≡ Menu

A brief* guide to the point of bonds

Bonds, huh! Yeah. What are they good for? Absolutely nuth– hang on, that’s not quite right.

Despite the exciting Bond Crash Apocalypse Now scenarios available from your local financial media outlet or multiplex cinema, bonds still have a place in the portfolio of any investor whose risk profile questionnaire doesn’t bear the name “Indiana Jones”.

Below I’m going to trot through the main kinds of bonds and quickly sketch out the part they each have to play in a diversified portfolio.1

But before I do, it’s worth remembering that bonds are meant to be the counter-weight to shares in a portfolio. They are the stabilising influence that tempers the turbulence. Equities are from Mars and bonds are from Venus, if you will.

  • The key to (most) bonds is they aim to pay you a fixed income until a certain date, at which point you get your initial money back.2
  • That is very different to equities, which offer no such certainty of income or capital returns.
  • When equities crash we look to bonds to limit our losses.
  • When equities underperform, we hope that bond returns can pick up the slack.
  • When equity valuations are in the dumpster we rebalance from bonds to take advantage of cheap share prices.
  • Bonds reduce volatility and increase our chances of getting the outcome we want.

The cost of these benefits of bonds is a much lower expected return than equities (though things don’t always turn out that way) and, in most cases, a vulnerability to inflation.

Here’s a couple of other bond basics that will help make sense of what’s to come in the rest of this article:

Maturity refers to the length of time (usually years) before the issuer must pay back the loan that the bond represents.

The longer a bond’s maturity, the more risky it is. That’s because there’s a greater chance it will fall prey to rising interest rates and inflation.

The duration of a bond tells us two things:

1. The impact of changing interest rates on a bond. For example, a bond with a duration of seven years will lose around 7% of its market value for every 1% rise in interest rates. Equally if rates fell by 1% then the bond would gain 7%.

2. How long it will take for a bond to recover its original value as its interest payments are reinvested at a higher rate. If you hold a duration seven bond for seven years then you won’t lose your original stake.

Bonds or bond funds? Most of the characteristics described below apply equally well to individual bonds or bond funds. If in doubt, assume I’m talking about bond tracker funds and ETFs, as they are the simplest, most cost-effective way for most investors to hold fixed income assets.

Here’s a handy new-fangled infographic that lays out the bond landscape:

133.-Brief-guide-to-the-point-of-bonds

Short-term gilts

If you are haunted by fears of spiraling interest rates then short-term gilts are the place to be.

Short-term gilt funds hold conventional3 UK government bonds that are due to mature in 0-5 years, which means:

  • They are high quality assets. The risk of the UK Government defaulting on its debts is very remote.
  • Volatility is low because the maturity date of each holding is short. In other words, if interest rates rise, it won’t be long before the old bonds mature and the money is reinvested in fresh bonds that reflect the new rate.
  • Returns are very low because you’re taking about as much risk as a royal nanny popping Prince George into a bubble-wrap onesie.
  • Currency risk is off the table, assuming you’re an investor who spends most of their dosh in the UK4.

Who for: If you’re vulnerable to interest rate hikes, have a high fixed-income allocation, and have little need for growth then short-term gilt funds are for you (although please remember as always we’re advocating a portfolio approach with your bonds and other asset classes, not all or nothing).

Intermediate-term gilts

This is the regular coke choice of government bond funds. It holds conventional gilts: short, long and everything in between to end up in the risk/reward sweet spot for fixed income.

Intermediates are a good choice because:

  • They should be better rewarded than short-term funds. That’s because they earn a risk premium for accepting increased exposure to interest rates and inflation.
  • You’ll suffer less volatility than if you were in a long-maturity fund but you’ll still grab much of the return.
  • The standard advantage of guarding against stock market trauma at the cost of accepting lower returns still applies. And again, no currency risk.

How to recognise: An intermediate fund won’t call itself intermediate. It will have a very plain name: UK Gilts fund or UK Government Bond fund with no mention of any kind of timescale. Look out for an average duration of nine to 10 years in the fund factsheet.

Long-term gilts

You’re into long-maturity gilt funds because you fear deflation. Long bond funds are chock full of conventional gilts with maturities of 20 years and well beyond.

