≡ Menu

Bonds are for pessimists, shares are for optimists

Bonds are for pessimists, shares are for optimists post image

When I bit into the lamb cutlet, I knew I was going to get my money back. I turned to tell my friend Clive but he was tackling some halloumi fries. He gave me a thumbs up.

We were at the launch party of Timmy Green, a soon-to-be trendy eatery near Victoria in London.

A year before I had invested in mini-bonds issued by its parent – a start-up called Daisy Green.

Daisy Green runs Australian-accented cafes and restaurants in London. Back then they made great coffee and great cakes – but little money.

The business was, however, expanding fast. If you squinted a bit you could see strong sales and profits down the line – not least if the mini-bond proceeds helped it to reach scale sooner.

I was a fan of its cafes. I was impressed by the founder. I squinted a bit, and decided to take punt.

A couple of hundred other people did, too, and Daisy Green raised £800,000.

Risky business

Longstanding readers may remember a portfolio of mini-bonds is one of my guilty secrets.1

These so-called ‘Bondi Bonds’ were at the riskier end of this already risky portfolio.

My notes remind me the bonds been assessed as having a 2.3% annual risk of default, which was higher than the other mini-bonds I’d seen rated. I suspected even their 11% yield didn’t fully reflect the risks.

But I was confident in the brand. I judged Daisy Green was going to grow, not go bust. A big reason why I dabble in unlisted bonds and shares is to practice these sorts of assessments. So in I went.

Hey, I also got a load of free coffees!

Bondi beached

Fast-forward to December 2017 and the call proved correct. Daisy Green had doubled revenues and tripled site-level profitability since launching its bonds.

It was doing so well, in fact, that it was able to refinance with a UK bank.

The company said the refinancing represented:

“a significant and early institutional backing of our business which is rare amongst our peers.”

The founders thanked the Bondi Bond holders. The money raised via the bonds – and the support and feedback investors had given the growing company – had been important.

But the upshot was that to obtain the new facility with the bank, Daisy Green had to repay its mini-bonds.

Still, investors got their money back and some high interest payments along the way. The founders were proud to have repaid early. Everyone’s happy?

Not quite.

On a personal level, I was pleased. I like being tangentially involved in start-ups. I was pleased for Daisy Green and its people.

But having taken the risk of investing in the bonds for the reward of that 11% yield over four years, my investment had now been cut down in its prime.

The early repayment was a reminder of a big difference between owning equity and debt.

Where’s my share?

If instead of bonds the company had issued shares to raise money, then the success of the business to-date would have been unambiguously good news for investors.

Equity investors who saw the potential of the brand and the operational qualities of the business would have been rewarded as the story unfolded, because all things being equal the value of their shares would have risen. (They’d have doubled, I reckon.)

But as a bondholder, good news is almost bad news. It’s not quite bad news – default is the worst outcome for a bond holder, and whatever gets you closer to there is what counts as bad news.

Nevertheless, because conventional bonds pay a fixed coupon over time and then return the money you put into them, you don’t materially benefit from an improving company.

Indeed, it can be almost the opposite – as we’ve seen a stronger company can refinance at cheaper rates, cutting existing debt holders out of the picture.

A quick note for bond nerds: I’m talking about a top-level difference between standard equities and bonds here. Yes, you can get special kinds of both with different risk/return characteristics. More pertinently, if you buy a bond when it’s trading below face value, you can get capital appreciation as well as the interest payments should it go on to be redeemed in full. If this happens because the company was poorly-rated when you bought and has now improved, then yes you’ve benefited from the change in status. However your maximum return is still capped – it’s fixed when you buy the bonds. Also, specialist investors in high-yield and distressed debt invariably spend their time looking at terrible case scenarios. To call them optimists in the context of this piece is a stretch!

Watch my back, bonds

At its best, equity investing relationship is a partnership – all shareholders, sharing in the spoils. The success of multi-billion companies that began trading as tiny acorns shows the riches that can be generated for early investors.

As a bond owner though, there’s almost an adversarial dimension. At best you get what you expected when you bought the bonds. Things can only get worse from there.

On the flip-side, bonds have other attractions.

The most important is, again, that you do know when you buy a bond what return you should make, provided it doesn’t default and it’s held until it’s redeemed.

Equity investors might hope for this and that return, but there’s no guarantee with share prices. Even the dividend can be cut or scrapped.

Another important draw for bondholders is they stand ahead of shareholders in the queue for any cash that comes out of the company – interest payments are made before dividends – and for whatever is going when a company is wound up. Shareholders rarely see any leftovers.2

These important properties of bonds again concern downside protection, though, whereas you own equities for the uncapped upside.

