Tuesday, January 25, 2005
Fixed Income Question
A reader left the following question which I will try to answer.
Funny, I've been thinking about bonds for several day's now. Since you bring it up, I have a question. I agree with you that removing bonds from the portfolio misses the point of including bonds. My question has to do with what the mix of bonds should be... How much should be muni, international, government, and corporate? Do you know of a good resource for determining the proper mix? I know that I should lean toward short term in a rising rate environment, it's determining the rest of it that I'm not sure of. Thanks!
This may seem familiar to some readers. Owning individual bonds can be tough because of something called trading friction. Basically small bond positions have large markups and markdowns hidden in the price you get. If your account is large enough to buy $100,000 face value of one bond this becomes less of an issue. That being said owning individual muni's, if you need that part of the market is probably ok. A reader let me know about Nuveen Muni Value (NUV) because it is a closed end fund with no leverage and it yields 5.04%. I have not looked at the fund so I can't vouch for it.
In putting together the fixed income part of the portfolio I take a similar approach as with equities in that I want to capture many different parts of the market in an attempt to reduce volatility that might come from some extreme event or movement. Most of the tools I use all yield between 5.5% and 7% but one or two things yield a little more. I also use a inverse bond fund as a hedge against rising rates.
The first category I'll cover is preferred stocks. A great resource to research these is QuantumOnline. Most accounts have three or four of these. I use mostly, but not only, shorter dated issues. Longer dated issues got hit very hard in the summer of 2003 when rates had that nasty spike. You can easily find quality issues that yield in the low and mid sixes. I would avoid CEFs that owns preferreds, they can be more volatile than individual issues.
I also use very generic government bond or govie/corporate blend funds that do not leverage. These are by far the most conservative tool I use and for the most part yield in the mid fives.
Next is high yield (junk). I use a CEF here as well. High yield bonds tend to react differently than higher quality bonds to a lot of types of stimuli. Statistically speaking very few bonds in this category default, owning a CEF here reduces that element almost to nothing.
I own a convertible bond CEF. Converts, as I have written many times, tend to trade like stocks when the stock is moving up to the conversion price and tend to trade more like bonds if the underlying is going down, away, from the conversion price. CEFs in this category usually yield in the eights and do use leverage. Owning individual issues here can be very difficult.
There are a couple of very low beta MLPs that I use for some clients for income. Be very careful here. Even a low beta MLP will get hit hard if energy prices plummet. I would not buy a fund of MLPs for income, I think these will turn out to be more volatile than most people think.
Foreign bond fund funds usually do well when the dollar falls and I expect they will hold up better if/when US rates go up in the middle and long end of the yield curve.
I've written a lot about CEFs that sell covered calls. My original thought was that these equity funds would trade more like bonds but be a little less interest rate sensitive. These types of funds yield 8% or more. Year to date MCN is up just under 1% while the S+P 500 is down about 3%. So it seems to trade more like a bond but we'll see if it has less interest rate sensitivity in the future.
Lastly, TIPS. I have been considering adding a CEF that is a blend of mostly TIPS and some higher yielding bonds. There are a couple of these out there, I own one personally but still haven't added one to client portfolios. I have written before that I would not buy an open end TIPS fund.
I have the heaviest weightings for clients in preferreds and lower yielding CEFs. Actual percentages depends on the client. Hope that helps.
Funny, I've been thinking about bonds for several day's now. Since you bring it up, I have a question. I agree with you that removing bonds from the portfolio misses the point of including bonds. My question has to do with what the mix of bonds should be... How much should be muni, international, government, and corporate? Do you know of a good resource for determining the proper mix? I know that I should lean toward short term in a rising rate environment, it's determining the rest of it that I'm not sure of. Thanks!
This may seem familiar to some readers. Owning individual bonds can be tough because of something called trading friction. Basically small bond positions have large markups and markdowns hidden in the price you get. If your account is large enough to buy $100,000 face value of one bond this becomes less of an issue. That being said owning individual muni's, if you need that part of the market is probably ok. A reader let me know about Nuveen Muni Value (NUV) because it is a closed end fund with no leverage and it yields 5.04%. I have not looked at the fund so I can't vouch for it.
In putting together the fixed income part of the portfolio I take a similar approach as with equities in that I want to capture many different parts of the market in an attempt to reduce volatility that might come from some extreme event or movement. Most of the tools I use all yield between 5.5% and 7% but one or two things yield a little more. I also use a inverse bond fund as a hedge against rising rates.
The first category I'll cover is preferred stocks. A great resource to research these is QuantumOnline. Most accounts have three or four of these. I use mostly, but not only, shorter dated issues. Longer dated issues got hit very hard in the summer of 2003 when rates had that nasty spike. You can easily find quality issues that yield in the low and mid sixes. I would avoid CEFs that owns preferreds, they can be more volatile than individual issues.