Key features are:

  • They can be ravaged by spiking interest rates and inflation. If new bonds are issued that pay out at a higher rate than older existing bonds, then a 30-year bond becomes outmoded faster than last year’s smartphone. Yet it hangs about like mercury in the water supply.
  • When a financial earthquake lets rip, long bonds are likely to be a safe haven. As equities, interest rates, and inflation collapse, it’s gangway for high quality, long-dated, liquid assets.
  • Volatility and expected return are much higher than for their shorter bond brethren. However as bond maturities lengthen, so volatility rises faster than returns in comparison to intermediate bonds.

Who for: Young investors with 80% plus equity allocations and reasonably stable jobs have the most reason to fear deflation. The increased volatility of long bonds is barely relevant in such an aggressive portfolio.

However, long bonds are currently considered to be extremely risky given the widespread expectation that interest rates will eventually bob back to their historic norms. Under the circumstances, intermediate bonds can fulfill much the same role but will take less of a beating if rates do rise.

Perpetual bonds

Economic Cassandras sometimes snicker that Western governments have no intention of ever paying off their mountainous debts. The existence of perpetual bonds is this cynicism incarnate.

‘Consols’ are a special kind of gilt issued in the distant past by the UK government that look set to pay a fixed amount of income forever. Other similar bonds include “War Loan”, which was issued in 1917 to encourage patriotic citizens to help pay for World War 1.

In theory these bonds are redeemable by a determined administration, but in practice nobody expects this to happen any time soon – where “soon” means in our lifetimes, or your grand children’s lifetime for that matter.

The origins of consols dates back to the 1700s. Their value – and hence what the government owes on them in real terms – has been utterly destroyed by the higher inflation of the 20th Century, and they now amount to a tiny proportion of the nation’s loan stock.

So while buying something that pays you an income for the rest of your life might seem akin to a perpetual motion machine, there are snags  – principally caused by inflation and the time value of money.

  • Perpetual bonds are essentially long-dated bonds turned up to 11. Whereas even a 40-year bond has the anchor of distant redemption date, there’s no such capital return guaranteed for a consol. This means they are entirely at the mercy of inflation and interest rate risk.
  • When I say “at the mercy” I really mean it. In the late 1970s, the running yield on “2.5% consols” (and which were issued with a 2.5% coupon) flirted with 18%! This means that loyal holders who held from the 1920s saw the spending power of their consols utterly destroyed.
  • On the other hand, anyone who picked up those same consols from despairing octogenarians throwing them overboard in the ’70s did very well. Since then the yield steadily fell to less than 4% by the middle of 2013, resulting in a huge capital gain over the period, as well as enormous annual income payments on their buying price.
  • You can buy consols and other perpetual bonds via a stock broker, but beware their big spreads.

Who for: Doomster deflationists. Arguably they could in some other reality have a role for ordinary investors in providing steady income, but we think not at anything like today’s prices – we’d have to turn Japanese and see decades of deflation for them to be attractive. A long-dated gilt fund does a better and cheaper job at protecting against that risk for passive investors.

Index-linked gilts

Want inflation-proofed government bonds? Then you want index-linked gilts (other wise known as linkers).

Here both the principal and the interest component of the bond rises and falls in line with the retail price index (RPI) measure of inflation. Plus you get a smidge more yield on top.

Inflation is the great nemesis of bonds, which makes linkers extremely useful. Indeed they are so popular in the current environment that some are priced to deliver a negative yield. In other words, you’ll pay through the nose for the safety features.

Why else should you not commit your entire bond allocation to linkers? There are a few reasons:

  • Conventional (or nominal) gilts will beat linkers when inflation falls short of market expectations. Part of a nominal bond’s yield is an inflation premium. That’s why linker yields seem lower than conventional bonds. If a 10-year nominal bond yields 3% and a 10-year linker yields 0.5%, it means the market expects inflation to be 2.5%. If inflation is higher than that the linker wins. If inflation is lower then the conventional bond wins.
  • If RPI inflation falls over the lifetime of the linker then you are not guaranteed a positive return from the bond.
  • Hence, investors are likely to swim towards nominal gilts during crisis scenarios, not linkers.
  • Linkers benefit from the same low risk traits as conventional gilts. The shorter the maturity of the bond, the smoother the ride. However, linker funds tend to be quite volatile as they have long durations – around the 18-19 year mark.

