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

Last Week Was Not One To Miss

Last week the Dow rose 7.3% last week amid earnings reports from many companies, as reported in the Wall Street Journal ( http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124782681174757379.html ). For most companies, it's not like the reports were necessarily good. It was that the news was not as bad as expected . This rapid rise in the market occurred despite poor economic news, including rising unemployment now predicted to go north of 10%. To many investors, this seems counter-intuitive: poor economic news and declining earnings reports compared to the same time last year yet the market goes up markedly. How come? It's quite simple actually. The market looks forward and reacts to new and unknowable information . So even though the news was bad, much of it was not as bad as expected . Thus the new information positively changed market expectations and prices adjusted upward. Unless you can predict the future, as investors we must stay invested through good times and bad to ensure we experien...

Did You Do as Well as Your Mutual Fund?

It's common practice to look at a fund's total return number for a snapshot of what performance to expect, but that won't give you the full picture. Morningstar studies have shown that investors' actual gains frequently pale in comparison to reported total return numbers. This phenomenon frequently plays out among funds that attract assets after streaks of hot performance, only to see some investors get skittish at the first signs of underperformance . After a moment's though, even a novice investor will realize that this behavior is just the opposite of the mantra -- buy low and sell high. This practice can be more broadly attributed to bad behavior and lack of a plan or philosophy when it comes to investing. Investors are human and humans are emotional. As much as the logician in me would like to believe my left brain is working to drive my decision making, logic comes in after emotions are experienced to provide context for how we are feeling and not the other ...

The Cruel Psychology of the 1,000-Point Drop

If you don't already read Jason Zweig's regular column in the Wall Street Journal, you should. He is one of the few financial journalists worth reading. His recent article on the psychology of the recent market drop is rational and instructive. ==== Click here to read the article in it's entirety: http://blogs.wsj.com/moneybeat/2015/08/24/the-cruel-psychology-of-the-1000-point-drop/ See below for a snippet: Experiments have shown , for instance, that people believe cancer is riskier when they are told that it kills “1,286 out of 10,000 people” than when they hear that it kills “24.14 out of 100 people.” Hearing “1,286” immediately brings a large number of victims to mind, while “24.14” is simply a much smaller number. To notice that the first number is less than 13%, while the second is more than 24%, you have to focus on the denominators of the fractions and do some quick division. But your emotions will likely hijack your brain long before you get to that poi...