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.

The Value of Double-Checking & Monitoring Your Retirement Strategy

Motivational speaker Denis Waitley once remarked, “You must stick to your conviction, but be ready to abandon your assumptions.” That statement certainly applies to retirement planning. Your effort must not waver, yet you must also examine it from time to time. 1       Perhaps you may realize that you under-estimated your health insurance costs and will need more retirement income than previously assumed. Or perhaps, with today's low interest rates you are not getting the level of investment returns you counted on. With those factors and others in mind, here are some signs that you may need to double-check your retirement strategy.     Your portfolio lacks significant diversification. Many baby boomers are approaching retirement with portfolios heavily weighted in U.S. equities. As many of them will have long retirements and a sustained need for growth investing, you could argue that this is entirely appropriate. Yet, U.S. equities by some measures may be over-valued by

65-80 Year Olds … A New and Exciting Demography

Should today’s 70-year-old American be considered “old?” How do you define that term these days? Statistically, your average 70-year-old has just a 2% chance of dying within a year. The estimated upper limits of average life expectancy is now 97, and a rapidly growing number of 70-year-olds will live past age 100. Perhaps more importantly, today’s 70-year-olds are in much better shape than their grandparents were at the same age. In most developed countries, healthy life expectancy from age 50 is growing faster than life expectancy itself, suggesting that the period of diminished vigor and ill health towards the end of life is being compressed. A recent series of articles in the Economist magazine suggest that we need a new term for people age 65 to 80, who are generally healthy and hearty, capable of knowledge-based work on an equal footing with 25-year-olds, and who are increasingly being shunted out of the workforce as if they were invalids or, well, “old.” Indeed, the a