At this point in the cycle, when everyone is hammering that bonds are expensive, if one's stock/bond allocation is tilted too highly towards stocks due to the recent uptrend, how should new money be allocated? Is holding cash appropriate?
The first thing to note is that this was an anonymous comment so obviously there is no way an RIA can give specific advice to an anonymous commenter on a website.
As for holding cash. If someone can afford it then I do believe in some sort of cash cushion as an emergency fund. Some would tell you this should be the priority over having an investment portfolio, some would suggest an emergency cash fund should be the secondary priority to an investment portfolio. I don't have one answer here which is why I say if you can afford it.
The other aspect to cash is holding some cash tactically in an investment portfolio which I think is fine and we often do have some cash in the portfolio. With where interest rates are, cash that is in an emergency fund will not grow, which is obviously a tradeoff for the peace of mind the someone might get from having a sum of money for the unexpected. Cash waiting to be deployed in an investment portfolio will also not grow which is a tradeoff for the ability to be opportunistic.
As far as bonds being expensive that is generically the case but not universally true and investors need to decide what it is they are trying to do with the bond portion of the portfolio. Longer term treasuries have been dangerously expensive for a while but have continued to climb in price. Why can't the ten year US treasury yield go down to 1.5%? Japan's did. If it does go to 1.5% then some people will have had a very good trade. There is obviously some percentage of the time where buying at the all time high (or close to it) works out to be a great trade.
Great trades are not the primary objective for how we manage fixed income portfolios for clients. The very low interest rates that exist in most segments of the bond market creates interest rate risk. As a general rule for each 100 basis point increase in the interest rate the price of a ten year bond will drop about 8%. The price drop for a longer dated bond under the same circumstance will drop even further in price. With an individual bond you will get your principal back (assumes no default) but waiting for eight or nine years while collecting below market interest is not ideal. Of course bond funds have no par value to revert back to. If/when interest rates normalize (think 5-6% for high quality ten year paper) there will be some bond funds (both indexed ETFs and actively managed funds) that will get decimated. A couple of Sundays ago I mentioned TLT dropping 6% when the ten year yield went up just a few basis points.
As disclosed in previous blog posts our path has been to minimize exposure to what appears to be the most obvious risk facing the bond market which is interest rate risk. We have a large portion of our fixed income exposure in short dated, investment grade corporates (individual issues). If rates skyrocket starting today the price of these short term issues will not tank because of how close they are to maturity. We might be collecting below market interest (that is if rates do go up a lot) for 18-24 months as opposed to eight or nine years as mentioned above.
We also have a large portion in individual foreign sovereign debt that is also short dated. In some cases the yield is pretty close to normal like Australia and in other cases the idea is owning very fiscally sound economies like with Norway. We also use an emerging market debt ETF to round out our foreign exposure.
We take a little bit of interest rate risk with a couple of funds (one CEF and one traditional mutual fund). The yields are pretty good but they are funds so there would be no par value for them to return to. Another good source of yield are individual preferred stocks. We own one from a bank and one from a REIT. Again the yields are good; high fives, low sixes. I am not a fan of the preferred stock ETFs, all the ones I've ever looked at are heavy in financial companies that I want no part of.
The last segment we have exposure to is inflation protected. The percentage allocated depends on the age of the client. Someone who is 50 will generally have more exposure here than someone who is 70. I think ETFs can be used in this space. We own the iShares TIP ETF (TIP) and while it is not up as much as TLT since we bought TIP it has done well with very little relative volatility.
For a couple of the segments above, as noted, I prefer individual issues but that may not be ideal for individual investors managing their own portfolios but there are ETF solutions that I think can work. For corporate bonds I would look to the BulletShares product line from Guggenheim and I think iShares is on to something with the recently launched corporate sector ETFs.
You need to look under the hood of anything but with the BulletShares you have to know how they work. The 2016 fund, symbol BSCG, isn't really a 2016 fund. There are issues in there that start maturing in February of that year and the proceeds will be held as cash until the fund terminates. I didn't take a complete inventory but at some point in the middle of the year the fund might be 50% cash. Maybe it is better to think of the 2016 fund as more of a 2015 fund but either way I think they can be very useful for individual investors who have taken the time to look under the hood.
There is also utility with the foreign bond ETFs too. iShares and SPDR have some funds here but PIMCO and WisdomTree seem to be doing more interesting things here. The broader funds tend to be heavy in Japan and Europe which are not great places to be. Our emerging market bond fund is the PowerShares fund with symbol PCY--obviously we think that is good fund to hold.
