---
ticker: "USTSY30"
title: "U.S. Treasury 30Y Constant Maturity Yield"
unit: "%"
frequency: "Daily"
source: "Nelson and Siegel (1987); Gürkaynak, Sack, and Wright (2007)"
release: "Updated Daily"
category: "Yield Curve & Inflation Compensation"
country: "US"
language: "en"
canonical: "https://kred.dev/en/series/USTSY30"
license: "https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/"
latest_value: 5.29
latest_date: "2026-10-22"
first_date: "1977-02-15"
observations_total: 12417
observations_shown: 120
---

# U.S. Treasury 30Y Constant Maturity Yield

## Overview

The longest point on the Treasury constant maturity curve, and the one where a given change in yield moves price most.

## Key Figures

|  | Value | Date |
|---|---|---|
| Latest | 5.29 | 2026-10-22 |
| Change from previous | -0.13 | 2026-10-21 |
| Change over one year | +0.75 | 2025-10-22 |
| Highest on record | 15.21 | 1981-10-26 |
| Lowest on record | 0.99 | 2020-03-09 |
| Period covered | 1977-02-15 – 2026-10-22 |  |
| Observations | 12417 |  |

## Recent observations

| Date | Value | Change |
|---|---|---|
| 2026-05-01 | 4.97 | -0.01 |
| 2026-05-04 | 5.02 | +0.05 |
| 2026-05-05 | 4.98 | -0.04 |
| 2026-05-06 | 4.94 | -0.04 |
| 2026-05-07 | 4.97 | +0.03 |
| 2026-05-08 | 4.95 | -0.02 |
| 2026-05-11 | 4.98 | +0.03 |
| 2026-05-12 | 5.03 | +0.05 |
| 2026-05-13 | 5.03 | 0.00 |
| 2026-05-14 | 5.02 | -0.01 |
| 2026-05-15 | 5.12 | +0.10 |
| 2026-05-18 | 5.14 | +0.02 |
| 2026-05-19 | 5.18 | +0.04 |
| 2026-05-20 | 5.11 | -0.07 |
| 2026-05-21 | 5.10 | -0.01 |
| 2026-05-22 | 5.07 | -0.03 |
| 2026-05-26 | 5.03 | -0.04 |
| 2026-05-27 | 5.01 | -0.02 |
| 2026-05-28 | 4.98 | -0.03 |
| 2026-05-29 | 4.99 | +0.01 |
| 2026-06-01 | 4.99 | 0.00 |
| 2026-06-02 | 4.97 | -0.02 |
| 2026-06-03 | 4.99 | +0.02 |
| 2026-06-04 | 4.97 | -0.02 |
| 2026-06-05 | 5.01 | +0.04 |
| 2026-06-08 | 5.03 | +0.02 |
| 2026-06-09 | 5.01 | -0.02 |
| 2026-06-10 | 5.03 | +0.02 |
| 2026-06-11 | 4.95 | -0.08 |
| 2026-06-12 | 4.97 | +0.02 |
| 2026-06-15 | 4.97 | 0.00 |
| 2026-06-16 | 4.93 | -0.04 |
| 2026-06-17 | 4.93 | 0.00 |
| 2026-06-18 | 4.90 | -0.03 |
| 2026-06-22 | 4.95 | +0.05 |
| 2026-06-23 | 4.94 | -0.01 |
| 2026-06-24 | 4.86 | -0.08 |
| 2026-06-25 | 4.86 | 0.00 |
| 2026-06-26 | 4.87 | +0.01 |
| 2026-06-29 | 4.86 | -0.01 |
| 2026-06-30 | 4.91 | +0.05 |
| 2026-07-01 | 4.97 | +0.06 |
| 2026-07-02 | 4.98 | +0.01 |
| 2026-07-06 | 4.99 | +0.01 |
| 2026-07-07 | 5.05 | +0.06 |
| 2026-07-08 | 5.06 | +0.01 |
| 2026-07-09 | 5.05 | -0.01 |
