We are entering a "Golden Period" for fixed income investing

Status
Not open for further replies.
I’d like to dig deeper on this. Do you have any references?
I read an FDIC press release that implied brokered CD deposits are generally covered but I could not actually understand the language describing the exceptions. I sense the recent ruling addresses fintechs and their ilk. I see plain statements from Vanguard and Etrade that their brokered CDs are covered provided you stay within limitations for a single bank. I know Fidelity tags offerings with an FDIC coverage flag. I am confident the major institutions are brokering CDs with FDIC coverage.

This is on the Fidelity site: "Fidelity offers investors brokered CDs, which are CDs issued by banks for the customers of brokerage firms. The CDs are usually issued in large denominations and the brokerage firm divides them into smaller denominations for resale to its customers. Because the deposits are obligations of the issuing bank, and not the brokerage firm, FDIC insurance applies.", https://www.fidelity.com/fixed-income-bonds/cds

If you have broker CDs through a different place, the FDIC has a newsletter with instructions on how to "Make sure all of your deposit will be fully insured.", https://www.fdic.gov/consumers/consumer/news/cnspr13/cdsfrombrokers.html
 
Looks like Corp Note yields are sliding up. This looks tempting...

ROYAL BK CDA SUSTAINABL SER I MTN, A1/A, CUSIP:78014RLM0
5.85000%, matures 03/15/2033
2 years of call protection

Is the 10 year maturity date too long?

I already own some RBC.

(corrected call protection to 2 years)

The 10 year (callable after 5 years) 5.2% RBC (maturity 1/31/33, CUSIP RY5533785) is now trading in the 97-98.5 range, giving you a yield in the range of 5.4%-5.75%. (It's trading range in the last week has been pretty wide.) I'm just mentioning this previously discussed issue as it has longer call protection, and at a 5.2% coupon less likely to be called, and you get the (slight) gain if called.

Regarding the 10-year maturity being "too long", well I bought some, but I've limited 10 year purchases to a couple percent (so far) of my net worth. So I would describe my behavior as "timid", but part of my thought process is that some of the money I now have in fixed will find its way back to equities "someday". (there's that dirty word - market timing)

I'm generally in the camp that the premiums for relatively short term callable instruments is still too low given the wildly different possible outcomes on the inflation front...
 
From the WSJ today. Market timing is normal for fixed income investors.

"Why Some Investors Are Still Waiting for Discounts on Corporate Bonds"

"Their caution stems from the relatively scant premium offered by corporate bonds relative to ultrasafe U.S. government debt, which is also paying some of its most generous yields of the past 15 years. The 5.7% yield on investment-grade corporate bonds—among the highest since 2009 in Intercontinental Exchange index data—looks less appealing next to yields above 5% on some Treasury debt, several investors said."


“We don’t think the current yields in those spaces sufficiently compensate investors for the economic risks we foresee,” said Chip Hughey, managing director for fixed income at Truist Advisory Services. “Given that we do think the economy will face challenges this year, credit spreads look very tight."

So if more and more people wait for the 6%+ yields, the demand will drop and spreads will widen. We are seeing that happen as yields tick up for new issues. Another steep market correction will also fix the problem of narrow spreads.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/why-so...ing-for-discounts-on-corporate-bonds-f7110c91
 
I don't think he is correct. FDIC coverage is by FDIC insured financial institution, which is by bank, not by broker.
Now that makes sense to me and is what I've always understood.
 
...

On rates above 5% for 10 year Treasuries, I don't see how that will be possible given our debt levels. Whether it's quantitative easing or some other flim flam scheme by the federal government, they can't afford debt at rates that high.
...

I think that our ability to finance high National debt depends mostly on the interest rates and the amount of debt as a percentage of GDP.


How do our current conditions compare to late 1970's-early 1980's?
 
I think that our ability to finance high National debt depends mostly on the interest rates and the amount of debt as a percentage of GDP.


How do our current conditions compare to late 1970's-early 1980's?
lots of different charts with various bias. choose one.
US-National-Debt-to-GDP-Ratio-by-Year-1024x1024.png
 
On the topic of FDIC insurance for CD's, I reviewed this about 7-8 years ago. I was tipped off by some pretty credible article I read (can't find it), and when I talked with Vanguard, after being transferred four times, the last person i talked with was not quite positive about the coverage being identical. They described some scenario where it would be covered under SIPC instead. I don't remember the details.

