My bond funds are tanking

Markbnj

Elite Member <br>Moderator Emeritus
Moderator
Sep 16, 2005
15,682
13
81
www.markbetz.net
The old saw in investing was to balance your dollars between equities, which do well when times are good, and bonds which do well when times aren't so good and interest rates are high.

But lately my bond funds have just been abysmal. I've read a number of pundit comments stating that the old wisdom doesn't apply in the current environment, and I'm wondering what to do with that money? My equities are doing pretty well, but isn't it a little risky to dump everything into equities?

Btw, I just invest in name-brand index funds. I do hold small positions in a couple of companies as fun bets, but the bulk is in indexes on the bond and equities sides.
 

mikegg

Golden Member
Jan 30, 2010
1,815
445
136
What to do with your money? No one knows for sure right now. The Fed is buying $80 billion in bonds and securities a month so every market is distorted. There isn't a free market any more. Everything is depended on what the Fed is doing.

For example, housing is "recovering" which is actually a bad thing if you think about it. We don't need housing to have a fake recovery powered by the Fed pumping money into the real estate market. It just creates another bubble.

Stocks are also at their all time highs due to the Fed.

So right now, it's anybody's guess on where you should park your money. Most people are still buying stocks but the market is so volatile because the Fed announced that it might start tapering off quantitative easing soon.

I'd put some in bonds, stocks, gold, and keep some as cash.
 

sunzt

Diamond Member
Nov 27, 2003
3,076
3
81
Don't abandon Bonds, but you should reduce holdings. Shift to shorter duration and maturity bonds. If you can find a fund under 1 year maturity or duration then you should be good. Floating rate funds are good options now. Avoid TIPS.

Also seek out other types of investment funds such as real estate income funds, but avoid emerging market bond funds.

Good luck.
 

mshan

Diamond Member
Nov 16, 2004
7,868
0
71
In terms of strategic asset allocation, intermediate term bonds (e. g. VBMFX) is supposed to zag when stocks zig.

But over the very long term, stocks >> bonds > cash, so you don't buy bonds (if you have appropriate time horizon) to increase overall return, it is to dampen overall volatility of portfolio (and / or produce a steadier income stream) so if you are nearing retirement / withdrawal stage, you don't have wild fluctuations in overall portfolio value and could hopefully sell of what is doing better while waiting for other part to recover in value too.

It almost seems like there is some sort of forced liquidation going on in credit markets, so maybe (total guess) the rapid increase in rates we have seen recently will abate and settle back, a bit.

Alot of bonds seemed to get very expensive (chase for yield in zero interest rate environment), so losses you are seeing probably reflect the price of the underlying bonds correcting back to more sane levels.

So I guess it really depends upon what bond funds you own (broad, intermediate term bond market index fund like VBMFX is what I believe is recommended in terms of strategic asset allocation), how good or bad individual funds were (were they taking excess risk in chase for yield?), and were bond funds chosen for absolute return, or for strategic asset allocation in an overall portfolio that is looking a decade or more into future?




(ultimate bottom in terms of bond yields was around June of last year or something like that, so 1 year losses probably reflect losses from absolute bottom in terms of yield). 30+ year bull market in bonds appears to be ending and interest rates are starting to rise (though realistically, they shouldn't be jumping as aggressively and as far as they have in last month. 2.5% was supposed to be around "fair value" for 10 year, with some readjusting that fair value to to 3%. 3.5% - 4% is supposed to be a fairer value if quantitative easing have been completely removed, but that might be more of a 2015 - 2016 projection (?), though given how crazy rates have moved in last month or so, can't say where it will ultimately settle until well after the fact).
 
Last edited:

DaveSimmons

Elite Member
Aug 12, 2001
40,730
670
126
I've kept my bonds allocation in "high" (hah!) interest savings instead.

With interest rates so low, existing bond values have nowhere to go but down. (Normally when rates rise, bond funds fall because old bonds at old rates are worth less.)

Combine that with all the people who panic-sold stocks during the last crash and fled to bonds, and you have a mini-bubble and another reason for fund values to fall.

Eventually people will sell off bonds and move back to stocks so they can sell low and buy high again. Once bond funds tank enough I might buy in.
 
Last edited:

mshan

Diamond Member
Nov 16, 2004
7,868
0
71
ZIRP and the chase for yield:
"Imagine that you are a bank. The Fed tells you that it is lowering short rates and holding them low for a long time. That is, in essence, a signal to borrow short and lend long.