I also use very generic government bond or govie/corporate blend funds that do not leverage. These are by far the most conservative tool I use and for the most part yield in the mid fives.
Next is high yield (junk). I use a CEF here as well. High yield bonds tend to react differently than higher quality bonds to a lot of types of stimuli. Statistically speaking very few bonds in this category default, owning a CEF here reduces that element almost to nothing.
I own a convertible bond CEF. Converts, as I have written many times, tend to trade like stocks when the stock is moving up to the conversion price and tend to trade more like bonds if the underlying is going down, away, from the conversion price. CEFs in this category usually yield in the eights and do use leverage. Owning individual issues here can be very difficult.
There are a couple of very low beta MLPs that I use for some clients for income. Be very careful here. Even a low beta MLP will get hit hard if energy prices plummet. I would not buy a fund of MLPs for income, I think these will turn out to be more volatile than most people think.
Foreign bond fund funds usually do well when the dollar falls and I expect they will hold up better if/when US rates go up in the middle and long end of the yield curve.
I've written a lot about CEFs that sell covered calls. My original thought was that these equity funds would trade more like bonds but be a little less interest rate sensitive. These types of funds yield 8% or more. Year to date MCN is up just under 1% while the S+P 500 is down about 3%. So it seems to trade more like a bond but we'll see if it has less interest rate sensitivity in the future.
Lastly, TIPS. I have been considering adding a CEF that is a blend of mostly TIPS and some higher yielding bonds. There are a couple of these out there, I own one personally but still haven't added one to client portfolios. I have written before that I would not buy an open end TIPS fund.
I have the heaviest weightings for clients in preferreds and lower yielding CEFs. Actual percentages depends on the client. Hope that helps.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)





2 comments:
The possibility that Emmert seems to miss is that long rates may go down and not up. The yield curve is currently forcasting an inflation rate of less than 2%.
Emmert talks about the CPI in his article without mentioning the much lower figures of the PCED. The Fed correctly uses the PCE deflator not the CPI and the PCE is currtly around 1.5%. The current correction in the stock market in the face of declining long rates, is a forecast of a slow US economy. It is perhaps a forecast that the US will continue to export its growth through continued trade imbalances.
Historically, the move in long rates after a flattening of the yield curve is down not up. It is true that the entire curve normally moves up before it flattens so this time is different in the timing but not in the results. Indeed long rates have moved down in the past five months as the short rates moved up. Should the Fed continue to raise short rates, there is serious risks of stagnation or even recession. Under the circumstances can we really count on a strenthing dollar from here?
Put another way, in the same way that it took 21% short rates to kill the inflation of the 70's, it may take long rates of 1, 2 or 3% to prevent deflation!
Lest we forget, it was only 6 months ago when the Fed was concerned about deflation. Since that time, additional trade barriers have come down. We now have the opposite of Milton Friedman's inflation; we may now have too many goods chasing too few dollars. (I am not joking).
Should the Yuan be allowed to float, would it be incredible to believe that it may suprise the majority? The US dollar could actually decline. Opening up the US market to world competition is no small matter. One might want to reveiw the history of mother England when trade begain to flurish with the Colonies.
Labor rates have already adjusted dramatically but the fact remains that there is still a large disparity and the productivity of the Chinese is increasing at a rapid pace.
Very few persons will get the answer to the following question right. What country lost the most manufacturing jobs in the past 10 years?
The answer, China! This is intuitive if you reflect for a moment. China has gone from a country of a billion peasants weaving baskets by hand to a true manufacturing powerhouse. As with any trend, it is a mistake to underestimate the length or strength of the move. It will take many more years to rationalize these markets.
The US economy is currently in the middle of a move from recovery to expansion and no one should underestimate the power of the US economy either. Our willingness to allow low cost production to be done elsewhere is one of our greatest assets. Todays paper reported that the northwest has seen about 500 sawmills close since 1987; finally, a new sawmill is planned. The US economy will find what production can be done at a profit and close down the production that cannot be done at a profit.
To a large extent, in this environment, one must simply hope that the Fed is ready to back pedal if necessary. My guess is that the Fed will at least make a little noise about not needing to raise short rates too much. The market might respond mightyly to such noise.
I do not recommend the purchase of long term bonds at this time but I suspect the returns will be close to the coupon until the Fed stops raising short rates. I don't object too strongly to substituting solid dividend paying blue chips for some portion of ones fixed income funds in these circumstances. A portfolio of value oriented blue chips should hold up better than many a "diversified" portfolio we all have seen. Even though long rates may go down, the upside for the blue chips is superior to the upside for the bonds.
In any event, it is a mistake to assume the direction of rates or currencies.
Jack,
thank you for sharing your insights here.
Post a Comment