Are bond funds bad for a retirement portfolio?

[daylatedollarshort]

Quote:

Originally Posted by pb4uski Have you looked into the target maturity bond funds from Guggenheim (Bulletshares) and Blackrock (iBonds)? They are intermediate term but mitigate interest rate risk if held to maturity and diversify credit risk so there is less downside.

I have not looked at their yields in awhile, but that is something I would consider as we could ladder those.

[nun]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fermion Isn't the TIAA traditional rather illiquid (why does the ER.org editor think illiquid is misspelled)

Yes it is, if you want to get out of it you have to do it over 10 years...taking 1/10th of the balance each year. So it's like a 10 year CD paying 4%. But I plan to just use it for income and take 4% interest every year and leave the principal to my nieces. I use it instead of bonds in my portfolio.

[audreyh1]

Quote:

Originally Posted by M Paquette Nobody knows nuthin... I see bond funds as a nice stabilizing force within the overall retirement portfolio. They act to reduce volatility. I see them as one element of an overall balanced portfolio. My portfolio is designed for a longer time horizon, 30 years in retirement, and takes my risk tolerance and very long term goals into consideration. Your plans may be different from mine. The portfolio design I have developed uses low cost index funds for stocks and low cost bond funds. The following breakdown of asset classes is used to guide the portfolio construction, as my target allocations: • 55% stocks / 45% bonds and cash. This is close to an optimum compromise between volatility and growth over time. • Stocks are divided to 70% US-based and 30% foreign to minimize volatility. See the Efficient Frontier diagram below. • 80% of the US-based stocks are in the Total Stock Market fund, and 20% are placed in a Small-Cap Value fund, to try and take advantage of the Fama-French Three Factor Model. • Bond funds are split roughly half in an Intermediate Term bond fund, half in a US Treasury Inflation Protected Securities (TIPS) fund, and a cash reserve. The TIPS find is exempt from state tax, and is held in a taxable account. The Intermediate Term bond fund is subject to state and federal taxes, and so is sheltered from taxes in an IRA account. • If additional Intermediate Term bond funds are needed, and the IRA is full, put this allocation into a State Intermediate Term Tax-Exempt bond fund in a taxable account. • About 5% of the portfolio should be in a cash reserve. This is drawn upon monthly over the course of a year to provide our monthly spending money and cover irregular annual expenses. Cash may be in a money market fund or for funds not needed for over a year, in a short term bond fund. I recommend that everyone investing for some future goals develop such a statement, and pull it out every time one is planning on making a significant change, just as a little reminder.

I like your presentation.

If stocks do poorly, I spend down my bond funds. If stocks do well, I use them to replenish my my bond funds.

Intermediate bond funds have been doing just fine for the past 5 years. I'm not worried about interest rates going up suddenly in the next few years.

I don't worry about bond funds keeping up with inflation. That job is assigned to my equity allocation.

I also keep close to 55% diversified equity, 45% diversified fixed income (which includes 5% cash) as what I have come to believe is an optimum compromise between volatility and growth over time for me.

[audreyh1]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lsbcal I'm not at all sure about the premise here. I did some historical analysis to calm my own fears -- and I'm definitely not fearless about money. The current 5 year Treasury yields 1.5%. Looking back, from April 1954 to December 1965, the 5 year Treasury rose 3% (from a start of 1.9% it went up to 4.9%). During that time the real return was 0.9%. But that was only calculated return (income + cap gains) and neglects any roll return which many bond funds capture. It also does not include credit risk return which more general intermediate bond funds provide. Also the shorter period April 1954 to April 1959 saw the 5 year Treasury rise at a faster rate of 1.9% up to 4.1% and that calculated return was -0.5% real. Again this ignores roll return and does not include any return due to taking on some credit risk such as a more general purpose bond fund provides (such as Total Bond Market). My own guess, initially we go up but at a slower rate then even the 1950's. I think it is wrong to assume intermediate bond funds will do poorly over the next 5 to 10 years. Yes, there could be a few months of angst, but overall this may turn out better then some fear. When I have mentioned this history stuff there seems to be little to no response. But I hope some see it as relevant.

The history stuff you present is definitely relevant. Totally agree about the bolded part.