In the summer of 2009, T-Bills were yielding roughly 0.5% and 10-year Treasuries were roughly 3.5%. If the bank were to borrow short and lend long with Treasury securities (no credit risk), it could get a spread of roughly 3%. Lever that trade up a "conservative" 10 times and you get a 30% return. 20 times leverages gets you 60% return. Pretty soon, you've made a ton of money to repair your balance sheet. The banks weren't the only ones playing this game. The hedge funds piled into this trade. Pretty soon, you saw the whole world reaching for yield. The game was to borrow short and lend either long or to lower credits. Carry trades of various flavors exploded. There were currency carry trades, some went into junk bonds, others started buying emerging market paper. You get the idea.

The net effect was that not only interest rates fell, risk premiums fell across the board. The equity risk premium compressed and the stock market soared. Credit risk premiums narrowed and the price of lower credit bonds boomed.


Managing the exit

During these successive rounds of quantitative easing, analysts started to wonder how the Fed manages to exit from its QE program and ZIRP. We all knew that the day would have to come sooner or later. So on May 22, 2013, Ben Bernanke stated publicly that the Fed was considering scaling back its QE purchases, but such a decision was data dependent.

In other words, it communicated and warned the markets! Consider this 2004 paper by Bernanke, Reinhardt and Sack called Monetary Policy Altnernatives at the Zero Bound: An Empircal Assessment in which the authors discuss the tools that the Fed has available when interest rates are zero or near zero [emphasis added]:
Our results provide some grounds for optimism about the likely efficacy of nonstandard policies. In particular, we confirm a potentially important role for central bank communications to try to shape public expectations of future policy actions. Like Gürkaynak, Sack, and Swanson (2004), we find that the Federal Reserve's monetary policy decisions have two distinct effects on asset prices. These factors represent, respectively, (1) the unexpected change in the current setting of the federal funds rate, and (2) the change in market expectations about the trajectory of the funds rate over the next year that is not explained by the current policy action. In the United States, the second factor, in particular, appears strongly linked to Fed policy statements, probably reflecting the importance of communication by the central bank. If central bank "talk" affects policy expectations, then policymakers retain some leverage over long-term yields, even if the current policy rate
is at or near zero.

The market misses the point

From my read of market commentaries, I believe that analysts are focusing too much on the timing and mechanics of "tapering" and not on the meta-message from the Fed. If quantitative easing is meant to lower interest rates and lower the risk premium, then a withdrawal of QE reverses that process. In effect, the Fed threw several giant parties. Now it is telling the guests, "If things go as we expect, Last Call will be some time late this year."

Imagine that you are the bank in the earlier example which bought risk by borrowing short and lending long, or lending to lower credits in order to repair your balance sheet. When the Fed Chair tells you, "Last Call late this year", do you stick around for Last Call in order to make the last penny? No! The prudent course of action is to unwind your risk-on positions now. We are seeing the start of a new market regime as risk gets re-priced.

That's the message many analysts missed. The Fed is signaling that risk premiums are not going to get compressed any further. It will now be up to the markets to find the right level for risk premiums. Watch for Ben Bernanke to elaborate on those issues on Wednesday* (see note below). In the July 4 edition of Breakfast with Dave, David Rosenberg wrote the following about the Fed's communication policy:
I actually give Bernanke full credit for giving the markets a chance to start to price that in ahead of the event, and to re-introduce the notion to the investment class that markets are a two-way bet, not a straight line up. Volatility notwithstanding, I give Berananke an A+ for shaking off the market complacency that came to dominate the market thought process of the first four months of the year (to the point where the bubbleheads on bubblevision were counting consecutive Tuesdays for Dow rallies). Ben's communication skills may be better than you think - underestimating him may be as wise as underestimating Detective Columbo, who also seems "awkward" but was far from it.
Bernanke knows exactly what he is doing when he hints about tapering in his public remarks. It's the risk premium, stupid! And it's going up."


http://seekingalpha.com/article/1537182-it-s-the-risk-premium-stupid

http://humblestudentofthemarkets.blogspot.com/2013/07/its-risk-premium-stupid.html

http://www.theage.com.au/business/c...g-its-presence-felt-again-20130510-2jdje.html

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-...ace-two-ratios-as-fdic-sets-capital-vote.html
 
Last edited:

ultimatebob

Lifer
Jul 1, 2001
25,135
2,445
126
My stock guy told me to dump all of my bond funds and get into some crazy EuroPacific growth fund instead.