Bonds are for pessimists, and shares are for optimists.

Of course, in investing it’s best to have both optimism and pessimism reflected in your portfolio.

Fair dinkum

We never know what life or the markets will do. We therefore look ahead to all weathers.

The point of bonds in an equity-focused portfolio is to dampen volatility and to shore up returns when things get rough.

Similarly, even the most safety-first, bond-heavy portfolio will improve its expected return with 10-20% in equities. That’s the benefit of diversification.

Also note that while most Monevator readers invest via funds, not in individual bonds and shares – and rightly so – the same principles hold true.

You might object and say you’re not naturally very optimistic but you hold shares because the data says they’ve beaten the other main asset classes over long periods. I agree. But understand there is no guarantee they will do so in the future, especially over just a decade or two. That shares will even go up over time and deliver a positive return is not a given.

In contrast with bonds the expected return can be calculated. It might be a low return and you might not like the look of it, but that’s a different matter!

Shares are an optimistic investment, and bonds the pessimistic backstop.

  1. See that post for my flimsy rationale as to why. Unlike my co-blogger I’m an active investor in individual shares, which is something I think most people shouldn’t do. Putting money into mini-bonds is something I think even I shouldn’t really do! []
  2. Note for pedants: Yes, I am grossly simplifying what happens when a company is wound up here, the capital structure and so on. That’s for another day! []
{ 31 comments }
Weekend reading: My fee is considerably smaller than yours post image

What caught my eye this week.

I read an interesting tidbit this week from the blogger Canadian Couch Potato. During his podcast chat with Shannon Lee Simmons, a young financial planner, he says:

Shannon says she’s noticed a discouraging trend among younger investors that she calls “fee shaming.”

This is when a supposedly enlightened index investor scoffs to a friend or family member, “You’re paying a 2% MER on a mutual fund? Oh my god, I’m paying 0.05% on my ETFs.”

The person on the receiving end of the criticism, as you can imagine, feels like they’re being called a fool.

It’s a lesson for all of us who want to share what we’ve learned about smart investing: help others in a respectful way without sounding self-righteous.

Most of us ‘woke investors’ have done a bit of self-righteousness in our time.

I noticed a few years ago in personal conversations that it doesn’t help to go too full-on – people either think you’re saying they’re morons, in which case they want to change the subject, or they think you’re a zealot or you’ve lost the plot, with similar results. But I still can’t help myself sometimes.

We probably don’t always get the balance right on this blog, either. But at least new readers can discover in the privacy of their own home how the high fees they’ve been paying have been buying City boys’ Porsches.

The podcast also discusses Bitcoin. Apparently it’s the next big thing with young folk – but Canadian Couch Potato isn’t so sure…

[continue reading…]

{ 36 comments }
A man doing some hedging.

I wrote in January 2017 about using currency-hedged ETFs to reduce currency risk in your portfolio.

Back then the UK pound had fallen sharply against other global currencies in just a few short months.

This depreciation had sent the value of overseas funds and shares soaring for UK investors – because overseas holdings denominated in dollars, euros, or yen were now worth much more in sterling terms.

Everyone likes volatility when it sends things up. 2016 was a banner year for globally diversified UK investors. Currency risk turbo-charged our portfolios.

But currencies are fickle. After such a steep and politics-related move, I felt the risk of the pound reversing represented a vulnerability to my net worth. So I chose to reduce currency risk in my overseas equity exposure by switching some of my money into hedged ETFs.

Now, the standard advice for long-term investors is to hedge bonds but not equities.

But to paraphrase myself:

Imagine you’re a 65-year old UK retired investor, the long-term is 50 years (which you haven’t got) and the boost to our portfolios from the weak pound we’ve seen over the past 12 months turns to work against you over the next 5-10 years.

Imagine a pound rally cuts your net worth and income by say 20%, at a time when you’re reliant on that portfolio for your living and you have no new savings – perhaps for years to come.

After a 20% fall in your income, you might be less inclined to care what worked in the long run for the most people around the world.

You might rather wish you’d protected what you had over a shorter time frame.

Academics can dine out on long-term results in their research papers. But in the real world we need to eat our portfolios some day.

A tale of two trackers

As it happens, we haven’t had to wait a decade to see what happens when the pound starts to climb out of its hole.

Sterling rose against the dollar in 2017. This rise reversed some of the windfall gains that UK investors in US assets enjoyed the previous year – but the very strong US stock market returns of 2017 easily papered over these currency losses.