[Turn_the_Page]

As others have stated quite well, keep the duration short to intermediate and you should be OK. Rates aren't going anywhere very fast. You can move some of your bond funds into something like zero coupon bonds. Barring default or call, you'll get your investment back at maturity. Hoping that I don't start the whole bond fund vs. individual bonds subject again. There's a ton of info on the site and elsewhere regarding that.

[pb4uski]

Quote:

Originally Posted by daylatedollarshort I have not looked at their yields in awhile, but that is something I would consider as we could ladder those.

As you may know, structurally they have many similarities with brokered CDs exFDIC insurance coverage. Yields are similar to brokered CDs. I think of them as simply owning a participation certificate in a pool of individual corporate bonds. Based on closing prices the 2020 Bulletshare and 2020 iBond are yielding about 2.34% compared to 2.25% for a 5 year brokered CD.

BSCK - Exchange Traded Funds | Guggenheim Investments - Investment Management for Financial Professionals
iBonds® Mar 2020 Corporate ETF | IBDC

[nun]

Part of my thinking in asking this question is the dogma that people entering retirement should be a bit more "conservative" and that usually involves increasing the bond allocation. But with rates at rock bottom the value of bond funds will eventually go down and if people are retiring and taking income from them they are dooming themselves to bad sequence of returns at the beginning of retirement. So would a CD ladder or really short duration Treasury bonds be better for those about to retire?

[statsman]

Quote:

Originally Posted by nun Part of my thinking in asking this question is the dogma that people entering retirement should be a bit more "conservative" and that usually involves increasing the bond allocation. But with rates at rock bottom the value of bond funds will eventually go down and if people are retiring and taking income from them they are dooming themselves to bad sequence of returns at the beginning of retirement. So would a CD ladder or really short duration bonds be better for those about to retire?

Would there be a difference between a portfolio requiring part of the principal to be cashed out from the beginning of retirement vs a portfolio which only requires the dividends/interest/capital gains and none of the principal (at least until the RMD(s) kick in)? Or should an investor always chase total return and generally ignore income vs expenses?

[audreyh1]

Quote:

Originally Posted by nun Part of my thinking in asking this question is the dogma that people entering retirement should be a bit more "conservative" and that usually involves increasing the bond allocation. But with rates at rock bottom the value of bond funds will eventually go down and if people are retiring and taking income from them they are dooming themselves to bad sequence of returns at the beginning of retirement. So would a CD ladder or really short duration Treasury bonds be better for those about to retire?

Sequence of returns is on the entire portfolio, not just the bond portion. Equities, when clobbered, tend to suffer far more than bonds do in the face of modest rate rises.

CDs can be good value. Nothing wrong with having them as part of a fixed income allocation, especially if you find the rare deal that out yields high quality intermediate bond funds. Personally, I think CDs give better value than some short term bond funds at the moment. But if all hell breaks loose, those bond funds can appreciate, helping the portfolio overall.

So I remain diversified in my fixed income asset allocation.

It's also foolish to assume that short-term bond funds will outperform intermediate or long term funds if the Fed raises rates. A study of history will show times where long-term interest rates have dropped when the Fed raised short-term rates. So you simply can't assume the interest rates will rise the same amount across the board.

Again, remaining diversified is a good strategy. It's very tricky (IMO impossible) to time interest rates, the rate curve, inflation, credit crises or squeezes, etc.

[Lsbcal]

Quote:

Originally Posted by nun Part of my thinking in asking this question is the dogma that people entering retirement should be a bit more "conservative" and that usually involves increasing the bond allocation. But with rates at rock bottom the value of bond funds will eventually go down and if people are retiring and taking income from them they are dooming themselves to bad sequence of returns at the beginning of retirement. So would a CD ladder or really short duration Treasury bonds be better for those about to retire?

After a lot of data crunching I cannot find a really good way to manage the duration in a market timed sort of way. The market knows an awfully lot already about rate guesses going forward.

The yield curve slope is somewhat above average right now suggesting a premium for taking "term risk". I could mention the numbers if someone is interested. It could be that shorter duration will do somewhat better then longer duration (maybe 2 years versus 5 years). But I have no idea if that would happen. I'd like to see the reasoning that favors short duration over intermediate. One would have to say why term risk will not be rewarded going forward and why the bond market has not factored this in.