Hmm... with all the crap going on in Europe, that seems like an even worse idea than the bond funds!

Oh, and I think that my bond fund (FAGIX) is still doing great! It has annual returns like no other bond fund I've seen, and it has a good dividend yield too.
 
Last edited:

SSSnail

Lifer
Nov 29, 2006
17,461
82
86
My stock guy told me to dump all of my bond funds and get into some crazy EuroPacific growth fund instead.

Hmm... with all the crap going on in Europe, that seems like an even worse idea than the bond funds!

Oh, and I think that my bond fund (FAGIX) is still doing great! It has annual returns like no other bond fund I've seen, and it has a good dividend yield too.

If I was your stock guy, I'd say to put your assets into natural gas instead. I'd say something like find the producers and invest directly in the company, ones that pay dividend (you can also be creative with your holdings via options). But, I'm not your stock guy. :hmm:
 

DaveSimmons

Elite Member
Aug 12, 2001
40,730
670
126
If I was your stock guy I'd say to put your money into stock index ETFs with low expense ratios. A majority in US stocks, a minority in non-US.

An S&P 500 or similar ETF is much safer than buying into one sector, and much much much safer than picking one "can't lose!" stock.
 

dr150

Diamond Member
Sep 18, 2003
6,571
24
81
Don't abandon Bonds, but you should reduce holdings. Shift to shorter duration and maturity bonds. If you can find a fund under 1 year maturity or duration then you should be good. Floating rate funds are good options now. Avoid TIPS.

Also seek out other types of investment funds such as real estate income funds, but avoid emerging market bond funds.

Good luck.

^^^ This.

Choose short duration bond funds (safer but less return) and don't go chasing the higher return in such vehicles as int'l junk bond funds.
 

brianmanahan

Lifer
Sep 2, 2006
24,287
5,722
136
dont make decisions based on what all the talking heads are saying, make decisions based on what your risk tolerance is

people often end up burning themselves when reaching for yield - swapping bonds for trendy "bond replacements" like dividend stocks or real estate trusts, only to learn that those things are WAY more volatile than bonds. not to say those things can't be used as an investment vehicle, but bonds they aint.

tl;dr:

1. pick an allocation of stocks and bonds that you feel comfortable with
2. and then stick with it regardless of what every tom, dick and harry are saying.


because tom, dick and harry, while making predictions in articles and tv segment, don't have any better clue than you or i do on what's going to happen when.
 

JEDI

Lifer
Sep 25, 2001
30,160
3,302
126
The old saw in investing was to balance your dollars between equities, which do well when times are good, and bonds which do well when times aren't so good and interest rates are high.

But lately my bond funds have just been abysmal. I've read a number of pundit comments stating that the old wisdom doesn't apply in the current environment, and I'm wondering what to do with that money? My equities are doing pretty well, but isn't it a little risky to dump everything into equities?

Btw, I just invest in name-brand index funds. I do hold small positions in a couple of companies as fun bets, but the bulk is in indexes on the bond and equities sides.

bonds never lose $ if u keep it to maturity.
at maturity, you get back your original investment + the interest.

dont sell!
 

DaveSimmons

Elite Member
Aug 12, 2001
40,730
670
126
bonds never lose $ if u keep it to maturity.
at maturity, you get back your original investment + the interest.

dont sell!

Bonds don't lose money (unless the issuer defaults) but bond funds do lose money.

Consider a fund "HappyBonds" that has a $1 billion worth of bonds earning 1.0% interest.

Interest rates rise, so new bonds being issued start paying 1.5% interest. That makes shares of the "HappyBonds" fund less attractive because the bonds they hold pay 1.0%, while new bonds and other bond funds pay more.

Sure, "HappyBonds" can try to sell off its bonds, but it would have to discount them (losing money) to get anyone to buy them instead of the new 1.5% bonds.
 

Jeff7

Lifer
Jan 4, 2001
41,599
19
81
I've kept my bonds allocation in "high" (hah!) interest savings instead.

With interest rates so low, existing bond values have nowhere to go but down. (Normally when rates rise, bond funds fall because old bonds at old rates are worth less.)