This was a long post but hopefully creates some understanding of spreading things across many different segments of the bond market as a way to reduce certain types of risks. Risk can't be eliminated of course but the potential impact can be minimized somewhat. The other observation is that I am not a fan of broad based funds as a first choice for accounts large enough for it to make economic sense to have many exposures. A $100,000 account for a younger person with a 25% allocation bonds probably can't take on eight different fixed income positions so something like the iShares Aggregate (AGG) does make sense.





13 comments:
Your comments about interest rate risk in bonds is spot on. I don't think many people grasp this but it is profound.
I think your stance on all financial companies is unwarranted. There are some jewels out there.
I would also have a concern about your position on foreign exposure. There is risk more exposure in that segment than meets the eye. IMHO.
Lastly, your last sentence. Why would a young person with a 100k+ account have any exposure to bonds? That is a time in life to be going full throttle. Again, IMHO.
Your analysis of a bond vs bond fund is mostly incorrect.
Roger,
Good fixed income analysis.
I have put together short-intermediate term ladders of corporate and muni bonds for my 89 year old mother as well as myself. It's comforting knowing that there is a date certain maturity for the bonds and default risk, while real, is minimal.
Bond funds can really hurt you when interest rates rise rapidly and suddenly and you could be stuck in them for years waiting to break even depending on the duration of the fund.
Great post, Roger. It's very interesting to see there are lots of alternatives which might not correlate so closely to stock markets if (or rather, when) they take the next leg down.
I remember in 2007 you said you were getting out of sterling (when it bought around £2.02) which I followed with my own actions and was glad I did. I've not read any of your posts where you're now indicating any particularly risky currencies (although through inference of your discussions the Euro and Yen could of course be candidates).
I've recently read divided opinions over which currencies are/will be strong - the US dollar, Yen, Krone, Swiss Franc, NZ dollar, Latin Americas' and even the Pound (although that was by Barcap last year; who ever said that, where they wrong or early?).
So it seems, without any strong indicators, to spread risk over several would be the sound and sensible route. The other sensible option, referring to your post a few days ago, would be to be ready to lighten up on exposure to stocks if certain conditions are met (200 DMA breach and *Death Cross* - accompanied with suitably foreboding music - being the strongest indicators). If demand is weak then regardless of how old the bull looks it's possibly over.
Contrary to many PI comments on websites I see further progress (or sideways action) in markets until Operation Twist ends and if it is not immediately replaced. Here I have more confidence in it being replaced until the US economy builds up enough steam - through tax cuts and less government, surely(!!) - to carry on without any stimuli. But, notwithstanding further actions from the FED, technical indicators need to be heeded as well. Thanks for the help.
Roger - what's your take on high yield? I know you mentioned emerging market bonds, but what about other high yield such as HYG or JNK (or some of the high yield Bulletshares). Do you allocate any of your fixed income allocation to these or do you tend to classify them in the "equities" allocation due to the close correlation?
I don't really do anything in this space.
I can't believe how many people subscribe to the fallacy that individual bonds are better in rising rate environments than bond funds. If you can prove it is true mathematically, then you have discovered a whole new potential area for arbitrage.
Oh well, all I can do is suggest that those with an open mind spend some time studying the subject.
You mention potential problems with owning long duration treasuries (like those in TLT). I agree that there will be issues when rates rise but one of the things almost no one does is own long treasuries simply for the diversification benefits (which are excellent).
Long treasuries are really the only asset class that is currently negatively correlated to almost everything else. Having 5-10% of a portfolio in long treasuries greatly reduces volatility and provides an appreciated asset to redeploy (rebalance) after major market sell offs.
Of course, correlations change and could in this case. But until proven otherwise, investors should consider this (despised) asset class.
My guess is that most investors don't touch it because they are absolutely convinced rates will go higher. Of course, if rates rise it is likely the economy and markets will be doing well. So, an investor's allocation to stocks should more than offset a small holding in long treasuries.
Mike,
Given the extent to which the bond market is distorted, i am not as confident as you are that things will be going well when rates finally do go higher.
Roger,
It's been hard to argue with bond investors over the years. As a group, they seem more accurate than the stock investors.
You may be right though: could be rough on all asset classes when rates rise.
Hi Roger,
I just wanted to let you know that you made today's Best of The Bond Market.
http://www.learnbonds.com/minimize-fixed-income-risk/
we said . .
Random Roger: How to Minimize Fixed Income Portfolio Risk - An Explanation of spreading things across many different segments of the bond market as a way to reduce certain types of risks. Risk can’t be eliminated of course but the potential impact can be minimized somewhat.
Best regards,
Marc Prosser
Publisher
LearnBonds
thank you
I am surprised no one has mentioned GNMA bond funds. These funds have remained relatively stable over time, haven't they?
Post a Comment