| 2026-07-10 | 5.06 | +0.01 |
| 2026-07-13 | 5.10 | +0.04 |
| 2026-07-14 | 5.08 | -0.02 |
| 2026-07-15 | 5.08 | 0.00 |
| 2026-07-16 | 5.09 | +0.01 |
| 2026-07-17 | 5.06 | -0.03 |
| 2026-07-20 | 5.11 | +0.05 |
| 2026-07-21 | 5.13 | +0.02 |
| 2026-07-22 | 5.15 | +0.02 |
| 2026-07-23 | 5.17 | +0.02 |
| 2026-07-24 | 5.16 | -0.01 |
| 2026-07-27 | 5.12 | -0.04 |
| 2026-07-28 | 5.09 | -0.03 |
| 2026-07-29 | 5.20 | +0.11 |
| 2026-07-30 | 5.21 | +0.01 |
| 2026-07-31 | 5.27 | +0.06 |
| 2026-08-03 | 5.23 | -0.04 |
| 2026-08-04 | 5.18 | -0.05 |
| 2026-08-05 | 5.17 | -0.01 |
| 2026-08-06 | 5.22 | +0.05 |
| 2026-08-07 | 5.19 | -0.03 |
| 2026-08-10 | 5.25 | +0.06 |
| 2026-08-11 | 5.24 | -0.01 |
| 2026-08-12 | 5.24 | 0.00 |
| 2026-08-13 | 5.21 | -0.03 |
| 2026-08-14 | 5.25 | +0.04 |
| 2026-08-17 | 5.31 | +0.06 |
| 2026-08-18 | 5.28 | -0.03 |
| 2026-08-19 | 5.19 | -0.09 |
| 2026-08-20 | 5.23 | +0.04 |
| 2026-08-21 | 5.27 | +0.04 |
| 2026-08-24 | 5.23 | -0.04 |
| 2026-08-25 | 5.17 | -0.06 |
| 2026-08-26 | 5.18 | +0.01 |
| 2026-08-27 | 5.19 | +0.01 |
| 2026-08-28 | 5.22 | +0.03 |
| 2026-08-31 | 5.25 | +0.03 |
| 2026-09-01 | 5.27 | +0.02 |
| 2026-09-02 | 5.27 | 0.00 |
| 2026-09-03 | 5.25 | -0.02 |
| 2026-09-04 | 5.24 | -0.01 |
| 2026-09-08 | 5.25 | +0.01 |
| 2026-09-09 | 5.28 | +0.03 |
| 2026-09-10 | 5.37 | +0.09 |
| 2026-09-11 | 5.35 | -0.02 |
| 2026-09-14 | 5.34 | -0.01 |
| 2026-09-15 | 5.36 | +0.02 |
| 2026-09-16 | 5.35 | -0.01 |
| 2026-09-17 | 5.29 | -0.06 |
| 2026-09-18 | 5.34 | +0.05 |
| 2026-09-21 | 5.29 | -0.05 |
| 2026-09-22 | 5.29 | 0.00 |
| 2026-09-23 | 5.40 | +0.11 |
| 2026-09-24 | 5.47 | +0.07 |
| 2026-09-25 | 5.49 | +0.02 |
| 2026-09-28 | 5.56 | +0.07 |
| 2026-09-29 | 5.59 | +0.03 |
| 2026-09-30 | 5.64 | +0.05 |
| 2026-10-01 | 5.61 | -0.03 |
| 2026-10-02 | 5.63 | +0.02 |
| 2026-10-05 | 5.66 | +0.03 |
| 2026-10-06 | 5.64 | -0.02 |
| 2026-10-07 | 5.67 | +0.03 |
| 2026-10-08 | 5.60 | -0.07 |
| 2026-10-09 | 5.60 | 0.00 |
| 2026-10-13 | 5.56 | -0.04 |
| 2026-10-14 | 5.52 | -0.04 |
| 2026-10-15 | 5.43 | -0.09 |
| 2026-10-16 | 5.43 | 0.00 |
| 2026-10-19 | 5.48 | +0.05 |
| 2026-10-20 | 5.42 | -0.06 |
| 2026-10-21 | 5.42 | 0.00 |
| 2026-10-22 | 5.29 | -0.13 |

## Definition

USTSY30 is the raw series that records the thirty-year U.S. Treasury constant maturity yield exactly as published, in percent per annum and without any transformation. A constant maturity yield is read at a fixed remaining maturity from a fitted yield curve, so the value is not the yield of any particular outstanding security.

