Negative interest rates and search for yield
"Can it be so that these low-interest rates cause investors to take greater risk to get a decent return?  With interest rates being as low as they are, there is little to no risk in banking; especially after Dodd-Frank. ""Risk"" is just a fancy word for ""Will I make money in the near/ long future."" No one knows what the actual risk is (unless you can see into the future.) But there are ways to mitigate it. So, arguably, the best way to make money is the stock market, not in banking.  There is a great misallocation of resources which at some point will show itself and cause tremendous losses, even maybe cause a new financial crisis? A financial crisis is backed on a believed-to-be strong investment that goes belly-up.  ""Tremendous Losses"" is a rather grand term with no merit. Banks are not purposely keeping interest rates low to cause a financial crisis.  As the central banks have kept interest rates extremely low for a decade, even negative, this affects how much we save and borrow. The biggest point here is to know one thing: bonds. Bonds affect all things from municipalities, construction, to pensions. If interest rates increased currently, the current rate of bonds would drop vastly and actually cause a financial crisis (in the U.S.) due to millions of older persons relying on bonds as sources of income."
A fair number of micro-finance organisations have been listing recently and appear to be offering good yields.  So you could simply buy their stock rather than investing directly. SKS is an Indian micro-financier that went public just a few weeks ago. The interest rates charged can be extremely high to match the low yield per lender.  As has been mentioned, Kiva doesn't return interest to the lender.  However, Kiva doesn't lend directly either.  They on-lend to local microfinanciers who will lend at whatever interest rate the local market will bear. The range of interest rates applied to micro-credit loans can be chilling.  45% to 85% in Africa, 30% in India and a jaw-dropping 155% in Mexico. However, these high rates of return have attracted an absolute stampede of investors. In Mexico more than 300 micro-credit banks compete for business. Chuck Waterfield, the founder of MicroFinance Transparency, is concerned that there is an unsupportable bubble. Lenders are starting to take out more loans than they can afford and banks are doing little to curb that appetite for debt.  Sound familiar? So, you may not want to lend directly, but definitely consider looking at listed microfinanciers in places like Brazil and India.  As usual, though, study the company carefully. "First note that CIBC issued these bonds with a zero coupon, so they do not pay any interest.  They were purchased by the market participants at a small premium, paying an average of 100.054 for a nominal value of 100.  This equates to a negative annual ""redemption"" yield of 0.009% - i.e., if held until maturity, then the holder will witness a negative annual return of 0.009%. You ask ""why does this make sense?"".  Clearly it makes no sense for a private individual to purchase these bonds since they will be better off simply holding cash.  To understand why there is a demand for these bonds we need to look elsewhere. The European bond market is currently suffering a dwindling supply owing to the ECBs bond buying programme (i.e., quantitative easing).  The ECB is purchasing EUR 80 billion per month of Eurozone sovereign debt.  This means that the quantity of high grade bonds available for purchase is shrinking fast. Against this backdrop we have all of those European institutions and financial corporations who are legally obliged to purchase bonds to be held as assets against their obligations.  These are mostly national and private pension funds as well as insurance companies and fund managers.   In this sort of environment, the price of high quality bonds is quickly bid up to the point where we see negative yields. In this environment companies like CIBC can borrow by issuing bonds with a zero coupon and the market is willing to pay a small premium over their nominal value. TL/DR The situation is further complicated by the subdued inflation outlook for the Eurozone, with a very real possibility of deflation.  Should a prolonged period of deflation materialise, then negative redemption yield bonds may provide a positive real return." "Bonds are priced ""very high"" because their price is compared to their yields. With the current interest rates, which are very low, the bond yields will be low. However, bond issuers still need the money, so there still will be high par value, and investors will not sell bonds at a loss unless there's a better investment (=bonds with better yields). Once the rates start going up, you'll see bonds with current rates dropping in value significantly. Once alternatives appear, people holding them will start dumping them to move the money somewhere more profitable. Similarly the stocks - since there's no other investment alternatives (yields on the bonds are low, interests are low), people invest more in the stocks. Once the rates go up, the investors will start rebalancing portfolios and cashing out." The US Treasury is not directly/transactionally involved, but can affect the junk bond market by issuing new bonds when rates rise. Since US bonds are considered completely safe, changes in yield will affect low quality debt. For example, if rates rose to levels like 1980, a 12% treasury bond would drive the prices of junk bonds issued today dramatically lower. Another price factor is likelihood of default. Companies with junk credit ratings have lousy balance sheets, so negative economic conditions or tight short term debt markets can result in default for many of these companies. Whether bonds in a fund are new issues or purchased on the secondary market isn't something that is very relevant to the individual investor. The current interest rate environment is factored into the market already via prices of bonds. Investopedia has this note where you'd want the contrapositive point: The interest rate, commonly bandied about by the media, has a wide and   varied impact upon the economy. When it is raised, the general effect   is a lessening of the amount of money in circulation, which works to   keep inflation low. It also makes borrowing money more expensive,   which affects how consumers and businesses spend their money; this   increases expenses for companies, lowering earnings somewhat for those   with debt to pay. Finally, it tends to make the stock market a   slightly less attractive place to investment. As for evidence, I'd question that anyone could really take out all the other possible economic influences to prove a direct co-relation between the Federal Funds rate and the stock market returns.  For example, of the dozens of indices that are stock related, which ones would you want that evidence: Total market, large-cap, small-cap, value stocks, growth stocks, industrials, tech, utilities, REITs, etc.  This is without considering other possible investment choices such as direct Real Estate holdings, compared to REITs that is, precious metals and collectibles that could also be used. It's a similar case where you are basically choosing to forgo negotiating price on your own. In the case you describe neither you nor the business are in any way forced to accept the terms being offered to you and presumably you would not if you had certainty of a better price somewhere else. The value being added is that you now have another choice you can consider that you may not have known about and may ultimately be cheaper than each continuing a search on their own even with the lower/higher rates. If continuing to search causes you lost wages or the business lost productivity then the value is in reducing the amount of loss. "First note that CIBC issued these bonds with a zero coupon, so they do not pay any interest.  They were purchased by the market participants at a small premium, paying an average of 100.054 for a nominal value of 100.  This equates to a negative annual ""redemption"" yield of 0.009% - i.e., if held until maturity, then the holder will witness a negative annual return of 0.009%. You ask ""why does this make sense?"".  Clearly it makes no sense for a private individual to purchase these bonds since they will be better off simply holding cash.  To understand why there is a demand for these bonds we need to look elsewhere. The European bond market is currently suffering a dwindling supply owing to the ECBs bond buying programme (i.e., quantitative easing).  The ECB is purchasing EUR 80 billion per month of Eurozone sovereign debt.  This means that the quantity of high grade bonds available for purchase is shrinking fast. Against this backdrop we have all of those European institutions and financial corporations who are legally obliged to purchase bonds to be held as assets against their obligations.  These are mostly national and private pension funds as well as insurance companies and fund managers.   In this sort of environment, the price of high quality bonds is quickly bid up to the point where we see negative yields. In this environment companies like CIBC can borrow by issuing bonds with a zero coupon and the market is willing to pay a small premium over their nominal value. TL/DR The situation is further complicated by the subdued inflation outlook for the Eurozone, with a very real possibility of deflation.  Should a prolonged period of deflation materialise, then negative redemption yield bonds may provide a positive real return." Yahoo! Finance would list it as 3.30 for the 20 year corporate AAA bonds. This is using the criteria from the Wikipedia link you stated in the initial question.