≡ Menu

Negative yields on bonds: what do they mean?

There was quite the flurry recently over the UK government selling its first ever negative yield bond. The idea of paying somebody to borrow your money sounds pretty la la and it isn’t going to settle the nerves of many Monevator readers who can’t see why they’d bother with bonds in a zero interest rate world.

Article over? If only.

There are good reasons to hold even negative-yielding bonds – and plenty of myths to bust about negative yields and negative interest rates in general.

So let’s go through the looking glass into a world where things are not as they should be.

What do negative yields mean?

Negative yields do not mean that you periodically wire money back to the government for the privilege of loaning them your dosh.

The UK’s maiden negative conventional government bond goes by the name of 0¾% Treasury Gilt 20231 and £3.8 billion worth of the blighter was auctioned off on 20 May 2020.

0¾% Treasury is a 3-year gilt2 that pays an annual interest rate (also known as the coupon rate) of 0.75% on its face value3 of £100.

In an ordinary world that means you get:

  • 75p of income every year you hold the £100 bond.
  • £100 if you hold the bond on its maturity date – this is you getting back the original £100 loan you made to the government in exchange for that whopping 75p interest per year.

In negative-yielding bond world though, successful bidders paid the government an average price of £102.38 for gilts with a face value of £100. It’s the price they paid that plonks us into negative-yield territory.

If you bought this gilt at auction and then held it for three years – collecting your 75p annual interest along the way – you still only get the £100 face value back on its maturity date. That means you’d see a £2.38 capital loss on the £102.38 bid price. After totting up your interest payments and subtracting your capital loss after three years, it’d turn out that you’d ‘enjoyed’ a -0.003% yield4.

Overall, you’ve got back less than you paid the government to take your money. It’s as if you’re paying them a storage fee or an insurance premium to look after it for you.

Positive news side-story Just because investors were willingly fleeced on one gilt doesn’t mean all UK government bonds are now being auctioned off with negative yields: 4¼% Treasury Stock 2032 made it off the starting blocks the very next day with a positive yield of 0.321%. Lucky investors!

Negative yields on bonds: there’s more than one way to lose money

Don’t worry if you’ve failed to snag a specimen of 0¾% Treasury. There are plenty of other ways to add a negative-yielding bond to your collection.

  • The UK’s Debt Management Office (DMO) has been auctioning index-linked gilts at negative yields for years.
  • The FT cited a -1.722% yield on a 20-year linker sold in August 2016 and -0.974% on another linker sold in the fateful June of that year.
  • Negativity has only increased since then. Investors accepted a -2.8% negative yield on 0 1/8% Index-linked Treasury Gilt 2028 when it was auctioned on 21 May 2020.
  • A one-month UK Treasury bill was sold off at a negative yield in 2016, too.

Of course, you or I aren’t raising a hand or waggling our eyebrows at the DMO’s chief auctioneer when we go gilt shopping. We buy our bonds in the secondary market, courtesy of our brokers or fund managers. And yields have turned negative for gilts in this secondary market, for maturity dates of two to five years away5, according to the FT’s UK yield curve chart.

At the time of writing the FT table showed a top yield of 0.6% for gilts maturing in 30 years. This yield is a nominal number. Subtract expected inflation (perhaps 1.5 to 2%) and we’re still neck deep in negative returns across the bond board.

Flip the chart to Eurozone bonds, and we have negative yields all the way out to the 30-year mark – and that’s before even considering inflation.

Negative yields on bonds: what kind of yield is that?

The yield to look at when comparing bonds is the yield to maturity (YTM).

The YTM is the annualised return you earn on a bond if you hold it until the ‘end-date’ indicated by the bond’s name. It’s the return you can expect from receiving the remaining interest payments and getting the bond’s face value back, after you account for the market price that you paid for it.

Any bond on the secondary market can potentially inflict a negative YTM if you pay a sufficiently high price for its future cashflows.

Imagine a gilt that matures in two years that currently trades on the secondary market at £110:

  • Market price: £110
  • Face value: £100
  • Years to maturity: 2
  • Coupon rate: 1%

Pop those particulars into a yield to maturity calculator and it will spit back a -3.8% YTM.

So you’ll lose 3.8% annualised on that (fictitious) bond, at that market price, if you hold it to maturity.

YTM helps you compare bonds that differ by market price, maturity date, and coupon rate. But note that as a bond’s price fluctuates, its YTM will change, too

Why invest in negative yield bonds?

The main reason to invest in a negative-yielding bond is the same reason why we’d invest in any high-quality bond: risk control.

Bond prices go up when yields go down, and nobody knows how low negative yields can go. If you bought in at a negative yield of -0.5%, say, it could slide further to -1% and you may make a handsome capital gain when you need it most – in a crisis:

UK intermediate gilt ETF vs MSCI World equities ETF during the Global Financial Crisis (GFC)

Intermediate gilts rise while World equities fall during the GFC.

This graph shows investors fleeing to the safety of UK government bonds as the equity market bombed from late 2007 to 2009. When the market touched bottom at -38% on 6 March 2009, investors were selling off equities and buying high-quality government bonds as they sought a safe haven for their capital. In comparison, the gilt ETF was up +18.6%6 as of 6 March 2009.

This is the main purpose of bonds: to stabilise our portfolios and stop us panicking when equities plunge. They worked again during the coronavirus crash and are more likely than not to go on working when you need them most. Gilts have played their role as financial parachute in a clear majority of UK downturns for over a century.

UK equities fell -71% in 1973-74. US equities fell by 90% during the Great Depression. You best believe that investors will flee into the arms of negative-yielding bonds if the alternative they see is double-digit losses in the equity markets. The worse the crisis, the more you need high-quality bonds, and the less likely negative yields will be anybody’s foremost concern as they stampede for safety.

Given negative yields are a form of insurance premium paid to the government, today’s prices may even seem cheap in the future – for example if the years to come are dominated by secular stagnation and periodic QE injections aimed at staving off deflation.

I’m not predicting that’s what awaits us – who knows – but it is a plausible scenario. It’s certainly not hard to imagine we could be living in a low-growth world for the next decade or more, given where we are now.

Do interest rates have to go back to normal?

Real interest rates have declined by approximately 1% every 60 years since 1311, according to Yale Professor Paul Schmelzing’s paper Eight Centuries of Global Real Interest Rates. See the chart below.

The secular decline in interest rates over 700 years
The secular decline in real interest rates over the last 700 years.

Now that’s a very topline reading of the paper and there are plenty of instances of mean reversion, but you can see in the Schmelzing chart (excerpted by Bloomberg) that the world was no stranger to negative rates in the 20th century, and that the trend line keeps heading down.

Here’s another view: the relentless drop in government bond yields that kicked in from the early ’80s:

Fall in real yields for government bonds since the early 1980s

Source: Sarasin Compendium Of Investment 2020, p.16

On the other hand, gilt yields climbed for 28 years from 1947-1975. Bond returns would likely be hammered if that experience was repeated over the next few decades.

We can cherry-pick evidence all we like, but the critical point is not to believe that history’s path is already set.

The constant refrain after the GFC was that interest rates would return to normal and that bonds would be beaten with shoes. That didn’t happen.

It still doesn’t have to happen. And it definitely doesn’t have to happen just because we think it should, or because that’s what we were used to.

The greater fool

One reason to buy negative-yielding bonds is because you believe you can make a capital gain later when they go up in price. This is an instance of the greater fool theory: the asset has no long-term positive cashflow expectation and so returns rely on you palming it off for a higher price on some other schmuck in the future.

Gold is a great example of an asset where returns rely on the greater fool because it produces no income. And how many people buy gold but have the fear about negative-yielding bonds?

Some investors are happy to buy negative bonds now because they’re betting on central banks jacking the price as they hoover up bonds shed by government QE programmes.

Another source of demand comes from financial institutions such as pension funds and insurance companies that can’t stop gorging on government bonds because they need them to match future liabilities. They don’t really seem to mind if clients have to pay more in order to get over the pesky negative yield thing.

Bond prices could also be propped up if a future government decided that Austerity II was the way to restore order once the post-lockdown bailout has garnered enough bad headlines. They could snap shut the public purse, and constrict the supply of bonds while demand for safe (-ish) assets remained high.

As a passive investor in bond index funds these aren’t bets I can safely make.

I repeat the fact that I do not know what will happen – accepting that is my chief advantage. Because I don’t know what will happen, I’m not about to ditch bonds because interest rates supposedly must rise.

Even as I write this, the UK’s ‘first’ negative-yielding bond has risen in price from £102.38 to £102.51.

You can also read about any number of profitable trades made on negative-yielding Japanese and Eurozone bonds.

And remember that -0.97% yielding 20-year index-linked gilt7 that was issued in June 2016?

Well, investors lapped up another 20-year linker8 with a negative yield of -2.17% that was issued on 14 May 2020.

Here’s what I am doing

  • I’m using a negative real expected return for bonds – I don’t think hoping for the historical average return is realistic.
  • Holding some cash – at least my cash yields are only negative after inflation. The problem is that cash returns don’t spike when equities plunge. But cash has outperformed gilts in some crises, so I maintain a slug for diversification purposes.
  • Holding for the long term – if bond prices fall then you’ll reinvest (ideally) your interest into cheaper bonds with higher yields. Do that for longer than your bond’s duration and you’ll be in profit. (I’ve drastically oversimplified there but that’s the principle.)
  • I’m remembering my response to the coronavirus crash. I didn’t sell. I kept pound-cost averaging into equities. I didn’t have any sleepless nights but I couldn’t rebalance. That suggests my risk tolerance is about right and bonds are an important part of that.
  • I’m not buying long bond funds. Intermediate gilt bond trackers still respond well in a downturn, and won’t be as badly battered as long bonds in a 1947-1975-style rising yield environment.
  • I’m not reaching for yield – I’m not switching any of my high-quality government bond allocation to higher-yielding corporate bonds, junk bonds, minimum volatility ETFs, or dividend aristocrats. More yield equals more risk.

It’s because I don’t know what will happen that I have to buy bonds – negative yields or not.

Take it steady,

The Accumulator

  1. ISIN: GB00BF0HZ991, SEDOL: B-F0H-Z99 []
  2. UK government bonds are generally known as gilts. []
  3. Also known as par value. []
  4. That’s the annualised loss you’d have made on the deal every year. []
  5. Subject to change! Five-year bonds flipped between positive and negative as I wrote this article. []
  6. From 12/10/2007 []
  7. 0 1/8% Index-linked Treasury Gilt 2036, GB00BYZW3J87 []
  8. 0 1/8% Index-linked Treasury Gilt 2048, GB00BZ13DV40 []

Receive my articles for free in your inbox. Type your email and press submit:

{ 73 comments… add one }
  • 51 Naeclue June 3, 2020, 1:42 pm

    To put a bit more bones on the reasons for my preference of deposits over gilts at present, I have done a quick calculation based on the FT yield curve page linked to in the article. 10 year gilts currently yielding 0.26%. Extrapolating between the 5 and 10 year yields gives a 7 year gilt yield of about 0.176%. A fictitious 10 year gilt yielding 0.26%, would yield 0.176% in 3 years time if the price rose to about 100.6 (a bond calculator is needed for that step). So the return over 3 years is about 0.26%*3 + 0.5% = 0.138%. divide by 3 gives a rough internal rate of return of about 0.46%. I could do this more accurately, but with bond yields so low compounding does not matter too much. So a reasonable expectation for the return on a 10 year gilt over 3 years is about 0.5% per year, but I can get 1.5% on a 3 year fixed deposit. I give up liquidity to get the extra 1%, but on the other hand I am certain of getting the return, unlike with the 10 year gilt.

    To take this a bit further, in order to get 1.5% per year on a 10 year gilt, I would need a price rise of about 3 times 1.5% – 0.26%, which equals 3.72%, so the 10y gilt would need to rise to 103.72 over 3 years to give the same return as a 3y fixed deposit. A 7 year gilt paying 0.26%, priced at 103.72 implies a yield to maturity of about -0.27%. This is the issue I have with gilts compared with cash deposits. Sure 7 year gilts could be yielding less than -0.27% in 3 years time, but it is unreasonable and speculative to use that as the central projection. By going for a 10 year gilt instead of a 3y fixed deposit, I am taking on risk for a lower expected return, but with the possibility of a greater return should equities do very badly. Everyone needs to make their own minds up, but that does not strike me as a good investment opportunity.

  • 52 Whettam June 3, 2020, 2:28 pm

    Fascinating article and subsequent conversation as always. As others have said, I still struggle with choices / allocations of my “lower” risk assets.

    I have never really regarded cash as part of my retirement investment portfolio. I have an emergency fund, minimum of three months take home, currently at 7 – 8 months and current situation has made me keep adding to this, so maybe I’m just doing the same as you @TI? At end of tax year, I always have option of reducing this and adding it to investment portfolio, but at this point it would be added to my allocations. Maybe I should actually include cash in my asset allocation %’s?

    I nominally have a 25% bond allocation, but in reality about 10% off this is an old with profits pension, which delivers a guaranteed 4% p.a. I regard this a “super bond”, but the underlying investments obvioulsly include a mixed of fixed interest and equities. The remainder of my bond allocation is split 10% UK gilts, 5% Linkers and 5% corporate / strategic bond. Apart from the strategic bonds, no overseas bond allocation, largely on basis of FIRE advice of holding bonds in your own currency.

    As others have said, I view the bond allocation largely as risk mitigation and a diversifier. In Jan I was four years away from my target date. In March about 25% down and at the time I thought that had put retirement back at least two years, but I stuck to my allocations. Now only 2 – 3% down and who knows about that 2024 retirement?! But I’m glad that I have continued to hold a bond allocation, it helps me sleep better.

  • 53 Matthew June 3, 2020, 3:21 pm

    We could use annuities as a store of cash, with 90% fscs protection with no upper limit, and possibly inflation protection. It ensures a certain level of income

  • 54 Berkshire Pat June 3, 2020, 4:34 pm

    I don’t really follow the logic here;
    “A 10-year Gilt is (being horribly simplistic) a discounted geometric average of policy rate expectations over the next decade. For all you know, the BoE cuts rates to -5% in the next year and keeps it there for a decade. Yes you earn 1% for the next year but the you find the depo is at -4% for the next 9 years. That’s rollover risk. The 10-year Gilt at 0% would look great value in that scenario.”
    Surely any rational small investor should lock in 1% or whatever over a few (2?) years, and repeat while interest rates remain positive. If they turn negative the sensible thing to do is to keep the cash in a current account (if free), or in a tin box under the bed, until rates return to normality. So that’s 2 years at 1% and 8 years at 0% in the example above, vs. 10 years at 0% for the Gilt. I do get that the bond yield may go negative resulting in a capital gain if sold before maturity… if…
    It seems to be an odd idea, this greater fool theory, in that people are queuing up to buy assets and are prepared to pay a premium to effectively lose *even more* money than the current holder. I’ll get me some of that. Not.

  • 55 NewInvestor June 3, 2020, 5:07 pm

    Thanks for the response. Your caution is understandable. Of course, if I were being playfully arch, I’d suggest you were edging into timing the market. 😉 And surely that would never do.

  • 56 Algernond June 3, 2020, 5:37 pm

    @never give up (40).
    I’ve often wondered why there was no Lifestrategy 0 fund also.
    But then again, if you never plan to go below 20% equity, I suppose it doesn’t matter..

  • 57 never give up June 3, 2020, 5:55 pm

    @Algernond. I like the LifeStrategy funds for accumulation purposes, but when I’m actually living off of my savings I’d rather be able to sell bonds separately, especially if stocks are experiencing a difficult patch. So if there was a LifeStrategy 0 fund someone could pair it with a Global stocks fund and choose their asset allocation precisely to their needs e.g. 65:35 that couldn’t be created without using two LifeStrategy funds anyway. But even if their desired asset allocation was 20:80 or 60:40 which are available through LifeStrategy, a two fund set up would have the advantage of them being able to draw on the LifeStrategy 0 fund and not impact their stocks at that precise moment in time. But yes other than this fairly small point I guess it doesn’t really matter.

    It’s just given how many different types of bonds there are I find it curious there doesn’t seem to be a diversified all in one bond fund. The concept exists for stocks so why not for bonds.

  • 58 MrOptimistic June 3, 2020, 7:03 pm

    I think you can be too purist about these things. I use LS20 as a bond proxy with a little bit of diversity seasoning, ditto LS80 for equities. I would be happy to sell either to rebalance. It’s not an exact science ( well actually it’s not a science at all but you know).

  • 59 MrOptimistic June 3, 2020, 7:24 pm

    As I spend my young adult life in the 70’s I have a dread of inflation and I am uncomfortable with long duration. Can’t get past that . In deflation, isn’t cash good enough ( assuming no bank crisis and haircuts) ? Wouldn’t inflation plus the response of raising interest rates crease long bonds ? Inflation while keeping rates low ( has this been tried before ?) would seem to still penalise long bonds and probably force money into equities.
    Sold RIO and bought Stoxx 600 basic resources in the hope this embeds some inflation protection albeit with eyewatering volatility: not that much though. Should teach me a lesson one way or the other. Lockdown could make active investors of us all.

  • 60 Gizzard June 3, 2020, 7:56 pm

    @Mousecatcher007 Check out the Morgan Lloyd SIPP. You can invest in a range of interest bearing bank accounts of varying duration and interest rates (jncluding NS&I (i.e. Government backed with a £1M limit). I have started moving over the cash portion of my Hargreaves Lansdown cash allocation (paying 0%).

  • 61 ermine June 3, 2020, 8:14 pm

    > As I spend my young adult life in the 70’s I have a dread of inflation and I am uncomfortable with long duration.

    I too am surprised at the nonchalance re inflation in the FIRE space. But them many will only have seen it as a reference in history books and black and white photos of Germans with wheelbarrows of paper money.

    Perhaps people with largely equity portfolios don’t have to worry about inflation in the way previous generations did, who were dependent on annuities of some sort.

  • 62 bloodonthestreets June 4, 2020, 7:39 am

    I’m by no means an expert in these matters, but with yields so incredibly low, are bonds now too volatile? A tiny move in yield causes large movements in price. As an example, my stocks index fund was up 1.2% yesterday but my U.K. bonds index fund was down almost by the same amount.

    Is it possible that bonds are no longer the “no risk “ asset class they used to be, and the whole passive investing theory If asset allocations needs rethinking now?

  • 63 Algernond June 4, 2020, 8:58 am

    @bloodonthestreets – That’s why I use Global Aggregate Bond fund (hedged)… less volatile.

  • 64 ZXSpectrum48k June 4, 2020, 9:31 am

    @bloodonthestreets. Gilts moved quite a bit higher in yield yesterday, with the 10y 5bp higher and 30y about 8bp higher. So you should have lost about 0.85% on a typical Gilt tracker (duration 13). Nonetheless, the FTSE ASX still moved 2.6% by comparison, 3x as much.

    Remember, as yields fall, the duration of a bond will increase due to positive convexity (convexity = rate of change of duration wrt yield changes). So as bonds rally, you get longer bond exposure, and as yields rise, you get shorter bond exposure. So if you’d bought say £100k notional of the 10-year Gilt at the start of the year when the yield was 90bp, you’re sensitivity to yields changes would have been about £120/basis point of risk. Now at a yield of 26bp, you’ve got around £130/basis point of risk. So you’re around 8% longer of Gilts than you were at the start of the year. If you don’t like being longer, then you can sell 8% of your Gilt portfolio to lock in a profit. Classic rebalancing.

    Personally, I don’t think in terms of the amount of cash I’ve got in bonds. I look at the PVBP (price value of a basis point) in my portfolio. So at the start of the year, in USTs I had $2mm in ZROZ (duration 27), $2mm in TLT (duration 23) and $1mm in VLGT (duration 22) . I didn’t see that as $5mm in USTs, I saw it as $12.2k/bp. So on a 10bp move in either direction I would make/lose around $120k. That’s the relevant metric for understanding my risk. The cash amount just isn’t relevant.

  • 65 ermine June 4, 2020, 11:48 am

    @TI #37

    At some point during this bear market I realized — emotionally, not mentally — that I probably shouldn’t keep doing this.

    I’m older, I have that mortgage, and I have something to lose now; or as Bernstein (I think?) would have it, on one measure I’d already ‘won’ the game.

    Inspiring stuff, and I look forward to the long-form post “The Investor is retired” 😉 Reminds me of Warren Buffett’s words on the LTCM crew.

    Perhaps that is getting older, though matters of the heart can also instigate a reappraisal of priorities. Deep stuff…

  • 66 Seeking Fire June 4, 2020, 12:03 pm

    ZX. You have articulated my previous point better with an example. As yields are now close to zero and convexity is higher my understanding is you need a lower allocation now to bonds to achieve the same hedge against a fall in equities (assuming the relationship that when equities fall bonds rise continues). If you are allocating to bonds for that reason there seems to be a reasonable argument to find the longest duration bond you can find, which will then enable you to allocate less of your overall portfolio to bonds if that’s what you’d like to do. As long as you recognise the bond sensitivity to increasing rates has increased as well. Or perhaps lower your overall allocation to bonds within your overall asset allocation. But I am happy to be disabused of that position.

  • 67 The Investor June 4, 2020, 12:05 pm

    Inspiring stuff, and I look forward to the long-form post “The Investor is retired” Reminds me of Warren Buffett’s words on the LTCM crew.

    Oh, I have in no way retired. 🙂

    I’m just finally trying to keep my risk dialed down by quite a bit (for me) which means I’m very unlikely to beat the market on a pure (non-risk adjusted) comparison. But it should hopefully mean I’m less likely to throw away the progress I’ve slogged up over the past 17 years to a deep crash. We’ll see!

  • 68 TheIFA June 4, 2020, 1:08 pm

    “I accept the fact that long-term bond returns will likely be low and am adjusting my financial independence plan to deal with that.”

    Not sure where you are on your investing journey but you mention you are already taking a very conservative SWR so would be interested to know what other adjustments to the plan you are making re long term bond returns. As Abraham points out in his book, SWR frameworks have potential shoddy returns already built-in, so are you being overly cautious?

  • 69 Richard June 4, 2020, 1:32 pm

    @TI – nearly missed it, congrats on hitting your number. Amazing!

    Though perhaps you annouced it back in Feb and I missed it then as well.

  • 70 ermine June 4, 2020, 1:44 pm

    > Oh, I have in no way retired.

    I meant from active investing. I appreciate that hell has to freeze over before you consider the other sort of retirement!

  • 71 The Investor June 4, 2020, 1:56 pm

    @Richard — I’ve alluded to it as much as I have above in other comments, and I believe I mentioned it in one of my virus posts in March, from memory. It’s not a ‘number’ as firmly as many FIRE numbers though, because I don’t intend to retire (yet) and it’s not quite comparable anyway (for a host of reasons, including my likely drawdown strategy and my ongoing mortgage (though my ‘number’ of course takes this into account) and hence leverage.

    It was more a long-term big hairy and audacious (for me!) goal.

    My co-blogger @TA thinks I should write about it and do a big song-and-dance but that’s not really my scene, and as unlike him I haven’t really documented the struggle etc so it could be seen as a bit boastful (also because for me it hasn’t been a struggle — I save and invest naturally and boringly, like a blue whale eats krill. It’s in my genes. 🙂 )

    I’m ever more private. And finally, I’ve got bored over the years of having certain readers sniping and trolling about anything I write that’s personal. It shouldn’t matter but it’s not exactly an incentive.

    On the other hand you do see articles doubting early financial independence and ‘The Snowball’ effect, whereas I have no doubt the snowball (including compound interest) is real and achievable on a middle-class income — although obviously it’s much harder with a lower income / higher dependents.

    So that *is* a good reason for writing about it. We’ll see!


    I meant from active investing. I appreciate that hell has to freeze over before you consider the other sort of retirement!

    Nope, I’ve in no way retired from active investing, either. 🙂

    I guess I wasn’t clear.

    I have (or at least I am currently experimenting with) ‘retired’ from often being 95-99-100% invested in equities (excluding flat and emergency fund and fun money).

    This is all really off-track for this thread though. I have a post in mind I want to write about this shift, so we can reconvene then!

    Cheers for the interest though. 🙂

  • 72 The Accumulator June 5, 2020, 8:47 am

    @TheIFA – you could well be right, the problem is that’ll probably take me 20 years to find out. The bond situation seems unprecedented and not adequately accounted for in the historical record. Though it could be that the UK’s atrocious sequence of returns in the early 20th century allows more wiggle room than the US experience. I’ll write a post on how I’m managing the risk. Thank you for the idea!

  • 73 Dawn June 10, 2020, 1:50 pm

    Read through all this and still I remain stuck on bonds.
    I did buy an index linked guilt.and invest in royal london global index linked fund. But I remain stuck with a huge wodge of cash and have done for years. I’m fine with equities ,I understand them and I didn’t sell any infact I invested some of my cash at the worst of the crash. I’m living off my portfolio atm. So I’m taking from the cash bit. I’ve lowered my swr to 3.5 % because of the cash.
    I just hate bonds cos i carnt decide.
    With hindsite I should have done what jim Collins suggests a bond fund of all time scales.short, intermediate and long years ago.. Just stuck.

Leave a Comment