Combine that with all the people who panic-sold stocks during the last crash and fled to bonds, and you have a mini-bubble and another reason for fund values to fall.

Eventually people will sell off bonds and move back to stocks so they can sell low and buy high again. Once bond funds tank enough I might buy in.
This.


"But this time it's different!" - used too often to rationalize making a mistake that has been made many times before.
 

Markbnj

Elite Member <br>Moderator Emeritus
Moderator
Sep 16, 2005
15,682
13
81
www.markbetz.net
I've kept my bonds allocation in "high" (hah!) interest savings instead.

With interest rates so low, existing bond values have nowhere to go but down. (Normally when rates rise, bond funds fall because old bonds at old rates are worth less.)

Combine that with all the people who panic-sold stocks during the last crash and fled to bonds, and you have a mini-bubble and another reason for fund values to fall.

Eventually people will sell off bonds and move back to stocks so they can sell low and buy high again. Once bond funds tank enough I might buy in.

Wish I'd asked you this question six months ago.

SSSnail, my ROI window is long term. I'm trying to grow this money over, say, twenty years. My expected yield is really just anything that beats the paltry interest on cash accounts.
 

mshan

Diamond Member
Nov 16, 2004
7,868
0
71
High interest savings might be investing in pricey junk bonds, commercial paper lending to banks in Europe, etc. Supposed to be FDIC insured, and as long as world doesn't fall apart (http://www.kplu.org/post/could-your-money-market-fund-break-buck), probably safe, but need to dig into what any fund is investing in, especially if it offers what should be a too good to be true yield.


With 20 year time horizon, imo, you should be looking at quality mutual funds. Vanguard Index Total Stock Market mutual fund VTSMX (http://books.google.com/books?id=acSxsst51psC&pg=PA421&lpg=PA421&dq=tyranny+of+compound+interest&source=bl&ots=KjsEKvfjNz&sig=H45-D8-ryR5E58qaK-INyrcI8kc&hl=en&sa=X&ei=qMfcUaTYHY2ujALHhYCABA&ved=0CDYQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=tyranny%20of%20compound%20interest&f=false) is great core holding for decades type time horizon, particularly in taxable accounts (remember, you still need some growth to at least keep up with inflation throughout your retirement years), but if stocks make you nervous, you can look at more conservative capital preservation or growth and income stock mutual funds vs purer growth stock mutual fund.


Dividend growth mutual fund (e. g. http://quotes.morningstar.com/fund/vdigx/f?t=VDIGX), rather than dividend paying mutual fund might also be something to look into. Cash cows in growing companies like Johnson and Johnson, Microsoft, etc. that have great cash flow and low payout ratio they can increase, vs. defensive dividend payers like utilities and telecom, where payout ratios already maxed out and valuations very high (do well in no growth or very low growth type economy?)
Morningstar Analyst Report (premium member content)

"Vanguard Dividend Growth's discipline still allows for some creative freedom.

Manager Don Kilbride's approach to dividend investing, preferring dividend growth over yield, lends itself to a few standards. The fund has an emphasis on large, established companies, because they tend to be the ones that have a long track record of paying and increasing dividends, thanks to their durable business models and financial wherewithal.

Not all big companies are created equal when it comes to dividends, and here's where Kilbride's differentiates the portfolio. Many of the fund's holdings fall into Kilbride's "old standby" list of dividend payers--think top holdings Johnson & Johnson JNJ and PepsiCo PEP, which Kilbride considers almost permanent fixtures. He also recognizes the challenges they face on the dividend-growth side, and while they've managed to raise their dividends, at some point the law of large numbers takes over, and there isn't as high a growth rate to be had here. Kilbride overcomes this hurdle by investing in a "new generation" of dividend payers--firms that are only beginning to pay or accelerate their dividends. That doesn't mean these are new companies; in fact, they are often still market-cap giants like Microsoft MSFT or dominant industry players like Oracle ORCL or BlackRock BLK.

Even that liberty doesn't make the fund unique. While dividend growth is Kilbride's most important criterion, there's more to his analysis. Consider Comcast CMCSA. He often avoids firms like Comcast because they are capital-intensive, but Comcast's content strategy and heavy family ownership helped Kilbride look beyond capital spending alone.

And while he also tends to avoid cyclical firms, he picked up Omnicom OMC, because of its ability to more quickly adjust in down cycles. Stocks like these have more variability in their stock prices and give Kilbride more opportunities to buy them cheaply.

