Practical analysis for investment professionals
10 October 2014

Bonds = Risks

In all of the PIMCO/Bill Gross excitement and speculation about what money will stay and what will go where, no one is asking whether some or all of the money should exit the bond arena.

I am asking the question both as a professional investment manager and as a member of a number of investment committees. There seems to be a fundamental belief that once serious investment money is devoted to bonds, one can change managers, durations, and credits, but the allocation to bonds is almost sacrosanct. I believe, as Socrates believed, that “The unexamined life is not worth living.” My proclivity — almost childlike — is always asking why.

The Classic Reasons to Own Bonds

Bonds are a contract to pay interest and principal in a timely fashion. Thus, there is no uncertainty about the future when you purchase a bond. Bonds provide income that can be spent or reinvested (particularly in open-end mutual funds). Historically, bond prices have moved inversely to stock prices. In addition, bond prices rarely go down.

The Siren Song of Bonds Is Global

Ever since the bottom of the stock market, if not before, individual investors and many institutional investors have been adding to their bond holdings at a much faster rate than their appreciating equity holdings. I see this rush throughout the mutual fund world in almost every country that has a sizable bond fund market. While the rush is understandable for those who suffered equity losses by selling in the decline or seeing their wealth on paper shrink, I nevertheless find any stampede a bit scary.

While I don’t often agree with the SEC, I was heartened to read what SEC Commissioner Daniel Gallagher said in a speech to the Securities Traders Association in reference to the $10 trillion US corporate bond market. Commissioner Gallagher said “It clearly looks like a bubble.” He indicated that roughly one-quarter of the total is owned directly by retail investors and 73% of the $3.2 trillion of outstanding municipal debt is owned by “small investors.”

I don’t know whether the Commissioner’s numbers include bonds owned directly in open- and closed-end funds, defined contribution plans, and variable annuities. My sense is that direct and indirect holdings of debt issues represent ownership of over half by individuals. He felt that in their chase for yield they did not stop to understand the risks of what they owned.

Commissioner Gallagher made another important point: In 2008, the average daily trading volume was $1.04 trillion; in 2013, it dropped to $809 billion. I believe trading has constricted even more in 2014 due to government regulations restricting the size of inventories that major banks and broker/dealers can own in their market making activities. Greater demand and smaller capital bases seem likely to lead to an increase in bond price volatility.

On a temporary basis, Money Market funds appear to be a resting place. Weekly numbers on flows into Money Market funds seem to be growing at a rapid rate this week through Wednesday, according to Lipper, Inc., my old firm. I find this encouraging on two fronts.

First, the former owners of PIMCO funds may be reassessing where they should invest. (I would hope that they will reduce their bond investment.) Second, investors have not been scared off from using Money Market funds despite the SEC’s misguided attempts to prevent a run on these funds. (They actually made a run much more likely, I fear.) Editor’s note: Read this article for CFA Institute’s perspective on money market fund reforms.

What Are the Risks in Bonds?

The first risk is that high-quality bonds can go down in price. Over the last 15 years, the Barclays Bond Market Index Fund on a capital basis fell in six years — 40% of the time. (Please note that this calculation is ignoring the income produced.) Unfortunately, most bond investors utilize the income produced for their spending needs. They are ignoring the fact that with long maturities issues, the reinvestment of the interest in the then-current interest rate market can produce more capital than the eventual return of their principal when it matures. A slightly less foreboding view is the last 40 quarters for the Vanguard Intermediate Term Investment Grade Fund, during which time it declined on a total reinvested basis 12 times — 30% of the time.

Second, the potential gains of investing in high-quality paper is not going to be large enough to restore the starting capital of a balanced account with at least 50% in general equities.

Third, there isn’t much, if any, room for interest rates to decline and thereby add to the value of existing bonds. At some point the manipulation by the major central banks can not ignore the misallocation of capital to higher credit risk issuers, which will lead to lenders demanding higher rates. My guess is that this will happen sooner than the governments are expecting.

Fourth, the traditional concept behind a balanced fund is that when stocks periodically decline, bond prices will rise as governments force interest rates down. In a major way, this can not happen now. Bond prices and stock prices, instead of being inversely correlated, will move in the same direction, but at different momentums.

Fifth, the bond investor craves certainty, but we are living in an uncertain world. I believe that we are going to be surprised by one or more of the following changes:

  • Inflation
  • Tax realizations
  • Contracts abrogated by courts and governments
  • Unforeseen crises which change cash flows

Sixth, a popular measure of risk is, how much can I lose? With bonds there is, perhaps, for an investment manager, a bigger risk. Bonds are essentially contracts, and they are expected to perform in a specified manner. If they don’t for any of the identified elements listed above, the expectational gap could lead to career risk for the manager.

The Weakness of “My Word Is My Bond”

I grew up in a world where stock exchanges were run by their member communities, which enforced personal verbal contracts. You did not have to like the counter-party to a trade, but you believed that the counter-party was good for his or her contract. The community would not tolerate any breaking of the contract. Under the current environment, I hope and believe that my word is taken as acceptable. With what is happening today I don’t know that I would have the same reliance on someone’s else’s bond!

If you liked this post, consider subscribing to the Enterprising Investor.


Please note that the content of this site should not be construed as investment advice, nor do the opinions expressed necessarily reflect the views of CFA Institute.

Photo credit: ©iStockphoto.com/erhui1979

About the Author(s)
A. Michael Lipper, CFA

A. Michael Lipper, CFA, is president of Lipper Advisory Services, Inc., a firm providing money management services for wealthy families, retirement plans and charitable organizations. A former president of the New York Society of Security Analysts, he created the Lipper Growth Fund Index, the first of today’s global array of Lipper Indexes, averages and performance analyses for mutual funds. After selling his company to Reuters in 1998, Lipper has focused his energy on managing the investments of his clients and his family. His first book, Money Wise: How to Create, Grow and Preserve Your Wealth, was published by St. Martin's Press. Lipper’s unique perspectives on world markets and their implications have been posted weekly on his blog since August, 2008.

4 thoughts on “Bonds = Risks”

  1. Sahil Gupta says:

    Quite resourceful! I have 1 question to ask:
    If the ‘downside risk’ due to interest rates hike hits the performance of bonds more than stock indices and the ‘upside risk’ of lowering interest rates favors the stock prices more than bonds. Then…

    How can stock be made more marketable to small retail investors,owing to its inherent negative(loss) perception among public? Is the lack of financial knowledge plays its role? or something else exists in reality?

  2. Kumar Saumya says:

    Hi Michael, you stated that ”in a major way” stock and bond prices will move in same direction at different rate in spite of interest rate cut. Can you please elaborate this point?

    1. Peter Brown says:

      I think what Michael is saying is that as interest rates are so low they can’t be cut so they will go up. This will cause bond prices to go down in general. Also as interest rates increase this will increase the risk premium required by equity investors and will probably see equity prices decline in general as well.

  3. jeff says:

    over the long run, bonds and equities actually goes in the same direction. the thing with interest rate is that it will not go up dramatically and if holding short term duration bonds, it still provides a cushion in the short term if equities go south

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.



By continuing to use the site, you agree to the use of cookies. more information

The cookie settings on this website are set to "allow cookies" to give you the best browsing experience possible. If you continue to use this website without changing your cookie settings or you click "Accept" below then you are consenting to this.

Close