlation coefficient between the two plots is 0.93.  There are so many caveats on what I've done in ~15 minutes, I don't want to list them... but it certainly ""gives one furiously to think"" !! Update 2:  OK, so even just salary information correlates very well with the house price increases.  And looking at the differences, we can see that perhaps there was a spike or bubble in house prices over and above what might be expected from salary-only or ability-to-borrow."