What is read is a par yield, the single discount rate equating a security's remaining cash flows to a price of par, which is the yield-to-maturity construct of Macaulay (1938), and a level that decomposes into the average short rate expected over the term plus a premium (Hicks 1939). Curves of this kind are recovered from observed Treasury prices by spline estimation of the discount function (McCulloch 1971, 1975; Vasicek and Fong 1982) or by imposing a parametric level-slope-curvature form and its second-term extension (Nelson and Siegel 1987; Svensson 1994), and a daily construction of that class is specified by Gürkaynak, Sack, and Wright (2007), with the competing estimators compared by Bliss (1997). KRED neither fits the curve nor interpolates the maturity point, and the fitting method behind the published value is not restated here.

A par curve is not the zero-coupon term structure that underlies the duration measure of Fisher and Weil (1971), so the recorded value is not a spot rate and is a different object from the zero-coupon and forward curves KRED estimates elsewhere. At thirty years the premium and long-horizon expectations dominate the level, and duration is longest here, so a given change in yield moves price more than anywhere else on the curve. The rate being expected is an operating target, whose corridor and standing-facility mechanics Bindseil (2004) sets out.

## Methodology

KRED applies no transformation to USTSY30 and stores the published constant maturity yield exactly as recorded, with no rescaling, deflating, smoothing, annualizing, or differencing, and it neither fits the curve nor interpolates the maturity point. What follows is therefore the measurement basis by which such a value comes to exist rather than a procedure KRED carries out.

A par yield is the single discount rate equating a security's coupons and principal to a price of par (Macaulay 1938), and the timing of those cash flows is summarized by the zero-coupon-based duration of Fisher and Weil (1971). At long maturities the inputs are coupon-bearing notes and bonds whose long streams of remaining coupons the recovered discount function has to price consistently. A thirty-year point sits at the far end of the fitted range, where the long-run level of a parametric form does most of the work. Recovering a continuous discount function from observed prices proceeds by cubic spline, by its refinement for differential coupon taxation, or by exponential splines (McCulloch 1971, 1975; Vasicek and Fong 1982), while parametric construction instead imposes a level-slope-curvature form or its forward-rate extension (Nelson and Siegel 1987; Svensson 1994). A daily version of that class, producing par, zero-coupon, and forward rates at any maturity, is specified by Gürkaynak, Sack, and Wright (2007), and the estimators are evaluated against one another by Bliss (1997).

Fits of this kind are commonly estimated from off-the-run prices, since an issue trading special in the secured financing market prices richer than the curve, a specialness defined by Duffie (1996). The identity tying a fitted par curve to expected future short rates and a term premium is that of Hicks (1939).

## Applications in Economics

At the long end the premium for holding a long-dated claim is a substantial part of the level, which is the liquidity-premium reading of the term structure given by Hicks (1939), while the expectations part is an average of future settings of the operating target described by Bindseil (2004) and surveyed across operating frameworks by Borio (1997). The long-yield record against which such readings have been checked is the one assembled by Macaulay (1938). At thirty years the compensation for holding duration is spread over the longest horizon the curve reaches.

A long-dated claim carries long duration, so the level governs the relation between yields and realized bondholder returns set out by Fisher and Weil (1971), and it fixes the level factor of a fitted form (Nelson and Siegel 1987), whose extension adds a second term where one hump cannot match the observed shape (Svensson 1994), read from a daily construction of the kind specified by Gürkaynak, Sack, and Wright (2007). The same level discounts long-horizon cash flows through the discount function of McCulloch (1971), and because it is a fitted point rather than a traded yield its level depends on the estimator chosen (Vasicek and Fong 1982; Bliss 1997).