I don't have CD's but they could be a good idea. I'm not sure why this time is any different then others to choose CD's over bond funds.

[Lsbcal]

Quote:

Originally Posted by audreyh1 Sequence of returns is on the entire portfolio, not just the bond portion. Equities, when clobbered, tend to suffer far more than bonds do in the face of modest rate rises. ...

Very important points. Bonds rarely get clobbered compared to equities. Bonds are there for capital preservation i.e. safety. It's nice to also get some real return but that is a secondary issue I think.

In one of the worst periods for equities, the early 1930's, corporate bonds did get clobbered. Capital preservation was really a troubling issue then. For this reason, I'm looking very carefully at how to move my bond funds to the same duration Treasury funds should the yield curve flatten. If one waits until the daily papers are screaming recession it may be a bit late. This approach has worked out since 1987 which is as far back as my fund data goes. I realize this is (gentle) market timing and not to most people's taste. It is very unlikely we will see another 1930's again but not impossible.

[Fermion]

There *are* a lot of corporations financing purchases, buybacks and even dividends with very low yield bonds...

[FUEGO]

I've made a decision to mostly skip bonds in my retirement portfolio. I have about 1% of my assets in ISM, a bond that matures in Jan 2018 and will meet most of our spending needs for 2018. I also keep 2-4% in cash that pays 1% at my credit union. So 3-5% fixed income, with 95-97% being equities.

I'm not concerned about volatility year to year as much I am the multi-decade impact of investing in near-zero return assets. If bonds ever start paying a decent real return, I'll consider jumping back into them.

In the mean time, I would rather keep my limited cash in very short duration assets (zero duration in the case of money market).

[W2R]

As always, I think that Audreyh1 has such a clear understanding of her investments and why one might want to have or not have certain investments, bond funds in this case.

Quote:

Originally Posted by audreyh1 I don't worry about bond funds keeping up with inflation. That job is assigned to my equity allocation.

+1 That has been my viewpoint on inflation as well. If my equity funds did not have that long term role in my portfolio, I might cut way back on them because they can be so volatile.

My bond funds are:
Wellesley VWIAX
TSP "G Fund"
Total Bond Market index VBTLX.

Spreading my bond allocation between these three funds seems to work well for me so far.

I have a total yield mentality and I am not strictly a dividend investor. That said, I find that spending from my portfolio has been covered by dividends from my entire portfolio (not just from my bond funds). Yield from my bond funds has been adequate for this in my case. I would go nuts at every market swing if I had 100% equities like I did during the accumulation phase. Now my AA is 45:55 (equities:fixed, with the latter including 5.5% cash) and I don't worry so much.

[nun]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lsbcal Very important points. Bonds rarely get clobbered compared to equities. Bonds are there for capital preservation i.e. safety. It's nice to also get some real return but that is a secondary issue I think.

But are intermediate bond funds safe and a good place for capital preservation? If there's a good chance that you will lose money in them, should they be used for capital preservation?

Of course you'd hope that if bonds are down you can take income from equities instead, but my question is whether it's a good idea to increase the percentage of bonds as you prepare for retirement with bond rate where they are right now, that's been the conventional wisdom, but does it still hold. Should people be holding more equites and CDs rather than going into retirement with bond funds that are almost certain to lose value in the next decade.

I'm definitely not a fan or market timing, but AA should change as your financial needs change. I'm a year into retirement and looking at my asset allocation and I've decided to move out of intermediate bond index funds as I don't think they'll do the job of capital preservation over the next 10 years unless I reinvest all the interest.

[Lsbcal]

Quote:

Originally Posted by nun But are intermediate bond funds safe and a good place for capital preservation? If there's a good chance that you will lose money in them, should they be used for capital preservation?

I don't invest in bond funds where there is a "good chance" of loosing a significant amount of money. Is that what you meant or were you referring to some modest loss of principle as rates rise over a short period?

One should be judging a fund over it's full duration e.g. 5 years for a 5 year duration fund. But there is always a chance of a once is a century occurrence like in the early 1930's. That is why I mentioned my Treasury option which is market timing to a very limited extent.