Take a look at the total return of two ETFs tracking the US market in 2017:

  • The iShares Core S&P 500 ETF (Ticker: CSP1)
  • The iShares S&P 500 GBP Hedged ETF (Ticker: IGUS)

The hedged US ETF (green) easily bested the non-hedged ETF (blue).

Source: JustETF

According to Morningstar:

Choosing the hedged ETF enabled you to enjoy most of the gains of the US market last year. With the standard ETF, you lost some gains due to the stronger pound.

What a drag!

We can see that currency hedged ETFs enable you to take currency risk out of your portfolio. Over some periods, like last year, they also boost your returns.

Of course, there are drawbacks.

Most obviously – swings and roundabouts!

In 2016 currency risk increased your returns when the pound fell. In 2017 it was a headwind that it paid to hedge against. What goes around comes around. You might have a simpler life just letting currencies do their thing and not trying to be too clever.

But there are more concrete concerns.

The hedged iShares S&P 500 ETF is more expensive. It has an ongoing charge of 0.20% compared to 0.07% for the vanilla version.

Even worse, as I wrote last time this figure may not represent the true cost of hedging.

Such ‘hidden costs’ are likely to show up in tracking error, which is the difference between the fund return and the return of the index it follows.

The S&P 500 returned more than 21% in 2017 with dividends reinvested1 – much more than the hedged S&P 500 ETF. So it does seem like the hedged ETF leaked a chunk of returns. This could be due to the cost and/or the implementation of hedging.

Of course you wouldn’t have complained last year, because by opting for the hedged ETF you still enjoyed much higher returns anyway.

But if you held the hedged ETF for many years, the impact of such a drag would add up.

Hedging your bets

This tracking error arguably underlines how hedging currency risk with equities is only something to do over the short to medium-term, if you want to maximize your long-term returns.

Remember – even small differences will compound into big differences over time.

But not all investors want or need to maximise their returns.

As you get older, you should typically take less risk because you have fewer years to make up for mishaps. In retirement you might well consider lower returns to be a price worth paying for greater stability and less risk to your spending money.

Or you might still be young, but just want to sleep better at night!

So as always, there’s going to be some personal decisions involved.

Please see my previous article on currency hedged ETFs for more on their pros and cons. I also discussed other ways to reduce currency risk, such as deliberately owning more UK shares than the 7% weighting in a typical world tracker fund.

Also look out for my follow-up post. This will explain why the case for currency hedging is different with bonds compared to shares.

  1. See Benchmark returns on THIS iShares page []
{ 28 comments }

Weekend reading: The toll

Weekend reading: The toll post image

What caught my eye this week.

I had hoped 2018 would see a return to a more regular content schedule on Monevator. But a family funeral put paid to that.

Sitting in the crematorium, I was struck as ever how money didn’t get a look in during the service. The readings talk about an active family life, the arc of a career, a few funny anecdotes and perhaps a sad one. There’s nothing about financial legacies, let alone more mundane money matters.

I’d like to know whether even Warren Buffett’s memorial service will mention his beating the market? I doubt it will dwell.

This is a very trite observation. There’s plenty of other everyday life essentials that get short thrift at funerals. Who wants to talk about money at such a time? (In my experience only undertakers, but that’s another matter.)

And I do think money sneaks in around the edges of the story. When a parent is praised for providing for a family or giving the kids a good start, that’s partly code for earning and spending on them (and much more, of course.)

Equally, someone may enjoy a fruitful career, but few can do it for the anecdotes alone. Show me the money, as they say.

I usually go away from these events pondering whether I’m too obsessed with saving and investing money. I know money can’t buy love. What would I do with it if I knew exactly when I was going to die?

Outside of their jobs, their mortgage, a company pension, and the usual cash savings, I don’t know that either of my parents spent any time thinking about money. It certainly didn’t guide their life decisions. The financial lessons I got from my father were about frugality, not compound interest or P/E ratios.

Money was managed, but it wasn’t actively multiplied. That was a very different mindset from some of the parents I later met through friends and girlfriends.

I don’t know where the balance is.

Investing and all the rest comes naturally to me. I don’t feel like a scrooge when I pursue my active investing – I imagine I feel the same enjoyment my uncle did when he was doing something in the greenhouse listening to Test Match Special.

What’s more I don’t get the impression most of my friends and family who care less about money are spending their time writing poetry or planting oak trees or visiting aged relatives. (Often they’re just spending!)

And yet…I wonder.

Excuse the maudlin note, though I feel it doesn’t hurt to ponder these things now and then. Feel free to share any thoughts on how you weigh up spending your time and money now – versus shepherding it for the future – in the comments below.

Have a great weekend!

[continue reading…]

{ 46 comments }