Still, the overriding feel is one of high quality, and the fund's performance bears that out. This is a stable offering that's compounded wealth over the long term."
T. Rowe Price Capital Appreciation fund (http://quotes.morningstar.com/fund/f?region=USA&t=PRWCX) is proven sturdy fund that has done well over time (moderate allocation of stock and bond fund). Oakmark Growth and Income (http://quotes.morningstar.com/fund/oakbx/f?t=oakbx) is a conservative fund that seems to do better in down or very difficult type of markets (some of outperformance may be from losing less than others in down markets).


There are lots of options out there, those just come to mind to me, but only you can decide what is best for you, and you have to do your own homework so you really know what you are buying so when things get volatile again, you can see through the storm to goal further down road and sleep at night as well.


Also keep in mind that these more conservative stock mutual funds or balanced mutual funds might lag, and lag very badly, if stock market really takes off and rotation into tech, financials, and industrials everyone is chattering about really lifts with faster growing economy, but these stable tortoises will still compound wealth, with fewer wiggles up and down in price, but slope (rate of compound interest) will most likely be less than more volatile quality growth type mutual fund).


Good luck.
 
Last edited:

JEDI

Lifer
Sep 25, 2001
30,160
3,302
126
Bonds don't lose money (unless the issuer defaults) but bond funds do lose money.

Consider a fund "HappyBonds" that has a $1 billion worth of bonds earning 1.0% interest.

Interest rates rise, so new bonds being issued start paying 1.5% interest. That makes shares of the "HappyBonds" fund less attractive because the bonds they hold pay 1.0%, while new bonds and other bond funds pay more.

Sure, "HappyBonds" can try to sell off its bonds, but it would have to discount them (losing money) to get anyone to buy them instead of the new 1.5% bonds.

i dont understand.
if i hold the bond fund to maturity, shouldnt the underlying bonds in that fund never lose $?

ie: vanguards total bond fund is like 7yrs.
if i hold for 7yrs, shouldnt the fund get back the pricipal from the underlying bonds + all the interest?
 

LegendKiller

Lifer
Mar 5, 2001
18,256
68
86
The bond funds should have retraced a large part of the decline over the past few days. IG and non-IG corp bonds got hit pretty badly, especially longer bonds as the back-end of the curve has flattened significantly, especially for IG corps. Emerging market debt really got hit hard. In all of the aforementioned sectors liquidity dried up with a lot of supply in the market but little/no demand, especially over the holiday weekend.

The Fed "taper" has really hit bonds hard, even if the taper is just in USTs and CMOs the knock-on effects are large throughout the space, especially in long-durationed assets.

On bond sector that has done well in the recent market is leveraged loans (including CLOs) and asset backed as well as agency MBS. ABS are relatively short assets while MBS is still propped up by the Fed.

The reaction to tapering is really too much. Tapering doesn't mean tightening and the pacifier needs to be taken away.

As far as short-term accounts being "supposedly" FDIC insured, MM accounts are clearly marked as non-FDIC. They are also very short durationed assets and shouldn't move much at all. They may be somewhat invested in euro assets but that doesn't mean they are bad.
 

brianmanahan

Lifer
Sep 2, 2006
24,287
5,722
136
i dont understand.
if i hold the bond fund to maturity, shouldnt the underlying bonds in that fund never lose $?

ie: vanguards total bond fund is like 7yrs.
if i hold for 7yrs, shouldnt the fund get back the pricipal from the underlying bonds + all the interest?

this is correct

if interest rates rise but you hold to duration, at the duration point you'll have the same amount of principal back (via increased reinvested dividends) plus you'll be making more on new dividend payments
 

LegendKiller

Lifer
Mar 5, 2001
18,256
68
86
i dont understand.
if i hold the bond fund to maturity, shouldnt the underlying bonds in that fund never lose $?

ie: vanguards total bond fund is like 7yrs.
if i hold for 7yrs, shouldnt the fund get back the pricipal from the underlying bonds + all the interest?

The fund is buying/selling bonds the entire time as the PMs try to react to the market and buy new assets with cash that has come in the door and it is a pool of assets, thus you aren't getting your cash "back".

It's not like you are buying a discrete pool of assets which run off or hit a bullet maturity. That 7 year can be comprised of 50% 2 year and 50% 12 year (in simplistic terms).