If USA defaults on its debt, will the T bond holder get back his money
"The only party that can pay back a government bond is the government that issued it itself. In the case of Argentina, US vulture funds have won cases against it, but it has yet to pay.  The best one can do to collect is to sue in a jurisdiction that permits and hope to seize the defaulted government's assets held in such jurisdiction. One could encourage another state to go to war to collect, but this is highly unlikely since a state that doesn't repay is probably a poor state with nothing much to loot; besides, most modern governments do not loot the conquered anymore.  Such a specific eventuality hasn't happened in at least a lifetime, anyways.  It is highly unlikely that any nation would be foolish enough to challenge the United States considering its present military dominance. It is rare for nations with medium to large economies to spurn their government obligations for long with Argentina as the notable exception.  Even Russia became current when they spontaneously disavowed their government debt during the oil collapse of 1998. Countries with very small economies such as Zimbabwe are the only remaining nations that try to use their central banks to fund debt repayments if they even repay at all, but they quickly see that the destruction caused by hyperinflation neither helps with government debt nor excessive government expenditure. Nevertheless, it could be dangerous to assume that no nation would default on its debt for any period of time, and the effects upon countries with defaulted government debt show that it has far reaching negative consequences. If the US were to use its central bank to repay its government obligations, the law governing the Federal Reserve would have to be changed since it is currently mandated to ""maintain long run growth of the monetary and credit aggregates commensurate with the economy's long run potential to increase production, so as to promote effectively the goals of maximum employment, stable prices and moderate long-term interest rates."" The United States Treasury has no power over the Federal Reserve thus cannot force the Federal Reserve to betray its mandate by purchasing government debt. It should be noted that while Japan has a government debt twice its GDP, it also has a persistent slight deflation which has produced incredibly low interest rates, allowing it to finance government debt more easily, a situation the US does not enjoy. For now, the United States seems to be able to pay expenditures and finance at low interest rates.  At what ratio of government debt to GDP that would cause interest rates to climb thus put pressure on the US's ability to repay does not seem to be well known." There is no situation one can imagine in which the US defaults (beyond a day or three) on its obligations. The treasury can print money, and while it would be disastrous, 'monetizing' the debt would simply eliminate all outstanding debt at the risk of devaluing the dollar to hyperinflation levels.
When I read that part of his post, it reminded me more of credit companies rather than banks. People default on credit all the time. I have no idea what the regulations are on the amount of credit that a company can issue, though.  And this is sort of part of what actually happened in the beginning of the economic crunch. A bunch of people began to trade for credit (debt) against what they thought the *future* value of their house or other real estate would be. After a while, people stopped being able to afford property at its future value, so they stopped buying it. When people then tried to sell their property for the future value that they had borrowed against, they couldn't, so they couldn't pay back their debt.  Because real estate had become a popular investment vehicle for the middle class, this was able to reach a kind of critical mass, and shortly afterward the effects rippled back into the credit market, which also had its own crunch -- a bunch of credit just disappeared overnight because so many people had assumed a level of debt that they could not actually fulfill their promises on once the future value of their home became completely imaginary. "All bonds carry a risk of default, which means that it's possible that you can lose your principal investment in addition to potentially not getting the interest payments that you expect.  Bonds (in the US anyway) are graded, so you can manage this risk somewhat by taking higher quality bonds, i.e. in companies or governments that are considered more creditworthy. Regular bank savings (again specific to the US) are insured by FDIC, so even if your bank goes bust, the US Government is backing them up to some limit.  That makes such accounts less risky.  There's generally no insurance on a bond, even if it is issued by a government entity. If you do your homework on the bond rating system and choose bonds in a rating band where you're comfortable, this could be a good option for you.  You'll find, however, that the bond market also ""knows"" that the interest rates are generally low, so be ware that higher interest issues are usually coming from less creditworthy (and therefore more risky) issuers. EDIT Here's some additional information based on the follow-up question in the comment.  When you buy a bond you are actually making a loan to the issuer.  They will pay you interest over the lifetime of the bond and then return your principal at the end of the term. (Verify this payment schedule - This is typical, but you should be sure that whatever you're buying works like this.)  This is not an investment in the value of the issuer itself like you would be making if you bought stock. With stock you are taking an ownership share in the company. This might entitle you to dividends if the company pays them, but otherwise your investment value on a stock will be tied to the performance of the company.  With the bond, the company might be in decline but the bond still a good investment so long as the company doesn't decline so much that they cannot pay their debts. Also, bonds can be issued by governments, but governments do not sell stock. (An ""ownership share of the government"" would not make sense.) This may be the so-called sovereign debt if issued by a sovereign government or it may be local (we call it municipal here in the US) debt issued by a subordinate level of government.  Bonds are a little bit like stock in the sense that there's a secondary market for them.  That means that if you get partway through the length of the bond and don't want to hold it, you can sell the bond to someone else.  Of course, it will be harder to sell a bond later if the company becomes insolvent or if the interest rates go up between when you buy and when you sell.  