Of course, not all the intermediate bond funds are the same. Here are some credit qualities from M* for a few funds:
VFIUX, Intermediate Treasury = AAA
VBTLX, Total Bond Market = AA
VFIDX, Intermediate Investment Grade = A
DODIX, Dodge & Cox Income = BBB

[audreyh1]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lsbcal I don't invest in bond funds where there is a "good chance" of loosing a significant amount of money. Is that what you meant or were you referring to some modest loss of principle as rates rise over a short period? One should be judging a fund over it's full duration e.g. 5 years for a 5 year duration fund. But there is always a chance of a once is a century occurrence like in the early 1930's. That is why I mentioned my Treasury option which is market timing to a very limited extent. Of course, not all the intermediate bond funds are the same. Here are some credit qualities from M* for a few funds: VFIUX, Intermediate Treasury = AAA VBTLX, Total Bond Market = AA VFIDX, Intermediate Investment Grade = A DODIX, Dodge & Cox Income = BBB

I noticed this slight downward creep in DODIX credit quality. M* has finally updated their average credit quality statistic to reflect this - BBB. It used to be A.

Gundlach has been warning loudly about credit quality coming to bit investors holding high yield bonds in 2015. Of course, DODIX has limited exposure to high yield issues, but it's still around 10%.

DODIX is my main core bond holding. I'm planning to move about 20% of it to a higher credit quality bond fund - probably FSITX, which has a much higher average credit quality of AA.

[statsman]

Quote:

Originally Posted by audreyh1 I noticed this slight downward creep in DODIX credit quality. M* has finally updated their average credit quality statistic to reflect this - BBB. It used to be A. Gundlach has been warning loudly about credit quality coming to bit investors holding high yield bonds in 2015. Of course, DODIX has limited exposure to high yield issues, but it's still around 10%. DODIX is my main core bond holding. I'm planning to move about 20% of it to a higher credit quality bond fund - probably FBIDX, which has a much higher average credit quality of AA.

Similar situation for us, although we're still in the process of settling on an AA to put into place by retirement next year. Unfortunately, my wife's 401(k) only has DODIX and Vanguard GNMA (VFIJX) as available bond funds, and that account is 48% of our tax deferred total. Since we're currently 53% bonds and 47% cash (no equities), this is a double whammy.

I still see a lot of articles where DODIX is one of the recommended fixed income funds to hold. But I wonder how much of that is based on past performances of the fund.

[Senator]

I just met with a Financial Adviser this week. According to him, there has never been a 15 year period where bonds have out performed stocks. I have not had a chance to verify this statement, but it makes sense. If you have a long time to live, and do not need the money right away, less bonds is better - if you can take the volatility.

Whether I use a FA or not is still a question. The only reason why I would is to diversify a portion (25%) of my portfolio. And still get an opinion or sounding board when I need it.

Going forward, interest rates are headed up, maybe only one time, maybe more. Current bond prices will go down. Funds and ETFs will switch to higher yielding bonds, but it will impact performance.

You do not buy bonds for appreciation, you buy them for stability and income. According to the fool.com, here is an asset recommendation, FWIT. I have a tendency to agree.

• Rule 1: If you need the money in the next year, it should be in cash.
• Rule 2: If you need the money in the next one to five (or even seven) years, choose safe, income-producing investments such as Treasuries, certificates of deposit (CDs), or bonds.
• Rule 3: Any money you don't need for more than five to seven years is a candidate for the stock market.
• Rule 4: Always own stocks.

My retirement allocation strategy is this. As I sell my rentals, I will be buying bond ETFs or similar. I view them as my bond allocation now, and will continue to view them as such as I sell.

[pb4uski]

Not a bad asset allocation recommendation, however I have added a twist to it. I hold my Rule 2 money in tax-deferred accounts (PenFed CDs in my case) rather than in taxable accounts. I hold domestic and international equities in my taxable account for tax efficiency. With this twist I get great tax efficiency but still get the stability of CDs with respect to my overall portfolio.

When I need that year 2-7 money, I simply sell stocks in my taxable accounts and get tax preferenced long term capital gains and rebalance as needed in my tax deferred accounts.