Skip to main content

Bond Investors Misled by Wall Street Journal Article

In an article published today in the Wall Street Journal, entitled "The New Bond Equation," the author attempts to educate readers about the potential risks involved in investing in bond mutual funds, given the current economic environment. He writes:

"As the financial crisis heads into its third year, investors in bond funds are facing some difficult choices. Investors usually turn to these funds for safety. But bond funds are facing a host of pressures that are driving down returns, raising long-term risk—and making it tougher to settle on the right investment strategy."
While I agree with the author's statement above, he makes some statements that mislead bond investors. (Click here to read the full article.) For example, he writes:

"....they’re buying vehicles that invest in intermediate-maturity bonds. These funds also typically hold a mix of government, mortgage and investment-grade corporate bonds, which spreads risk around. Even cautious intermediate-bond funds yield about 4%, handily beating rates available on money-market funds."

This quote above is comparing apples to oranges, as these investments have completely different risk levels. Of course an intermediate term bond fund will yield much more than a money market fund. Investors face the risk of rising interest rates when they hold longer term bonds. The more rates rise, the more their longer term bonds suffer price declines. For this additional risk money market investors don't face, intermediate bond investors expect a higher return over time.

Further, in the article the author initially talked about buying long-term treasuries as a very safe bet. He really misled readers about the risk and corresponding volatility involved, ignoring interest rate risk and price fluctuations. However, the author did later explain how these fluctuations occur and provided a good description of bond duration, which investors or their investment advisors need to understand. In an oversimplified explanation, think of duration as how long it takes to get your money back from the bond. The larger the duration the longer it takes to get your money back and thus the more interest rate risk inherent in the bond or bond fund.

To provide a real-life example, VUSTX (Vanguard Long Term Treasury) has a duration of 11.6 and a standard deviation of 12%, which a measurement of how volatile the investment is. Comparatively, VFISX (Vanguard Short Term Treasury) has a duration of 2.6 and a standard deviation of just more than 2%--a much less volatile and thus a 'safer' bet than it's long-term counterpart. As rates change, there is little lag with the short-term rate bond fund, so the volatility is much, much lower. Longer term rates aren't quick to change and thus their price fluctuates much more, causing increased standard deviation.

A reader posted a comment that makes an argument that individual investors should use individual bonds rather than bond mutual funds. However, investors must be careful in purchasing individual bonds. Transaction costs to purchase bonds on the secondary market are quite high for smaller denomination bonds, making a low cost mutual fund and its institutional purchasing power less costly net of fees. Further, most investors purchasing individual bonds will be resigned to treasuries and AAA-AA municipals, as they can't afford to purchase enough riskier bonds to gain adequate diversification of credit risk. The same isn't true for a low cost bond mutual fund.

In short, keep your bonds 'short and sweet', meaning short duration and high credit quality. A low cost bond fund with these characteristics will serve you just fine, but if you have substantial assets, you could purchase individual bonds and get a bit more control of your bond / income portfolio. However, a mutual fund may still be preferable because of the diversification, liquidity, and simplicity it yields for the investor.

To Your Prosperity ~ Kevin Kroskey

Popular posts from this blog

Diversification: Disciplinarian of Disciplinarians

Disciplined diversification works when you do and even when you don't want it to. Diversification in effect forces you to sell the thing that has been doing so well in your portfolio and to buy the thing that hasn't. While this makes rational sense, it is emotionally difficult to execute. Think back to the tail end of 2008--were you selling bonds and cash to buy stocks? Most likely you weren't unless your advisor or some sort of automatic trigger did it for you. Carl Richards of www.behaviorgap.com provided a good reminder of how diversification works in a recent NY Times blog post. The diversification he discusses here is more so related to equity asset-class diversification but also touches on the three basic building blocks--equities, bonds, and cash. He doesn't discuss alternative asset classes -- an asset class that doesn't fit neatly into the three basic categories -- being used to further diversification, but that's a detailed topic for another day. ...

Should We Go Back on the Gold Standard?

If you watched the Republican presidential debates, you might have noticed that a number of  candidates yearn for a return to the gold standard—that is, that every dollar issued by the government would be backed by a comparable value in gold bars that were stashed away in a government vault. Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas argued that the dollar should have a fixed value in gold, and Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky added that printing money without backing in the precious metal destroys the value of our currency. Mike Huckabee, former governor of Arkansas, thinks that if not gold, then the dollar could be pegged to a basket of commodities. All are mostly concerned that printing money will cause runaway inflation.   But there may be several problems with this return to the fiscal system of the late 1800s and early 1900s. One is that inflation has barely budged even as the Federal Reserve Board was piling one QE stimulus on top of another, and the government was adding records amoun...

What Does $100 Buy You in Your Home State?

A new map released by the Tax Foundation shows exactly how far $100 would go in all 50 states. Using recently released data from the Bureau of Economic Analysis, the Tax Foundation was able to show how the varying prices of goods, housing and income taxes in each state can impact consumers’ purchasing power. Southerners and Midwesterners have a serious edge over those along the East and West Coasts. A hundred bucks goes the furthest in Mississippi, where $100 will buy you what would cost $115.74 in another state that's closer to the national average. The next low-price states are Arkansas, Missouri, and Alabama. Ohio comes in at an encouraging $112.11 Meanwhile, $100 would only be worth $84.60 in the District of Columbia, the priciest state, $85.32 in Hawaii and $86.66 in New York. http://finance.yahoo.com/news/how-much--100-is-worth-in-your-state-152310027.html Click the Map Read More