Depending on these market factors, you might end up with a capital gain or capital loss (meaning you get more or less than the principal that you put into the bond) at the time of a sale." Today the rates are arrived simply on the basis of demand and supply. Historically rates were pegged to Gold, when all currencies were printed depending on the Gold reserves. So if one country printed 100 units of currency of a 1gm of gold and other country 10 units of currency for 1 gm of gold, the rate would be 1:10. However In the seventies with shortages of Gold and other reasons, USD became the default standard, so the rate started being pegged to the USD reserves the countries started maintaining. However later in the early eighties, US backing out, the rate purely started getting pegged to market demand and supply. So for most currencies there was a default rate to begin with and today its changed ... Incase of USD/EUR, the initial rate was determined by the weighted average of the currencies that it sought to replace. After that its been market supply and demand. Since most of the trade in international market is US denominated, largest being Oil, each country has created a huge reserves of USD. So technically if China were to bank half its USD denominated treasury bills, the USD would come crashing down, but then China itself would be at disadvantage as its value of USD its holding would become less and it cannot buy the same items. Hence all countries keep hording USD and this means US if they print more money, the value will not come down, because it that happens, all countries holding USD would loose their value of reserve. In essence a country can print as much as currency it wants if all(majority) its debts and trades are denominated in local currencies. This is 100% true for US and hence it can get away by printing money. This is also true to a large extent for Japan as bulk of its Debts are denominated in JPY. I will just explain the time value of money in general, descriptive terms and save the math for someone else. Imagine: You have half a million dollars. I'd like to borrow it all from you. I'll pay it all back, every penny, but no more. And I'll pay it back in about, oh, thirty years or so. (Imagine also that you can be 100% sure that I'll pay it back.) Does this sound like a good deal? Not really. Why not? Well, you could do something with that sort of money. With that sort of money, you could do a lot of things for 30 years. You could buy a nice house and live in it for 30 years and save yourself from spending a lot of money on rent during that time (or save money on interest by paying off a mortgage early) even if the price of the house goes nowhere. If you already had a house, you could do some home improvement, like insulate the place better (to save on heating bills) or even just on something that you're going to enjoy for part of those 30 years (a patio in the back yard). If you were feeling entrepreneurial, you could take that money and start a business. Or you could invest that money in the stock market, and get a lot more back.... and if that's too risky for you, just start a savings account and earn interest. And finally, in 30 years, the value of the dollar will be lower because of inflation, so it won't buy as much now as it will then. That's the time value of money. It's the opportunity cost of the best of the things that you could have done with that money during the time it was gone. When you take out a loan, your interest payments will depend in part on the time value of the money you're borrowing: the people making the loan could be investing that money somewhere else, like government bonds. (It will also depend on factors like the risk of default on the loan - this is why credit card debt is more expensive than debt like a mortgage that's backed by a big fat asset like a house which can be seized and sold if you happen to default.) This is how the Federal Reserve can affect interest rates across the economy by just buying or selling government bonds. Well, yes it does, but just because the debt is trading at 80 cents on the dollar doesn't mean that the company can actually legally get away with paying only 80 cents on the dollar. They would have to come to an agreement with the debt holders first. And perhaps they could, but the more conservative approach is to use the book value of the debt.  Or what about debt that's trading at a premium to its face value, because, say, interest rates have come down relative to the time the debt was issued? The amount that the conpany owes to the debt holders hasn't suddenly gone up. "Oh please. Most of the unsecured creditors who get screwed in bankruptcy are large banks. They know the risk going in which is why unsecured lends at a high interest rate. Yes, trade creditors often do get screwed but it's a cost of doing business -- it's why a vendor needs to monitor its receivables and watch for signs of insolvency and adjust the terms of trade accordingly.  You should have made sure you were covered by brokerage insurance before handing money to a company like that. The ""I'm the little guy"" argument is just weak." If we postulate that there is at least some element of truth to the phrase 'A leopard does not change his spots'  and then consider this tidbit He conveniently forgets to mention his 1.5 million dollar fraud fine   from the SEC over investment “advice” he sold through a news letter.   The SEC claimed and the judge agreed that the report was “replete with   lies”. I think that gives you just about all you might need to know regarding the man behind the video, and the nature of it's content.  Oh, and it's purpose?  To SELL YOU the same said newsletter. I guess it's natural for Stansberry to feel as he does. After all if the US gov had just busted me for conning and lying to folks, and fined ME 1.5Mill, I'd be having some pretty intense lurid fantasies about it going down in flames, and trying to hide any money I had left offshore also.   A huge amount of his argument hinges on the US no longer being the world's reserve currency.  Firstly, while I'll admit I'm none too happy with the way the national debt has been managed for oh, around 30 years how, (which includes I will note going from a pretty much balanced budget, to around an 80% increase in the debt from 2001 through 2008, when 'times were good' and there was little need to spend money we didn't have), when compared to a lot of other countries, we still don't look that bad.  You have to ask yourself this first, if not the US, then WHO?  are the governments of the world going to trust China? could the Yen handle the load?  Is the Euro any better off especially considering problems in Greece, Ireland, etc.  Do countries like Switzerland have enough liquidity and available ways to invest there?  In order for the US to STOP being the world's reserve currency, you must have something to replace it with, and really, can we realistically think of one country/currency with the capability to become a new 'world reserve currency'???  Secondly, even then should such a shift actually happen, it doesn't mean people will ALL just magically stop buying US debt.  Yes the demand would go down, but it would not go to zero.  There are after all a worldfull of other countries who's money is right now NOT the world reserve currency, and yet they are able to sell bonds and people and even other countries invest there. (China for example does not invest exclusively in the US), so yeah we might have to start paying more interest to get people to buy US debt, but it's not like the demand will go away.   Save your money, save your time, don't buy into this dung. "First, your professor should learn proper grammar. Should be, ""Why **do**....""  Second, it looks like you're dealing with synthetic securities. You can create a synthetic T-Bill by doing a combination of long/short calls/puts.  But ignore all that. Just think about this without the technical jargon. We know that the risk free rate is typically what T-Bills are yielding right? And we know that since options are inherently more risky than US government debt, investors will demand a higher interest rate to compensate them for the risk. So, as the risk free rate increases, the value of a call will move the same direction, otherwise investors would stop dealing with call options and would instead buy safer, less-risky ""riskless"" investments.  It's not really an options question, just one of basic finance, risk, understanding of interest rates, etc."