I expressed all of the same doubts then that are listed now in this thread: a) look at the website. it says FDIC; b) it is a CD from a bank, it must be FDIC; c) even if it does get covered under SIPC and not FDIC, unless there was fraud the customer accounts should be fine, etc. I simply could not believe that brokered CD's had any different protection than CD's purchased directly from banks. I gave up trying to get further clarification because the scenarios were so remote.

Honestly, I wouldn't worry about it. If Schwab, Vanguard or Fidelity go bankrupt we should all look for tall buildings anyway.
 
On the topic of FDIC insurance for CD's, I reviewed this about 7-8 years ago. I was tipped off by some pretty credible article I read (can't find it), and when I talked with Vanguard, after being transferred four times, the last person i talked with was not quite positive about the coverage being identical. They described some scenario where it would be covered under SIPC instead. I don't remember the details.

I expressed all of the same doubts then that are listed now in this thread: a) look at the website. it says FDIC; b) it is a CD from a bank, it must be FDIC; c) even if it does get covered under SIPC and not FDIC, unless there was fraud the customer accounts should be fine, etc. I simply could not believe that brokered CD's had any different protection than CD's purchased directly from banks. I gave up trying to get further clarification because the scenarios were so remote.

Honestly, I wouldn't worry about it. If Schwab, Vanguard or Fidelity go bankrupt we should all look for tall buildings anyway.

Back in 2009 I had two jumbo CDs from Washington Mutual in my TDA account. After Washington Mutual became insolvent, JP Morgan took over the client assets and the CDs just transferred to JP Morgan. I also had a CD from Wachovia which just transferred over to Wells Fargo. As long as you stay below FDIC limits per issuer (250K/500K), your money will be safe with brokered CDs as long as they are FDIC insured.
 
Just to beat a dead horse to a pulp, here is an excerpt from Investopedia regarding brokered CD's:

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/b/brokered-cd.asp

"CDs are insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) up to $250,000 per individual at each bank. Brokered CDs are technically not FDIC-insured. However, the broker’s underlying CD purchase from the bank is insured. That makes it essential to buy them from a financially sound company."
 
WADR, I think that I'll trust these sources to know over Investopedia.

You don’t need to open accounts at different banks to invest in a variety of CDs. Through Vanguard Brokerage, you can purchase and hold brokered CDs from multiple banks in a single account. In addition to convenience, this lets you increase your FDIC coverage beyond the $250,000 maximum at an individual bank. You’ll have FDIC coverage for $250,000 in brokered CD purchases from each bank that sells you brokered CDs through Vanguard Brokerage.

https://investor.vanguard.com/inves...erage,brokered CDs through Vanguard Brokerage.

Or TD Ameritrade:
FDIC protection. Both bank and brokered CDs are FDIC insured, but brokered CDs allow for greater protection—up to $250,000 per institution. Brokered CDs also allow for ease when selecting among various institutions.

https://tickertape.tdameritrade.com/investing/brokered-cd-vs-bank-17225

Or Bankrate:
Brokered CDs are typically insured by the FDIC up to $250,000 each. The fine print, however, is that not all brokerage firms partner with federally insured banks. To get FDIC coverage, the brokered CD must be from a federally insured bank.

https://www.bankrate.com/banking/cds/what-are-brokered-cds/#find
 
Last edited:

I hear you and don't disagree. I believe at the end of the day these CD's must be fine and are FDIC insured. I've read everything you've posted previously.

However, the items you referenced all talk about the bank providing FDIC coverage. It does not specifically discuss scenarios where the financial institution selling the brokered CD's goes under. We all believe, myself included, that the funds should be fine. I can't imagine how they wouldn't be covered. But like I said earlier, Vanguard directly was not completely confident on that a few years ago. Could have been the person I was talking with on the phone. Who knows. Anyway, forget it. Not worth worrying over.
 
i saw some people went for a 10 year 6%er in the past... here is one that is close that i just saw

78014RLM0
RY 5.85%
maturity 3/15/2033
first call date 3/15/2025
 
i saw some people went for a 10 year 6%er in the past... here is one that is close that i just saw

78014RLM0
RY 5.85%
maturity 3/15/2033
first call date 3/15/2025

I referenced it in Post #3082, but I haven't pulled the trigger yet. It is tempting.

I like this one, too.
BARCLAYS BANK PLC SER A MTN
5.75000% 03/21/2033, 3 years call protected
I haven't bought any shares from Barclays...they are A1/A rated, same rating as RBC.

I like the additional year of call protection.

Is Barclays a safe play?
 
I hear you and don't disagree. I believe at the end of the day these CD's must be fine and are FDIC insured. I've read everything you've posted previously.

