By Abhi Chatterjee, chief investment strategist at Dynamic Planner
Every year, with the reliability of a physical law, the wildebeest of the Serengeti migrate. Not from a map, but from instinct — the seasonal memory of where the rain falls and the grass grows. It works because the seasons are generally reliable.
But the animals that survive the anomalous year are not the ones following the herd on instinct alone. They are the ones reading the signals. The clouds forming to the north. The localised patterns of last week’s rainfall. The scent: that faint smell of wet earth that travels miles ahead of the storm.
Fixed income managers navigate the rate cycle the same way. In a rising rate environment, shorten duration and shelter in investment grade credit. As rates peak and begin to fall, cautiously lengthen, accept some credit risk, let the migration resume. In a sustained falling-rate environment, extend hard — duration rewarded, spreads compressed, the feast. The instinct, refined over decades, mostly works.
Right now, the seasonal instinct is telling one story. The signals are telling another.
See also: FundCalibre’s McDermott: Investing in a fractured world
The price of patience in the bond market is called term premium. It is the excess return an investor demands for holding a long bond rather than rolling short-dated paper. For most of the past two decades, that price was essentially zero. The disinflationary forces of the era — globalisation, demographics, the China supply shock — did most of the work, and central banks claimed credit for an outcome those structural forces would have delivered anyway. Patience was free; the long-run inflation distribution looked anchored at 2%, with vanishing variance.
That era is over. What matters for every fixed income allocation is not the fact that term premium has repriced. It is why.
From 2021, inflation surged and central banks were late. They then hiked aggressively enough to demonstrate they meant it. The 2022 bond bear market — the worst year for US bonds on record — was the price of credibility being re-established. The anchor held. By 2024, with inflation rolling over, cuts were signalled. Duration extended, spreads compressed. The seasonal instinct and the signals agreed.
Then Iran. Cuts became holds. Core PCE has remained at 3.2% and services inflation has refused to behave. Central banks, having spent two years insisting that 2% was non-negotiable, found a reason to wait rather than fight when the next test arrived.
The market, watching them wait, drew its own conclusion. The 10-year Treasury yield stands at 4.39%. The raw yield spread has recovered to approximately 1.1%, from a trough of -0.6% in 2022–23, when patience was not merely free but actively subsidised by central bank asset purchases. The recovery is real and rapid. It is not, however, complete: the same spread spent most of 2002–2010 between 1.5% and 2.4%. The market is repricing credibility. It has not finished.
See also: Baillie Gifford’s James: The market is being too simplistic with software businesses
The informative signal was not the war, not the oil price. It was the revealed reaction function: what a central bank does when forced to choose between defending the anchor and accommodating the shock. The convenient explanation — that 2% remains the destination once the supply shock passes — requires a faith in institutional capacity the historical record does not support.
Central banks claimed credit for a disinflation built not by monetary policy alone but by globalisation, demographics, and the China supply shock — forces that have now reversed. The anchor looked impregnable because it was never truly tested. It is being tested now. The market, watching Iran, concluded that the capacity to defend 2% when genuinely costly is not a given.
The technical distinction is between a forecasting problem and a commitment problem. In the first, the anchor is stable: term premium reflects forecast variance and will compress as the shock passes. In the second, the anchor is drifting: not abandoned, but subject to competing priorities that a changed structural environment makes harder to dismiss. When forced to choose, the current generation of central bankers chose to wait.
Volcker did not. In 1980, with CPI at 14.8% and unemployment rising, he hiked to 20%. The migration resumed because the destination was legible.
What has changed since Iran is not the level of long yields but the market’s honest assessment of whether 2% is a coordinate or a preference — and term premium is the price of that uncertainty. A drifting anchor widens the distribution of outcomes for long-duration bonds beyond what the seasonal playbook implies. Move too early into duration extension and the lions are unusually hungry: term premium elevated for structural reasons is not cyclical noise that mean-reverts on a calendar. Wait for full confirmation and you risk arriving late to a sharp rally when credibility is restored.
The question for any allocator reviewing their fixed income allocation is therefore precise: are your bond managers reading the signals, or following the season? The clouds, the localised rainfall, the scent of rain — term premium carries all three. Right now, all three are saying the same thing.
The wildebeest will cross the Mara River. They always do. But the ones that survive the anomalous crossing are not the ones who followed the herd. They are the ones who knew, before the crossing began, whether they were migrating through a bad season or a changed climate.
The bond market is still deciding which one this is. The price of patience is the only honest answer it has so far.