Who for? Everybody! But it’s not a good idea to place all your fixed income bets on linkers. Rampant inflation is not the only fruit.

Corporate bond funds

Corporate bonds are debt issued by companies instead of governments. They yield more than gilts because companies have an unfortunate propensity to go bust and not pay back their debt. Hence corporates offer a risk premium to compensate for the possibility of this happening, compared to the low odds of the UK government not paying up.

They’ve become popular of late as investors – who mistakenly think of bonds as blanket “safe” – scratch around for anything that seems similar to a gilt yet mysteriously offers a higher return. (The London Stock Exchange has even launched a special market to cater for retail bond investors like us).

Things to know:

  • Corporate bonds are typically split into investment grade and high-yield (or junk) varieties.
  • Investment grade bonds are rated AA+ to BBB- . BB+ to C is junk. Anything below that is in default.
  • The fortunes of high-grade corporate bonds largely rise and fall with interest rates and inflation. Default is still a risk though.
  • What’s more, many corporate bonds embed features that enable firms to repay the debt when it suits them rather than the investor.
  • The higher rates of default on low-grade bonds means that they are likely to pay out less than their high yields imply.
  • The volatility of corporate bonds can be deceptive. At times they appear to be as benign as government bonds. But when the markets cut up rough, corporate bonds behave more like equities, especially at the lower grades, as investors become more fearful of company defaults.
  • At the very moment your bonds should be cushioning the impact of plunging equities, your corporate bonds are likely to be tanking in tandem.
  • Like all bonds, interest paid by corporate bonds is taxed at higher income tax rates, not dividend income rates.

Debating point: There’s an argument that an international corporate bond fund further diversifies your portfolio, enabling you to increase expected returns without increasing risk. Many American passive investors are in ‘total bond market’ funds that include a 20-25% corporate bond slice.

But personally, I prefer asset classes to play a clearer role in my portfolio: Equities to deliver growth, and domestic government bonds to reduce risk. Corporate bonds do not strictly fulfill the defensive criteria outlined for bonds at the start of this post.

International government bonds

Adding a touch more diversification is also the reason to consider international government bonds.

However, there seems little point in devoting a portion of your bond allocation to AAA–AA rated countries that are in the same low yield boat as the UK. You’d be taking on a fair chunk of currency risk in the part of your portfolio that’s meant to offer stability.

Instead, you might consider emerging market government bond trackers that take you into the realm of sub-AA countries. If you go down this route, make sure you diversify as much as possible across countries, maturities, and currencies.

As with corporate bonds, you can expect a choppier ride from emerging market bonds. It’s probably best to carve their allocation from the equity wedge of your portfolio, rather than the low risk, fixed interest side.

Heavy bonding session

So there we have it. If you can handle equities see-sawing like Chucky after a rejection letter then bonds may be optional for you.

If not, then they have a place in your diversified portfolio regardless of the widespread conviction that interest rates must rise and that bonds will take a shoeing for a time.

Fancy grabbing some? Here’s Monevator’s take of the cheapest trackers around, including some cost-effective ways to get exposure to bonds.

Take it steady,

The Accumulator

*Editor’s note: I think this is called “irony”, but check with Alanis Morissette.

  1. Please note: It’s not all or nothing! Many comments miss this point, and say bonds are “sure” to go down so why hold them. But we diversify because nothing is so sure. If government bonds do decline a little in price, it’s very likely that your equities will be more than making up the difference. And if equities crash, you’ll be glad you own some bond ballast, and of the income they pay out, too. []
  2. Getting your money back assumes you bought when the bonds were first issued. If you (or your bond fund) buys them in the after-market, then you may get more or less back depending on the price you paid for them. []
  3. That is, they are not linked to an inflation index. []
  4. This is true of all domestic bond funds. []
{ 35 comments }

Weekend reading: Nobel Prizes for all

Weekend reading

Good reads from around the Web.

Never let it be said that the Scandinavians lack a sense of humour, or at least a strong sense of irony.

This week saw the Nobel Prize go to three famous economists who’ve done a lot of work on asset pricing.