However, the items you referenced all talk about the bank providing FDIC coverage. It does not specifically discuss scenarios where the financial institution selling the brokered CD's goes under. We all believe, myself included, that the funds should be fine. I can't imagine how they wouldn't be covered. But like I said earlier, Vanguard directly was not completely confident on that a few years ago. Could have been the person I was talking with on the phone. Who knows. Anyway, forget it. Not worth worrying over.



Brokerage will send you a prospectus with purchase.
For example here is some points mentioned.

The CDs of any one Issuer that you may purchase will be eligible for FDIC insurance up to $250,000 (including principal and accrued interest) for each insurable capacity (e.g., individual, joint, IRA, etc.). For purposes of the $250,000 federal deposit insurance limit, you must aggregate all deposits that you maintain with the Issuer in the same insurable capacity, including deposits you hold directly with an Issuer and deposits you hold through the Firm and other intermediaries.
…. Insolvency of the Issuer. In the event the Issuer approaches insolvency or becomes insolvent, the Issuer may be placed in regulatory conservatorship or receivership with the FDIC typically appointed the conservator or receiver. The FDIC may thereafter pay off the CDs prior to maturity or transfer the CDs to another depository institution. If the CDs are transferred to another institution, you may be offered a choice of retaining the CDs at a lower interest rate or having the CDs paid off.
…. In the event that you purchase a CD in the secondary market at a premium over the par amount (or accreted value in the case of a zero-coupon CD), that premium is not insured. Similarly, you are not insured for any premium reflected in the estimated market value of your CD on your account statement. If deposit insurance payments become necessary for the Issuer, you can lose the premium paid for your CD and will not receive any premium shown on your account statement. See the section headed “Secondary Market.”

Payments under Adverse Circumstances…

As with all deposits, if it becomes necessary for federal deposit insurance payments to be made on the CDs, there is no specific time period during which the FDIC must make insurance payments available. Accordingly, you should be prepared for the possibility of an indeterminate delay in obtaining insurance payments.
As explained above, the $250,000 federal deposit insurance limit applies to the principal and accrued interest on all CDs and other deposit accounts maintained by you at the Issuer in the same insurable capacity. The records maintained by the Issuer and the Firm regarding ownership of CDs would be used to establish your eligibility for federal deposit insurance payments. In addition, you may be required to provide certain documentation to the FDIC and to the Firm before insurance payments are released to you. For example, if you hold CDs as trustee for the benefit of trust participants, you may also be required to furnish an affidavit to that effect; you may be required to furnish other affidavits and provide indemnities regarding an insurance payment.
In the event that deposit insurance payments become necessary for your CDs, the FDIC is required to pay the original par amount plus accrued interest (or the accreted value in the case of zero-coupon CDs) to the date of the closing of the relevant Issuer, as prescribed by law, and subject to the $250,000 federal deposit insurance limit. No interest or accreted value is earned on deposits from the time an Issuer is closed until insurance payments are received.
 
I referenced it in Post #3082, but I haven't pulled the trigger yet. It is tempting.

I like this one, too.
BARCLAYS BANK PLC SER A MTN
5.75000% 03/21/2033, 3 years call protected
I haven't bought any shares from Barclays...they are A1/A rated, same rating as RBC.

I like the additional year of call protection.

Is Barclays a safe play?


ah i missed it.. good call b2f. I asked about Barclays and was told by freedom to pick a canadian bank as a preferred one ... 3 years of protection seems pretty good to me
 
I would like to suggest the FDIC dialogue continue in a separate thread if anyone has more to contribute on the subject. It seems to be a sidetrack from the intent and value of this thread.
 
I would like to suggest the FDIC dialogue continue in a separate thread if anyone has more to contribute on the subject. It seems to be a sidetrack from the intent and value of this thread.




CDs, treasuries, agency notes, and corporate notes/bonds are all part of the "golden period". Investors always look at the spreads between each before investing. Brokered CDs are treated like bonds in your account. I would encourage investor to leave any comments/questions regarding bond funds to other threads.
 
I referenced it in Post #3082, but I haven't pulled the trigger yet. It is tempting.

I like this one, too.
BARCLAYS BANK PLC SER A MTN
5.75000% 03/21/2033, 3 years call protected
I haven't bought any shares from Barclays...they are A1/A rated, same rating as RBC.

I like the additional year of call protection.

Is Barclays a safe play?


RBC and any other Canadian bank are much stronger and safer than Barclays. Most investors are waiting for 6%+ yields for high grade corporate notes and you will likely be able to buy the RBC note below par on the secondary market.
 
