≡ Menu

Understanding bond index funds

Immerse yourself in the Monevator archives (hey, it’s what Saturday nights were made for), and you’ll notice we talk a lot about investing in shares. Much less so about bonds.

Bonds – aka fixed income – are the unglamorous siblings to equities1. Yet whilst shares hog the limelight like a first child, you’ll be hard-pressed to find anyone – outside of the gold, guns and baked beans brigade – who say bonds have no part to play in a diversified investment portfolio.

Clearly bonds deserve more love – or at least another lengthy and excessively detailed Monevator article!

In this post we’ll dive into the nuances of the different bond funds out there, to help you find the right one for you.

Characteristics of bonds

Just like their equity equivalents, bond funds have their own special characteristics. As ever with investing, understanding these differences means more jargon to get to grips with.

Types

We can boil down bond funds into four types:

Conventionals and Linkers hold government issued bonds. Corporate bond funds contain bonds issued by companies.

Aggregate bond funds contain a mix of both government and corporate bonds. (Inflation-linked bonds are usually excluded from aggregate bond funds, and from all but dedicated inflation-linked bond funds).

Duration

Duration is the measure of sensitivity of the price of a bond to a change in interest rates.

Longer-term bonds have greater interest rate risk. That is, if interest rates go up their price falls, and vice versa.

Bonds are typically separated into Ultra-Short (no, not a bond superhero, but bonds with maturities less than a year), Short (a few years), Intermediates (around two to ten years) and Long (10 to 15 years or more).

Lars Kroijer has already covered the importance of duration and short vs long-term bonds in a previous Monevator piece. Check it out to get the low-down.

Credit Risk

Another key characteristic of bond funds is credit risk: How likely is the issuer to not pay you?

We can use credit ratings from the credit rating agencies as a proxy for credit risk.

Bond funds mostly invest in bonds divvied up into four main tranches of credit risk:

  • AAA-only – These are the safest fixed income investments.2
  • Investment grade – BBB or better, investment grade bonds are considered unlikely to default and so are held in large amounts by institutional investors and pension funds.
  • Sub-investment grade – Bonds issued by countries or companies that are looking a little ropey and could go pop. Excuse the technical jargon.
  • Mixed – An assortment of investment and sub-investment grade bonds.

Geography

Bond funds can also be split by geography. These range from Country-specific funds (such as UK or US) through regions (Europe, Asia) to Global funds.

Yield

Some bond funds specifically target high-yielding securities. Such bonds will typically be a mixture of high credit risk and/or long duration issues.

Goin’ shopping

Enough of the preamble. Let’s look at how we can passively invest in bonds.

To do so, we need to know what indices contain which types of bonds. As we go through some of the common indices, we will point out some examples of bond index funds that track them.

Aggregate indices

Let’s start off with Aggregate indices. The big cheese of the Aggregates is the Bloomberg Barclays Aggregate Bond Index (or affectionately known as the ‘Agg’).3

The Agg is a conventional government and corporate bond index. It does not include inflation-linked bonds. The underlying bonds must also be investment grade, which rules out low credit quality bonds.

There are different Aggs at the Global, Regional, and Country level.

At the Global level is the Bloomberg Barclays Global Aggregate Bond Index. This index has over 20,000 bonds. To put this into perspective, the equity-equivalent FTSE All-World index has merely 8,000 or so stocks. An example of a fund that tracks the Global Agg is the Vanguard Global Bond Index Fund.4

The Global index has a number of sub-indices, which track different maturities, credit ratings or particular characteristics (such as ESG-weighted).

As mentioned above, there are also Aggregate indices for specific regions and countries. The most prominent example is the US Aggregate Index. An example of a fund that tracks this index is the iShares US Aggregate Bond ETF (Ticker: IUAA).

As far as I’m aware there aren’t any index trackers that follow the UK Aggregate Index.5

Government bond indices

Next up are the government bond indices. Again at the Global level we have offerings from Bloomberg Barclays. We also have a few other indices that track different geographies.

For example, Citibank produce indices that track Developed and G7 markets6. The latter index is tracked by iShares Global Government Bond ETF (Ticker: SGLO).

We also have indices for the gilts market. For example, there is the Bloomberg Barclays Gilt Index – tracked by the Vanguard UK Government Bond ETF (Ticker: VGOV) – and the FTSE Actuaries UK Conventional All stocks. An example fund tracking this index is the iShares Core UK Gilts ETF (Ticker: IGLT).

As with the Aggregate indices, there are also sub-indices that focus on different levels of maturities and credit risks.

Corporate bond indices

Similar to their sovereign counterparts, there are the full range of Bloomberg Barclays Corporate bond indices. These range from Global through to Country-specific level.

Two example trackers are Vanguard’s Global Corporate Bond Index Fund, which tracks Global corporate bonds, and the Vanguard UK Investment Grade Bond Index Fund, which tracks UK investment grade corporate bonds.

There are a few other corporate bond index providers out there. Chief among them is iBoxx, which a number of iShares ETFs and the L&G Sterling Corporate Bond Index Fund track.7

Inflation-linked indices

At the global level there is – surprise surprise – a Bloomberg Barclays Inflation-linked index. This is tracked by Xtrackers’ Global Inflation-linked Bond ETF (Ticker: XGIG).

At the UK level there is the Bloomberg Barclays UK Inflation-linked Gilt index. This is followed by a Vanguard fund of the same name.8

As with conventional gilts, there’s also a FTSE Actuaries Inflation-linked Index. This is tracked by the Lyxor FTSE Actuaries UK Gilts Inflation-linked ETF (Ticker: GILI).

Emerging market indices

Interested in the emerging markets? You’ll find a number of different bond indices, from Bloomberg Barclays, FTSE, Bank of America, Merrill Lynch, and JP Morgan.

As with emerging markets equity funds, it’s particularly important to look under the tin of emerging market bond funds to see what they hold. That’s because the definition of what is an ‘emerging market’ differs significantly from provider to provider.

Fund managers offering emerging market bond trackers include the usual suspects: Vanguard, iShares, State Street (SPDR), Legal & General, and Xtrackers.

High Yield indices

Finally, there are a range of High Yield indices that specifically cover high yielding bonds. Such bonds tend to have lower credit ratings (usually sub-investment grade) and potentially offer the opportunity of higher returns, at the cost of higher risk and volatility.

Get ’em cheap

Very handily, Monevator scribe The Accumulator maintains a list of low-cost index trackers, including bond trackers. Have a peruse at your leisure. If you know of any good ones he’s not covered, please tell us about them in the comments.

Other factors to consider when choosing a bond fund

Before we jump the gun and start throwing our money into the market there are a few other factors to consider when choosing the right bond fund.

Currency hedging

When buying foreign denominated bonds without hedging you are taking on additional currency risk. Currency volatility can swamp the returns and volatility of bonds.

We can see this in the following two charts from Vanguard:

Source: Vanguard

Source: Vanguard

As we can see in the charts above, currency hedging reduces the volatility of bond returns. In addition, it has the effect of leveling the returns of bonds from different countries.

It is important to consider what risks we want take on when investing in bonds. If our aim is to get specific exposure to the potential risks and rewards of bonds – typically to diversify our portfolios, and to dampen volatility – then it is wise to strip out the extra risk from movements in currencies.

If you want to invest in international bonds, it is therefore worth thinking about whether you want to hedge your portfolio against swings in the global currency markets.

Market exposures

Each index and associated tracker exposes you to different markets, in different ways. It’s not going to be easy as an amateur investor to have a very informed view on such exposures, which is one reason why it’s usually best to stick to broad bond markets (and arguably just to government and perhaps investment grade bonds from the UK if you live in Britain). Remember bonds are mostly there in your portfolio for security, not return.

By way of example, let’s think about the Global Aggregate index and compare it to a similar index of shares.

  • When you invest in a fund that tracks a global market-weighted equity index, you are buying exposure to shares of the world’s most valuable companies (such as Amazon, Google and Apple).
  • In contrast, with market-weighted bond funds, you buy the most bonds from the most indebted countries (or, if you prefer the sound of it, the biggest issuers). This means loading up on bonds from countries like Japan, Italy, and Spain. It also means you get more corporate bonds from more indebted companies.

You can avoid being overweight a particular country or issuer by plumping for a ‘capped’ index. This is where the weight of any one issuer (or issue) is capped at a set amount.

Credit and duration risk

A third factor to bear in mind is the substantial differences in credit and duration risk between the different sub-classes of bond indices.

For example, UK gilts tend to have very long duration compared to government bonds of other countries. This means that they come with higher interest rate risk.

Similarly, many indices are investment grade only. They exclude bonds from high credit risk issuers, which should reduce volatility but could also exclude you from earning higher returns.

Float-adjusted indices

You might need to consider whether you should plump for a float-adjusted index. These indices account for the fact that central banks are often the largest buyer of government bonds.

For instance, a float-adjusted US Aggregate index excludes bonds held in the vaults of the Federal Reserve.9

Given the impact of Quantitative Easing over the past few years – which has seen central banks invest enormous sums in government bonds – the difference can be quite substantial.

Taking Vanguard as an example, most of its index funds and ETFs track float-adjusted indices. This has the effect of increasing the proportion of corporate bonds relative to government bonds in the Vanguard funds.

Heresy! Consider an active fund

I’ll whisper this bit in case The Accumulator hears me. With bond investing it can sometimes pay to go active.10

Sometimes the bond fund that seems right for you might have a specific profile that’s not achievable through an index fund. You might want to avoid certain countries or duration, or you may be looking to target high yield bonds. A combination of these requirements might make an actively-managed fund more suitable.

It’s worth keeping in mind that most of the returns on bond portfolios are explained by duration and credit risk.

Where there is more leeway (in the broader global indices) managers can tailor their exposure to these risks. For example a manager might underweight Japanese Government bonds or overweight short duration bonds.

As with investing in other assets, it’s important to work out what you need from your bond allocation first and then find the product that best fits.

Don’t neglect to consider costs! In today’s lower return world, the fees of an active bond manager could well gobble up a large percentage of your bond fund’s expected return.

Rounding up

Bonds are an important asset class. We tend not to talk or think about them enough.

Bonds can act as a diversifier and a de-risker to an investment portfolio, so it’s worth considering whether an allocation to bonds can help you meet your investment goals.

Hopefully this article has set out some of the factors to think about when investing in bond index funds and pointed you towards the options available.

If you have any tips of your own when it comes to passive bond investing, please do share them in the comments below!

Read all The Detail Man’s posts on Monevator, and check out his own blog at Young FI Guy where he talks about life as a financially free twenty-something.

  1. ‘Equities’ is just a fancier word for shares. []
  2. Unless they are sub-prime mortgage backed securities in 2007! []
  3. The Aggs date back many decades and were originally run by Lehman Brothers. In 2008 something bad happened to Lehman and Barclays took over. In 2016 Bloomberg started looking after the indices. []
  4. To be precise it tracks the float-adjusted index variant. More on that further on in this article. []
  5. If any of our savvy readers can correct me, please do! []
  6. Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, United Kingdom, and United States. []
  7. These track the iBoxx Sterling Non-Gilts ex-BBB Index. []
  8. Specifically, it tracks the float-adjusted index variant. []
  9. I know they’re not actually held in vaults, but it’s boring to say ‘held in their electronic accounts’ []
  10. Actually The Accumulator has also considered active funds before in the bond space. []
{ 30 comments }
Weekend reading logo

What caught my eye this week.

Figures from HMRC, as reported on in the Financial Times [search result] show the tax take from capital gains tax and inheritance tax rising fast in recent years:

Much of the increase is apparently due to growing tax receipts from property sales. The FT quotes Sean McCann, a chartered financial planner at NFU Mutual:

“Landlords are being caught in a very effective pincer movement from the taxman. From one side the higher rate tax relief on mortgage interest is gradually being phased out and making letting properties less profitable. From the other side, landlords looking to sell buy-to-let properties are being squeezed with an extra 8 per cent capital gains tax.”

I suspect most Monevator readers won’t be too sad to see buy-to-let being squeezed after a 20-year boom. I’m not against the rental sector on principle. But I did think the game had tilted too much in favour of landlords, and I was glad to see measures to address that.

Of course I myself swooped to buy my own home barely a year or so into the resultant correction. My stellar record of making a fist of the erstwhile millionaire-maker that is the London property market continues!

Tax take

I don’t think property is the whole story, though. It doesn’t take a charting genius to notice the previous peak in capital gains tax receipts was just before the last bear market. So after a decade of strong stock markets, at least some of the latest surge is surely also coming from investors coughing up on selling unsheltered investments.

Always use your ISAs and SIPPs as much as you can! Don’t be a klutz like me 15 or so years ago, when I was tardy in sheltering my investments.

I am still defusing capital gains tax liabilities from back then – as well as some built up when I’d filled ISAs but hadn’t started on a SIPP – and expect to be doing so in a decade.

You might say it’s a high-class tiny violin problem to have; perhaps but it was also an unforced error.

Back then I thought tax on investments was only a concern for moguls. Not only was I wrong, but in the eyes of The Man anyone pursuing the sort of high six-figure portfolios required for financial independence pretty much is a mini-mogul.

Now I’ve got rid of nearly all the dividend payers it’s not such a pressing issue as it was (at least not until the rules change again) but it is a pain.

Paying investment taxes can savage your returns, for no risk/reward upside. Use tax mitigation strategies wherever legal and practical.

[continue reading…]

{ 55 comments }

How to improve your sustainable withdrawal rate

A hamster in a wheel with the caption enough of this already.

Thus far we’ve explored why the 4% rule doesn’t work in the real world, and established a more sustainable withdrawal rate (SWR) for UK / global investors. Please read those articles if you’ve not already done so, in order to get the most out of this piece.

Now for the good bit! We’re going to talk about why you can use a higher SWR if – and only if – you’re prepared to execute a withdrawal plan that’s considerably more sophisticated than the 4% rule.

To raise our SWR we’re continuing to use the layer cake concept advocated by leading retirement researchers William Bengen and Michael Kitces.

The layer cake personalises our SWR by applying a suite of plus and minus factors.

  • The last post was all about the bad stuff. We saw how it forced my SWR down to 3%.
  • Now I’m going to layer on all the positives, and test my approach using global historical data.

Without wanting to ruin the surprise, I was pretty shocked by the results you’re about to see and I think I’ll need to be more cautious than the test suggests when the rubber really hits the road.

Even Kitces is very clear about the layer cake’s limitations:

Although the ‘layer cake’ approach of safe withdrawal rates does allow for planners to adapt a safe withdrawal rate to a client’s specific circumstances, there are several important caveats to be aware of.

The first and most significant is that many of the factors discussed here were evaluated in separate research studies, and it is not necessarily clear whether they are precisely additive.

Okay, so remember my SWR is currently bottomed out at 3%.

Let’s head for the top!

Diversification sweetener

Our baseline SWR assumes we’re invested in a Developed World 50:50 equity / bond portfolio. Yet there’s plenty of evidence that a stronger equity tilt and more diversification increases your SWR, especially over longer time horizons.

The shotgun spread of long-term equity returns means that an equity-heavy portfolio can shoot the lights out sometimes. However it also falls far short of the target on unlucky occasions. Bonds can staunch the bleeding when equities haemorrhage, yet too much bondage may also cripple you over time.

Early Retirement Now (ERN) sums up the dilemma:

Stocks have a lot of short-term risks, but in the long-term stock returns are tied to economic growth and thus, in the very long-term, real returns become less risky due to that.

Bonds have relatively little short-term risk around their trend growth rate, but their trend growth path itself has a lot of risk in stark contrast to stocks.

The answer isn’t to simply load up 80-100% in equities and hang on for dear life. Rather we can aim to alter our asset allocation as we go.

Michael McClung in his brilliant retirement portfolio book, Living Off Your Money, recommends an eve-of-retirement bond allocation of 50% for a 30-year time horizon, or 45%-35% bonds for longer stretches.

The reason for starting retirement with a heavy bond load is that you’re particularly susceptible to sequence of return risk in the closing years of accumulation and the opening decade of deaccumulation. You can protect yourself during this period with high-quality government bonds.

Kitces has shown how an ill-timed stock market crash can setback your retirement plans like an asteroid strike scuppered talking dinosaurs. He also explains how the sequence of returns in the first 10 to 15 years of your retirement can seal your fate for good or bad.

It’s important to have enough bonds to deal with these threats, and to deploy your bonds effectively.

McClung in particular has developed techniques to help you do this – see the ‘dynamic asset allocation’ section below. The trick is that you allow your bond allocation to wax and wane according to market conditions.

More generally, the historical data sampled by Kitces, Bengen, McClung and others tells us that broad diversification beyond bonds works in retirement just like it does during the accumulation phase.

They cite evidence in favour of diversifying your retirement portfolio with:

Kitces offers a diversification bonus of +0.5% SWR for significant multi-asset class diversification. It seems daft not to take it.

The Accumulator’s layer cake SWR:

3% + 0.5% diversification = 3.5%

Dynamic asset allocation

The best way to protect yourself from sequence of return risk? Live off your bonds when equities are down.

Beyond that you can further improve your portfolio’s life expectancy by using a rebalancing method that increases equities exposure when they’re seemingly cheap, and only replenishes bonds when equities have seriously outperformed.

This is dynamic asset allocation. It’s a super-charged version of ‘buy low, sell high.’ You can read about McClung’s version – called ‘Prime Harvesting’ – by downloading a free sample of his book.

Techniques such as dynamic asset allocation will test your risk tolerance because in extreme market conditions you may eat all your bonds and end up 100% in equities. Steer clear if you’re cautious.

Otherwise Kitces awards 0.2% to your SWR for dynamic allocation.

The Accumulator’s layer cake SWR:

3.5% + 0.2% dynamic asset allocation = 3.7%

Flexible spending and dynamic withdrawal rates

Here is the big SWR cherry on top. If you can cut your spending during a downturn then you gain a massive advantage over a constant inflation-adjusted withdrawal plan.

Dynamic withdrawal rates mean you adjust your spending in sympathy with your portfolio’s fortunes. Like managing a forest, being able to conserve your resources when they’re under stress is obviously more sustainable than consuming an ever greater percentage when the rot sets in.

Flexibility is key. Retirement researchers have devised all kinds of rules that allow you to spend more when the market soars, but you must also spend less when there’s trouble at mill.

McClung does a masterful job of analysing various dynamic withdrawal rates in his book, while ERN has written a sobering series exploring how much you might have to cut back using one of the better known spending systems.

In practice, cutting back is what all retirees do if their money runs short. The risk is that extra spending early in retirement may force us to spend less later if the cookie doesn’t crumble our way.

That gamble may be easier to take if you believe that retirees spend less later in life. What do you reckon? The evidence is patchy and may not apply to you. I’ve read research that concludes retirees spend more if they have it, but spend less on average because most end up with less to spend.

Kitces’ flexible spending modifier:

  • +0.5% SWR for modest spending cuts in bear markets and/or plan to decrease spending in later life.
  • +1% SWR for substantial (10%+) spending cuts in bear markets and/or plan to make significant cuts in later life.

I think Mrs Accumulator and I can handle 20% spending cuts so I plan to use Michael McClung’s EM dynamic withdrawal rules. Our State Pensions should meet near 70% of our estimated outgoings later on. I’m gonna claim the full 1% bonus!

The Accumulator’s layer cake SWR:

3.7% + 1% flexibility bonus = 4.7%

My new world portfolio SWR

My personal SWR was creamed by negative factors in the last post. It finished up at just 3%.

Now it stands at 4.7% and I’m stunned.

What does it all add up to in cold hard cash?

Well, we’d like an annual retirement income of £25,000, so our retirement wealth target at 4.7% SWR is:

(1 / 4.7) x 100 x £25,000 = £531,750

In contrast our target at 3% SWR was £833,333, which was 57% higher.

Wow. Just wow.

If I use the ‘4.7% rule’ then we’re FI already!

The sniff test

The big question is does this layer cake business pass mustard?

The research shows that your SWR changes dynamically as you shift the parameters. I can test these moving goalposts using global historical data thanks to the fantastic Timeline app.

Timeline is commercial software created by retirement researcher Abraham Okusanya. It’s aimed at financial planners who want to model portfolio withdrawal plans.

Timeline is very well designed, loaded with great features, and delivers the Holy Grail of global / UK appropriate datasets. I think it’s worth paying an IFA to run your numbers through it if they have access.1

My 4.7% SWR achieved a 99% success rating on Timeline – success means historical me didn’t run out of money in 99% of scenarios.

The bottom 10% of scenarios did require me to cut spending drastically to actually avoid running out of money though. That may not be your idea of success.

On the other hand, every path above the 10th percentile was comfy, and the best case scenario near-tripled my income for years. I used all the layer cake assumptions – good and bad – to get the result but was able to leave our State Pensions in reserve.

However that doesn’t tell me that my 4.7% rule is safe or even sustainable. We live in the future, not the past. I won’t experience the historical data in retirement, though hopefully I won’t face anything worse.

The truth is that a lower SWR is safer no matter how much kung-fu you know, so I’m not actually going to adopt a 4.7% SWR.

4% it is

So after everything we’ve been through I’m going to choose 4%.

Editor: You clutz! You total time-waster! Is this your idea of a joke?

Okay look, it’s thousands of words later and I’m as aghast as anyone, but I’m not using that 4% rule.

  • I’d have to use a 3% SWR to live with naive, constant inflation-adjusted rules.
  • But 4% with all the layer cake trimmings works with McClung’s system and it comfortably performs in Timeline.

In short, I am only happy to choose 4% because it leaves me room for manoeuvre when allied with the withdrawal techniques we’ve touched on in this series.

I also have – and must have – a Plan B.

Maybe my ability to use complex techniques will ebb through my eighties and nineties? Maybe I won’t even make it that far – a big problem given Mrs Accumulator’s interest in dynamic withdrawal rates continues to hover around zero. (“But look, they’re dynamic!”)

Plan B is to switch to a simpler, safer Floor and Upside strategy when our State Pensions kick in and annuity rates tip in our favour.

Aside from that we’ll maintain an emergency fund, there’s always the house to sell or reverse mortgage, and there are side hustles to hustle if we have to.

More than anything, digging into the research has taught me that a SWR is a very personal number. Like inside leg measurement personal. And it’s probably not even a number.

Really, it’s a floating set of coordinates that give you something to aim for. Your final destination can only be known when you arrive.

Take it steady,

The Accumulator

  1. For a fixed fee of course. []
{ 65 comments }

Weekend reading: People forget that people forget

Weekend reading logo

What caught my eye this week.

I debated a Tweet of Morgan Housel’s this week, after that excellent financial writer retweeted President Trump’s suggestion that Boeing should rebrand its 737 MAX after two fatal crashes. Morgan thought this good advice from the President. I wasn’t convinced.1

Here it is as a screenshot (I’m not sure if you can embed conversations from Twitter):

You’ll see Morgan has 132 Likes for his Tweet. And you’ll notice my pithy reply has zero.

Morgan replied to me with the example of Arthur Anderson, the scandal-struck Enron accountancy firm that was ultimately renamed Accenture.

A snappy riposte that eight people Liked – including me!

A couple of people Liked my subsequent comments, but really, I mean literally a couple. On the numbers, Morgan had won.

Here’s the thing though. I am right.

Edgy material

Whenever I wonder what my presumed source of edge is as an investor, ten minutes on Twitter puts me right.

It reminds me people prefer to be outraged. People prefer to be melodramatic. People emphasize the recent and close at hand to an insane degree.

Super well-read Morgan knows all this of course, and he could easily have written my reply to him on another day. But I suspect many of his followers cycle from one 24-hour crisis to another, every day watching the world come apart at the seams. Apparently.

So as I say, I’m right – people forget.

A few examples:

  • In 2015 the US Mexican food chain Chipotle saw its shares crash from around $750 to around $250 in the wake of several E Coli outbreaks. Sales fell because people didn’t want to get poisoned. I heard numerous analysts repeatedly write the stock off as dead money. But last year’s revenues were Chipotle’s highest-ever, and it’s smashing expectations again. People forget.
  • After being revealed to have cheated emissions tests, Volkswagen was condemned as having not just trashed its own brand but also that of German manufacturing writ large. It was a scandal! There’d be boycotts, big fines, maybe a restructuring. Yet 2018 was Volkswagen’s best year for car sales ever. People forget.
  • In 1989 we had the Exxon Valdez oil spill in Alaska – one of the worst in history – which trashed the environment and saw Exxon receive additional criticism for its slow response. Never mind, by 2006 it was the most valuable company in the world. People forget.
  • Or how about the terrible behaviour of all the Wall Street banks in the run up to the financial crisis? So bad it almost brought down the global economy. You remember, that guy wrote that book they made into a film. Never again! The big banks had to be broken up! Even I ranted! But were they subsequently taken apart for their sins – by disgusted customers if not by regulators? Yeah, not so much. The biggest Wall Street banks are far bigger than they were before the crisis. People – boom – forget.

I could go on and on – these are just the examples that first popped into my head.

In fact it’s harder to think of companies that didn’t recover from a public relations scandal!

I know what you’re thinking – there was the Ratner jewelry debacle in the early 1990s, when the CEO Gerald Ratner told a business conference that his products were cheap because they were “total crap”. Hundreds of stores were closed in the aftermath. You won’t find a Ratner-branded shop on the High Street today.

True, but that’s because the company was rebranded Signet in the 1990s. It’s now listed in New York and is valued at well over $1bn. So it didn’t die – but it did feel the need to rebrand. I guess we can chalk this one up as a win for Trumpian thinking.

I’m not saying companies don’t fail. They do, all the time. But in my experience it’s rarely because of a one-time issue. They fail because their products or practices become out of step with their markets.

We have to remember survivorship bias – doubtless I’m forgetting companies that did disappear because they, well, disappeared.

But the general point stands – much of the time people forget. They forget the terrible thing that happened a few years ago. They forget who it happened to. They even forget bull markets follow bear markets, as the Of Dollars and Data blog explained well this week.

They forget that they forget.

There are many things eroding edge in the financial markets, but the collective wisdom of Twitter isn’t one of them.

[continue reading…]

  1. Aside: Wow, how little of that paragraph would have made sense a decade okay? Tweets, retweets, public debates, Boeing having a safety problem, and – yikes – President Trump. []
{ 30 comments }