But as Bloomberg reports:

Eugene F. Fama, Robert J. Shiller and Lars Peter Hansen shared the 2013 Nobel Prize in Economic Sciences for at times conflicting research on how financial markets work and assets such as stocks are priced.

No kidding! Whereas Fama’s work laid much of the framework for the efficient market hypothesis, Shiller has concentrated on the behavioural tendencies that I think undermine some of its key assumptions.

Writing in the FT, Tim Hartford wasn’t perturbed about this “all shall have prizes” approach from the Nobel committee, noting:

In the light of the financial crisis, the contribution of Prof Shiller to economic thought is obvious. Prof Fama’s is more subtle: if more investors had taken efficient market theory seriously, they would have been highly suspicious of subprime assets that were somehow rated as very safe yet yielded high returns.

Any follower of Eugene Fama would have smelled a rat.

We have our own modest version of the Fama/Shiller dichotomy here on Monevator. I actively invest quite a bit, despite believing it’s a bad idea for most investors, whereas The Accumulator (rightly) follows a pure passive approach.

Neither of us expect to win the Nobel Prize, of course.

[continue reading…]

{ 8 comments }

How I’m betting against Neil Woodford

Neil Woodford

Important: What follows is not a recommendation to buy or sell The Edinburgh Investment Trust. I’m just a private investor, storing and sharing notes. Read my disclaimer.

Name: The Edinburgh Investment Trust
Ticker: EDIN
Business: Investment trust
More: Trustnet / Morningstar
Official site: Invesco Perpetual

One of the UK’s best-known fund managers, Neil Woodford, has announced he is going to leave Invesco Perpetual, his employer, in 2014. The news has prompted countless articles and bulletins from pundits mourning Woodford’s departure, recounting his exploits and opinions, and debating whether or not investors should abandon the funds he manages.

For an investing nerd it feels a bit like when Margaret Thatcher died. Perhaps that’s not entirely inappropriate given Woodford launched his Invesco Perpetual High Income Fund way back in 1988 when she was still Prime Minister.

I suspect some news desks even had ‘obituaries’ pre-written for when this day came upon us. As a sort of UK Warren Buffett – albeit our investing Donavan to America’s Bob Dylan– the financial press quotes Woodford’s every utterance and hangs on his every purchase. It even celebrates his birthday.

“What would Woodford do?” they ask.

Get sick of the whole circus and leave to start a hedge fund, maybe.

Is it a bird? Is it a super-investor?

Anyway, this isn’t primarily an article about Neil Woodford. Monevator is not really a site about following fund managers!

True, long-time readers will know that unlike my co-blogger The Accumulator, I do a lot of active investing – despite believing that most people (perhaps including me) shouldn’t.

But I almost never invest in active funds, and have never yet done so on account of their supposedly great management.

I have sometimes invested in a few family-backed investment trusts in part because I like the way they’re run. But there’s always been a more compelling thesis, too – usually a discount to net assets, or perhaps a way to access an out-of-favour asset class like private equity was a few years ago.

I think profitable stock picking is hard, but picking winning fund managers is even harder. Studies have shown past performance is generally no guide to future performance from fund managers, even though that’s how all fund fan boys pick them.

You’ve also got the problem of having to find them when they’re still young enough to do the business for you for decades. As their fame spreads and their funds swell, they increasingly suffer from institutional problems that lead to things like closet indexing.

Finally, even if your chosen one overcomes these and other problems, they still have to outperform sufficiently to beat the fees they charge – a very rare bird indeed.

Because that laundry list is so daunting, even if you’re dubious about index funds for some reason, you’d be mad to put all your money into just one active fund. It’d be a needle in a haystack!

So you’d have to diversify between a few active funds, and at this point even if you’ve got some unquantifiable knack for spotting talent, the one or two inevitable duds are going to depress your returns.

At that point you might as well have invested via tracker funds all along, with the certain knowledge that fees would be low and your returns would follow the market.

Really that’s all most people want and need from their investing.

Good Woodford

You’ll notice that what I’ve written is different from saying: “I don’t think anyone can beat the market”.

I don’t think the market is completely efficient, personally, and I believe there’s sufficient evidence that some very small number of people can beat it. But it’s overwhelmingly unlikely you or I are one of them, and I think it’s even less likely you’re going to find half a dozen worth paying to do so for your investing lifetime.

I happen to believe Neil Woodford has as good a claim as any active investor to have potentially proven he has some market-beating prowess. Diehards will say this graph from Hargreaves Lansdown to celebrate his 25-year anniversary back in February attests to two and a half decades of luck and being in the right place at the right time…

This graph (from Hargreaves Lansdown) shows how Woodford has delivered.

This graph (from Hargreaves Lansdown) shows how Woodford has delivered.

… but I am not so sure.

I don’t think you should spend your time looking for the next Woodford though, any more than I think you should bet your two-year old grandson is going to be the next David Beckham.

Some scant few of us are touched by the gods of fortune, but you surely don’t want to gamble your retirement on it.

Run for the hills!

What’s interesting to me about Neil Woodford right now isn’t so much whether he can beat the market, but that so many people believe he can.

As a result, when he announced he was going to leaving his job next year, some of his investors began leaving his funds in sympathy.

This could be a big problem for his employer – the High Income fund mentioned above has nearly £14 billion in it, and that’s just one part of the roughly £30 billion empire that Woodford runs for Invesco. If investors desert these funds then the funds will shrink, reducing fees to the company.

It’s also a problem for those fleeing investors. Where do they put their money? Presumably with another equity income fund, but which? Your guess is as good as mine, as an expert quoted in the press – and as theirs for that matter.

What Woodford’s departure isn’t a problem for – in the short-term – is The Edinburgh Investment Trust (Ticker: EDIN), an income investment trust he has managed for the past few years.

Investors in this stock market listed trust started dumping it as soon as the news of his imminent offski-ing broke.

But investment trusts are closed-ended – there are a fixed number of shares in circulation, and their price is set by supply and demand. As scared investors sold their shares, no liquidation of assets took place. The shares simply changed hands at markedly lower prices:

The Edinburgh Investment Trust's share price: Can you guess when the news broke?

The Edinburgh Investment Trust’s share price: Can you guess when the news broke?

What’s interesting here is that the price fell as much as 10%, but the holdings of the Edinburgh Investment Trust – and so what the shares are theoretically worth – hadn’t necessarily changed at all.

Instead, shares in the trust moved from being priced at a 5% premium to assets to a small discount. (Read that and my other articles on investment trusts for more on discounts and premiums).

In other words, a chunk of Edinburgh holders decided they no longer wanted to own what the trust owned, on the grounds the man in charge of picking stocks for it would probably be gone in six months time.

In the press they dubbed this “investors abandoning the fund in droves”.

But with an investment trust – because it trades via shares on the stock market like any other listed company – you could just as well write “investors bought cheaper shares in the fund in droves”, since for every share sold there is a buyer.

Who were those buyers?

People like me, I suspect, who sniffed an opportunity.

Emotional aptitude

A Monevator reader told me in the week that the Edinburgh sell-off was why he never bought investment trusts. He wasn’t prepared to see the value of his investment fluctuate according to other investors’ whims.

I can see his point of view, but in this case I took the opposite one. I think investors’ whims have provided my opportunity here.

Do you know who runs the City of London Trust? The Murray Income Trust? The Dunedin Income Growth Trust? The F&C Capital and Income Trust?

Unless you’re the editor of What Investment Trust? magazine, I’d wager you do not.

I haven’t got the foggiest, either. Yet all these trusts sell at a premium to their net assets – undoubtedly due to the hunt for yield in recent years.

Sure, a few income investment trusts are on a discount, but my point is it’s clearly possible to run an income trust and be well-regarded enough for investors to pay more for shares in your trust than the value of its assets, even if your name is not “Neil Woodford”.

And my bet – and the reason I bought the shares after the sell-off – is I believe the same will likely be true of the Edinburgh trust some time in the future.

In fact, I wouldn’t be surprised if the premium even comes back before Woodford has left in April!

There’s a chance that the board of directors that appoints the manager to Edinburgh will offer its management back to Woodford when he’s set up his new company, presuming he wants the gig.

If not, then his successor at Invesco, Mark Barnett, seems to be cut from the same sort of cloth. The trusts he manages are doing well right now, and the blue chip income variety (Perpetual Income and Growth) is, like most, on a premium.

But it’s also likely some investors wary of the premium on income in the past year or two will buy the Edinburgh trust simply because it now offers a higher yield, due to the discount, on the same asset base. That makes the trust a better buy for income than before the Woodford wobble, ironically enough, though I don’t suppose those selling saw it that way.

Anyhow, the following graph shows the gap that opened up between Edinburgh and its rival City of London trust on news of his departure, and how that gap is already closing:

Edinburgh (blue) has already bounced off its post-news low, and I think will eventually mirror City of London (red) again

Edinburgh (blue) has already bounced off its post-news low, and I think will eventually mirror City of London (red) again

I plan to sell as it narrows further, or if the premium returns.

A noble cause

This week Eugene Fama was one of three recipients for the Nobel Prize for economics, on account of his work on the efficient market hypothesis.

Perhaps Neil Woodford should be in line for a Nobel Prize next year, for proving that thousands of his investors couldn’t care less.

Me? I just want to make a bit of profit.

{ 10 comments }
Weekend reading

Good reads from around the Web.

I think successful DIY investing is within the grasp of at least 50% of the population, so long as they stick to the basic rules.

Provided you steadily put money into a simple and diversified portfolio over several decades, think about your risk tolerance, rebalance accordingly, and tweak as you age, you should do pretty well.

But I don’t think that’s true if you start to try to time markets, pick shares, or try to chase winning fund managers. Sometimes that will work for some people. But the evidence is it mostly won’t.

And if you do so stray from the right path, then managing your own investing could become a liability, and a risk to your wealth.

Rocking the status quo

Of course, for decades the alternative to DIY investing was at least as bad – the guaranteed impact of seeing huge swathes of your money go into the hands of fund managers or financial advisers.

Worse, that industry was built on getting you off the right path.

The financial services industry wants you to churn your assets for commission. It wants you to pay up for access to supposedly superior expertise. It wants its products to be opaque so you don’t understand them, and don’t believe you can replicate them more cheaply for yourself.

The Retail Distribution Review (RDR) has done away with some of that. Now fees are more transparent, and they’re becoming lower. Passive investors might begrudge annoyances like the introduction of platform charges, but overall it’s been a win for private investors.

But some are less happy. Because giving advice is now much less lucrative, plenty of financial advisers have given up on financial advising. And because index funds are growing in popularity in this cost-aware and self-educated world, fund managers also sense the game might be up.

Remember, the financial services sector has exploded over the past 50 years to capture a huge share of the slice of wealth generation that used to go into investors’ own pockets. If the gains are reversed, it will not be pretty for the incumbents.

The counter-revolution

We’ve already had the ‘index funds are parasites’ argument emerge even as the evidence that most active funds are inferior has become overwhelming, and more widely understood.

Now there’s a new line of attack: DIY investing is dangerous.

In today’s FT [Search Result – click the link at the top]:

Hugh Mullen, managing director, UK at Fidelity Worldwide Investment, says: “Most people would not dream of repairing their own car or fixing their own plumbing, yet more people are deciding against financial advice to save on fees.”

Fidelity, in conjunction with the Cass Business School, published a report earlier this year that warned millions of people could fall into what they called the “guidance gap” because of RDR. These are people who are left without professional financial help in the post-RDR world, yet need it badly – because they have experience of, or interest in, managing their own financial affairs.

Mr Berens [head of UK funds at JPMorgan Asset Management] says: “A financial adviser can take you down many more avenues. The biggest pitfall for many investors is getting the asset allocation right for the period of their life. A young person can afford to have a majority of their portfolio in equities and take the risk of losses as they have more time to recoup them before they retire or decide to cash them in. An older person nearing retirement should have safer bonds, cutting down on risks as they do not have the luxury of time should the market turn against them.”

Perhaps I’ve got delusions of grandeur, but when I read this sort of thing I wonder if the active management industry might put a price on my head.

There isn’t really much to know to get the basics of DIY investing right – especially if you don’t need to know why it works.

Ironically, Mr Berens sums up part of it in the few sentences above.

But the financial services industry wants you to believe that it’s beyond you to know these few salient essentials, and to act appropriately.

In my opinion, the FT article carries several unsupportable claims in defense of the status quo.

[continue reading…]

{ 30 comments }