Last edited:
ah i missed it.. good call b2f. I asked about Barclays and was told by freedom to pick a canadian bank as a preferred one ... 3 years of protection seems pretty good to me
Freedom has provided some good information and offered his opinions. That being said, you can choose to fold his information into your decision making process or not. I don't have a full recollection of the '80s interest rate mechanics but I'm starting to get behind the idea that if there's few takers of today's offerings interest rates will increase and call protection will increase.
 
If these issuers don't offer higher coupons or longer call protection, there is pretty muted interest from investors. Here is a sample of the how much interest there was for recent issues:

GOLDMAN SACHS GROUP INC SER N MTN 5.50000% 02/28/2028
CUSIP: 38150ARF4
$14,930,000.00

GOLDMAN SACHS GROUP INC SER N MTN 5.30000% 02/27/2026
CUSIP: 38150ARE7
$6,691,000.00

JPMORGAN CHASE &CO SER E MTN 5.35000% 02/28/2028
CUSIP: 48130CAN5
$3,000,000.00

JPMORGAN CHASE FINL CO LLC SER A MTN 5.25000% 02/27/2026
$2,453,000.00

ROYAL BK CDA SUSTAINABL SER I MTN 6.00000% 01/18/2033
CUSIP: 78014RKE9 (2 Year call protection)
$58,017,000.00

ROYAL BK CDA SUSTAINABL SER I MTN 5.20000% 01/31/2033
CUSIP: 78014RKL3 (5 year call protection)
$92,001,000.00



So if issuers are not offering higher coupons or longer call protection, the demand is significantly lower. This is normal given what money market funds earn today versus the coupons they are offering. Eventually issuers will get the message.

Goldman Sachs is starting to approach the 6% coupon level with their latest offering at Fidelity and TDA but it only has one year call protection.

GOLDMAN SACHS GROUP INC MTN 5.87500% 03/15/2028
CUSIP: 38150ARP2
 
We are entering a "Golden Period" for fixed income investing

What is it telling us when the yield curve is inverted and yet the spreads between investment grade corporates and treasuries are at a 20 year low, and even high yield spreads are very low historically. One generally has pointed to a downturn and the other seems to suggest that all is wonderful. ?
 
What is it telling us when the yield curve is inverted and yet the spreads between investment grade corporates and treasuries are at a 20 year low, and even high yield spreads are very low historically. One generally has pointed to a downturn and the other seems to suggest that all is wonderful. ?

That it will be a wonderful downturn? :D

OK, my opinion (so just SGOTI) is that the low risk premiums (especially on lower grade) is reflective of the "economy is robust and jobs plentiful" mentality. "Housing is still strong", "jobs are plentiful", and so on. I believe those hopes will eventually be dashed as the COVID stimulus party hangover drags on, in which case we will see higher rates until things start breaking. In this case we will see higher spreads and even more (TM) "Golden Period" opportunities.

OTOH, if instead of a hard landing, we get a "touch and go" kind of landing...well then I will have been wrong (and will lose out on opportunities both in bonds and more important in equities). All I can do at this point is have my bets placed (which is mostly short term treasuries for fixed with a sprinkling of TIPS/corporates/preferred) along with keeping plenty of powder dry for better (lower prices or perhaps even longer timeframes at these prices) and to watch how it plays out. :popcorn:
 
I referenced it in Post #3082, but I haven't pulled the trigger yet. It is tempting.

I like this one, too.
BARCLAYS BANK PLC SER A MTN
5.75000% 03/21/2033, 3 years call protected
I haven't bought any shares from Barclays...they are A1/A rated, same rating as RBC.

I like the additional year of call protection.

Is Barclays a safe play?

ah i missed it.. good call b2f. I asked about Barclays and was told by freedom to pick a canadian bank as a preferred one ... 3 years of protection seems pretty good to me

RBC and any other Canadian bank are much stronger and safer than Barclays. Most investors are waiting for 6%+ yields for high grade corporate notes and you will likely be able to buy the RBC note below par on the secondary market.

Thanks for the responses. T-bills are maturing weekly and I'm trying to put the cash back to work in higher yielding Corp bonds. I just need to chill a bit.
 
I keep seeing folks happy with two or three year call protection on 8-10 year bonds. For me, that's a non-starter. Maybe because I remember the 1970's, but there is still a risk of higher rates and getting stuck with a bond for 10 years at a market price way below par isn't very appealing to me, when the interest rate premium above no call bonds is minimal.

I've been searching for a way to quantitatively evaluate these call protection provisions, rather than just eyeball it and either like it or not like it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom