Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
Discussion GroupsEnglish UsageBritish EnglishESL Teaching
Learnglish.com
Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map

Discussion Groups / English Usage / May 2009



Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

Treasurys or Treasuries?

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
James King - 08 May 2009 19:27 GMT
There was a big heading in the Wall Street Journal (on 5/7/09):

"Some Investors Bet on Treasurys".

I understand that the WSJ never makes any mistake on printing catch words.
Are Treasuries and Treasurys interchangeable?
James
Garrett Wollman - 08 May 2009 19:38 GMT
>There was a big heading in the Wall Street Journal (on 5/7/09):
>
>"Some Investors Bet on Treasurys".
>
>I understand that the WSJ never makes any mistake on printing catch words.
>Are Treasuries and Treasurys interchangeable?

It seems reasonable assume so.  Perhaps the Journal's style guide
prefers one form over the other.

ObUseMentionDistinction: I would have asked "Are 'Treasuries' and
'Treasurys' interchangeable?"

-GAWollman
Signature

Garrett A. Wollman   | The real tragedy of human existence is not that we are
wollman@csail.mit.edu| nasty by nature, but that a cruel structural asymmetry
Opinions not those   | grants to rare events of meanness such power to shape
of MIT or CSAIL.     | our history. - S.J. Gould, Ten Thousand Acts of Kindness

Don Phillipson - 08 May 2009 19:43 GMT
> There was a big heading in the Wall Street Journal (on 5/7/09):
>
> "Some Investors Bet on Treasurys".
>
> I understand that the WSJ never makes any mistake on printing catch words.
> Are Treasuries and Treasurys interchangeable?

This is not a question of everyday English but of
financial jargon.  "Treasury" in this headline means
a bond issued by the US Treasury (as those of the
UK governmennt are "Gilts:")  so its plural usage
is determined by the financial community -- not by
English speakers in general.

Signature

Don Phillipson
Carlsbad Springs
(Ottawa, Canada)

Lars Eighner - 08 May 2009 20:11 GMT
> There was a big heading in the Wall Street Journal (on 5/7/09):

> "Some Investors Bet on Treasurys".

> I understand that the WSJ never makes any mistake on printing catch words.
> Are Treasuries and Treasurys interchangeable?

They are correct within the US financial realm.  This is the short form of
Treasury[ Bills, Notes and Bond]s.  Treasury Bills (aka T-Bills) have terms
of less than a year and are sold at discounts from face value.  Notes and
Bonds have longer fixed terms and pay interest.  Generally speaking, few
individuals are in any position buy notes or bonds because they generally
have very high denominations, but T-bills are issued in denominations as low
as $1000.  Naturally there is a general sort of relationship among the rates
of return for various Treasurys, and a change in rate for one kind is taken
as an indicator of change in rates for the others.

So Treasurys may be

1) Treasury bills specifically (so much context as you provided suggests
this may be the meaning here)

2) Some combination of securities issued by the US Treasury (as may indicate
the state of the market for all of them)

3) All such securities.

Signature

       Lars Eighner <http://larseighner.com/> usenet@larseighner.com
                         INCREDIBLE new art blog:
                http://inflagrantedilettante.blogspot.com/

Garrett Wollman - 08 May 2009 23:24 GMT
>Bonds have longer fixed terms and pay interest.  Generally speaking, few
>individuals are in any position buy notes or bonds because they generally
>have very high denominations, but T-bills are issued in denominations as low
>as $1000.

You have that, erm, backwards.  Sort of.  Treasury bonds are issued in
$1000-face-value units (only).  Notes and bills can and normally do
have other denominations, in some cases in the hundreds of thousands
or millions.  Confusingly, the prices of bonds, including T-bonds, are
quoted in percentage of face value, which makes sense for large
investors (who can thus easily compare the discount/premium for bonds
of varying face values).

Treasury bonds can also be "stripped" (which the Treasury will tell
you is an acronym for "separate trading in interest and principal
securities" although this is almost certainly contrived) by separating
the "coupon" from the "principal".  This terminology derives from
historical usage when a bond was a physical sheet of paper,
representing a debtor's obligation, various bits of which ("coupons")
needed to be torn off and presented to the debtor to collect the
interest owed.  Bond traders still talk about the "coupon rate" of a
bond, which is the amount of interest the bondholder receives
expressed as a percentage of the face value.  Once a bond has been
stripped, the various parts are reassembled, along with identical
parts of other bonds from the same issue, into "zeros" (short for
"zero-coupon bonds") which, because they do not pay periodic interest
payments -- just a lump sum at maturity -- are sold at a discount.
The Treasury requires that these be created in increments of $1000, so
if you want to strip, say, a 4.25% thirty-year bond, you need 2,000
complete bonds, and you get back 2,000 principal zeros (face value
$1000 each) and 850 interest zeros (face value $1000) for each
remaining interest payment date.  The process is reversible, too.

(The advantage to zeros is that they can be bought at a discount.  The
disadvantange is that the U.S. government taxes the discount, even
though the holder doesn't receive any income from it until the bond
either matures or is sold.)

-GAWollman

Signature

Garrett A. Wollman   | The real tragedy of human existence is not that we are
wollman@csail.mit.edu| nasty by nature, but that a cruel structural asymmetry
Opinions not those   | grants to rare events of meanness such power to shape
of MIT or CSAIL.     | our history. - S.J. Gould, Ten Thousand Acts of Kindness

Garrett Wollman - 08 May 2009 23:34 GMT
>if you want to strip, say, a 4.25% thirty-year bond, you need 2,000
>complete bonds, and you get back 2,000 principal zeros (face value
>$1000 each) and 850 interest zeros (face value $1000) for each
>remaining interest payment date.

But if I had been more careful, I would have instead written:

if you want to strip, say, a 4.25% thirty-year bond, you need 40
complete bonds, and you get back 40 principal zeros (face value $1000
each) and, for each remaining interest payment date, 17 interest zeros
(face value $1000 each).

From the purchaser's perspective, there is no difference between the
interest zeros and the principal zeros, except that you have to give
the Treasury the exact number of each when reassembling the complete
bonds.

-GAWollman
Signature

Garrett A. Wollman   | The real tragedy of human existence is not that we are
wollman@csail.mit.edu| nasty by nature, but that a cruel structural asymmetry
Opinions not those   | grants to rare events of meanness such power to shape
of MIT or CSAIL.     | our history. - S.J. Gould, Ten Thousand Acts of Kindness

 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2012 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.