## Applications in Financial Markets

In fixed-income practice this level is the discount rate for long-dated liabilities, and the rate sensitivity it implies is the duration of Macaulay (1938) in the zero-coupon-consistent form of Fisher and Weil (1971). The thirty-year point carries the longest duration on the curve, so long-dated liabilities are immunized there with the least notional.

Relative value is judged by reading the node against a fitted curve, whether a parametric form and its extension (Nelson and Siegel 1987; Svensson 1994), exponential splines (Vasicek and Fong 1982), or a spline discount function and its tax-adjusted variant (McCulloch 1971, 1975), so a cheapness measured against one fit need not survive another (Bliss 1997).

Positions are financed in the secured market, where collateral and specialness set the repo rate below the general riskless rate (Duffie 1996), and the forward rates implied by the curve price the carry and roll-down on the holding (Hicks 1939; Gürkaynak, Sack, and Wright 2007).

## Statistical Tests

On the 12,355 daily observations spanning 1977-02-15 to 2026-07-24, fit with a constant and trend, the unit-root battery agrees that the thirty-year constant-maturity Treasury par yield is integrated of order one. The augmented Dickey-Fuller test of Dickey and Fuller (1979), in the ARMA-consistent lag-augmented form of Said and Dickey (1984) and with lag length set as in Ng and Perron (2001), does not reject a unit root with p = 0.226, the nonparametric Phillips and Perron (1988) test concurs with p = 0.2692, and the Kwiatkowski et al. (1992) stationarity test rejects its trend-stationary null at p < 0.01, so the verdict is an unambiguous I(1). The GLS-detrended power escalation of Elliott, Rothenberg, and Stock (1996) is reserved for ambiguous outcomes under the house protocol and is not required on this clean reading.

Because the level is integrated, the mean-shift and serial-correlation diagnostics are run on the first difference, the stationary object those procedures require, since a break search or a portmanteau on an integrated level would spuriously segment and read near-unit autocorrelations (Bai and Perron 1998; Perron 1989). The multiple-break procedure of Bai and Perron (1998), computed by the dynamic-programming algorithm of Bai and Perron (2003), finds no break in the mean of the differenced series, consistent with the parameter-instability inference of Andrews (1993). The Ljung and Box (1978) portmanteau statistic, refining the original Box and Pierce (1970) form, is computed on the first difference and rejects the white-noise null at both rungs, with Q = 20.8208 at p = 0.0223785 and Q = 43.0333 at p = 0.0020237, while the automatic portmanteau test of Escanciano and Lobato (2009) does not reject at the 5 percent level, with a statistic of 3.74972 at p = 0.0528165. The two readings are reported as they stand rather than reconciled, since a marginal non-rejection is weak evidence of independence and not evidence for it.

The series is daily and has no low-integer seasonal period, so the seasonal-unit-root machinery of Hylleberg et al. (1990) and the Canova and Hansen (1995) seasonal-stationarity test are not applicable and are deliberately not run, the degeneracy of the seasonal auxiliary regression at a daily period being the standard ground (Beaulieu and Miron 1992; Ghysels and Osborn 2001).

## Frequently Asked Questions

### What are US Treasury constant-maturity yields?

United States Treasury constant-maturity par yields at the standard tenors, read from a fitted curve rather than from any individual issue's quote and carried as published.

### Are US Treasury constant-maturity yields the same as zero-coupon rates?

No. They are par yields, corresponding to hypothetical bonds paying coupons out to the stated maturity, and the zero-coupon rate is a different object that does not take the same value.

### Is any maturity in the US Treasury yield panel interpolated?

No. Six months is an observed constant-maturity point in this panel. The six-month point in the Korean government bond group is interpolated because no benchmark issue exists there, so the two must not be read the same way.