Bonds Investment TV

Should You Use Bond Index Funds?


Article from About.com

By Kent Thune, About.com Guide   October 26, 2011

Conventional wisdom says that actively managed mutual funds are better for bond investing than passively managed (index) funds.  Is this so-called wisdom best for you to follow?  How have actively managed bond funds compared to passively managed (index) bond funds lately?

Actively Managed vs Index Bond Funds

The reasoning for the conventional wisdom that actively managed funds beat index fundswhen it comes to bond investing is that a manager can navigate the complex fixed income markets by anticipating changes in interest rates.  Therefore the actively managed fund manager may make advantageous moves accordingly and outperform the passively managed (index) bond funds.  Or so the story goes...

The Basics on Bonds
Bond prices tend to move in opposite direction of interest rates.  The movement in price is more pronounced with the longer duration bonds.  For example, if interest rates are rising, your long-term bond funds will typically lose more value than your intermediate and short-term bond funds.  Who wants to hold the old bonds that pay lower rates of interest when the newer ones pay higher interest?
If you have an bond index fund and the economy is headed into a rising interest rate environment, it's kind of like sitting in a raft headed toward a waterfall--the raft being the rising interest rates and the water fall being the falling prices that follow.  However, as conventional wisdom would have it, a manager for an actively managed bond fund could anticipate the rising interest rates and shift the holdings to shorter term bonds and avoid much of the price declines (saving you from the worst of the price declines and keeping you from going over the waterfall).
The Best Bond Fund Manager vs Index Funds

I just finished quarterly investment reviews for my clients and noticed that the bond index funds have been performing much better than than the actively managed bond funds over the past year.  Even one of the greatest bond fund managers in the world, Bill Gross, has failed to beat the major bond market indexes.  For example, over the past year (as of 9/30/2011) Bill Gross' Harbor Bond Fund Adm (HABDX) is up just 0.20% through the third quarter, whereas the Barcap Aggregate Bond Index is up 5.26%.
Bill Gross has been saying for months that the best years for bonds are behind us and an inflationary period with rising interest rates is ahead of us.  His logic is good but financial markets are not often logical.  Interest rates are about as low as they can get but if investors are fearful, they'll keep putting their money into areas where they perceive safety, such as bonds, cash or gold.
The lesson learned here is that even the smartest mutual fund managers can't predict the future.  As a bond fund investor, you have a choice between picking a manager (actively managed) or picking the market (passive-index).  Your best bet may be on the latter.

Article from About.com

Ban on Muni Bond Sales Ended Amid Bad Debt Concern: China Credit



From Bloomberg Business WeekBy Fion Li, Judy Chen and Henry Sanderson
Oct. 20 (Bloomberg) -- China will allow some local governments to issue bonds independently, ending a 17-year ban that prompted authorities to set up thousands of companies that racked up $1.7 trillion of liabilities by the end of 2010.
The cities of Shanghai and Shenzhen, and the Zhejiang and Guangdong provinces will be able to sell debt themselves instead of going through the central government, according to a Finance Ministry statement yesterday. Nine of China’s 10 worst- performing corporate bonds in the past month were issued by local-government financing arms, with the 11.5 percent slide in Inner Mongolia Nailun Group’s 2018 notes leading declines. U.S. municipal debt dropped 0.2 percent in the same period, based on Bank of America Merrill Lynch’s Municipal Master Index.
Local governments in China set up the companies to fund the construction of roads, sewage plants and subways after they were barred from issuing bonds and obtaining bank loans directly under a 1994 budget law. A June report by the National Audit Office said there were more than 6,500 entities with debt, 42 percent of which would fall due in 2011 and 2012.
“This sends a strong signal that the central government is determined to find a solution to resolve local debt problems,” said Qu Hongbin, chief economist for Greater China at HSBC Holdings Plc in Hong Kong. “It also opens a door for widening long-term financing channels for local governments.”
The biggest declining local-government unit bonds lost 6.6 percent on average in the past month, according to Shanghai Stock Exchange data compiled by Bloomberg. Weinan City Construction Investment and Development Ltd.’s 6 percent debt due in June 2017 were the worst performers after Inner Mongolia, losing 9.3 percent.
Bad Debt
Local government financing units owed about 3.5 trillion yuan ($548 billion) more than was reported by the state auditor, Moody’s Investors Service estimated in a July 5 report. China’s non-performing debt may account for as much as 12 percent of total credit, Moody’s said. As much as 30 percent of local government liabilities may go sour, Standard & Poor’s said in May.
“Most of the provinces have balance-sheet mismatch as they have borrowed short to fund long-term investment,” said Chi Lo, chief executive officer at HFT Investment Management (Hong Kong) Ltd. Even without central government guarantees, borrowing in the bond market is likely to prove cheaper than taking out bank loans, he said.
China’s State Council will limit the amount that can be raised by local governments in the trial program, and the Finance Ministry will handle payments for securities issued this year, without providing an explicit guarantee, the statement said.
‘Hidden Risks’
State-run fund Central Huijin Investment Ltd., which holds stakes in most of China’s financial institutions, said last week it would boost its holdings in the nation’s four biggest state- owned commercial banks after their shares slumped amid concern that bad debts will climb. Industrial & Commercial Bank of China Ltd. and China Construction Bank Corp., the world’s two biggest lenders by market value, have dropped 30 percent and 27 percent this year in Hong Kong.
“It’s undeniable that the lack of supervision and management of local government financing vehicles have created some hidden risks,” Liu Mingkang, China’s banking regulator said, according to a transcript of a speech posted on the body’s website yesterday.
The State Council approved the Finance Ministry selling 200 billion yuan ($31 billion) of bonds on behalf of local governments in March. Zhejiang has approval to sell 8 billion of debt yuan this year, the province’s fiscal department said in a faxed response to questions on Oct. 18. Shanghai was allocated 7.1 billion yuan, while Guangdong has 6.9 billion yuan, Caixin Magazine reported on its website on Oct. 10.
Default Risk
A total 22.9 billion yuan of notes are still to be sold in 2011 by the four local authorities included in the the trial program, according to Caixin.
Officials at Guangdong province’s media office didn’t respond to faxed questions sent by Bloomberg News this month, while phone calls to the finance offices of Shenzhen and Shanghai weren’t answered. Xinhua News Agency reported in September that those cities and provinces had won permission to sell debt directly.
“Whether it’s worth buying these type of bonds will depend on their guarantees, be it tax revenue or cash flows from certain projects,” said Chen Qiwei, a senior bond trader at Shenzhen Development Bank Co. in Shanghai. “Certainly we are concerned about the issuer’s default risks.”
Default Swaps
Yields on 10-year Chinese government bonds have slipped from a three-year high of 4.13 percent reached on Aug. 30 and were at 3.73 percent yesterday. The yuan weakened 0.1 percent to close at 6.3855 per dollar yesterday in Shanghai, according to the China Foreign Exchange Trade System.
The cost of insuring Chinese sovereign bonds doubled this year as ratings companies highlighted the growing risk of loans to local-government financing vehicles and property developers. Five-year credit-default swaps on the notes were 144 basis points yesterday, up 76 basis points in 2011, according to data provider CMA, which is owned by CME Group Inc. and compiles prices quoted by dealers in the privately negotiated market.
The contracts pay the buyer face value in exchange for the underlying securities or the cash equivalent should a government or company fail to adhere to its debt agreements.
The debt to be sold under the trial program will have maturities of three and five years, according to the ministry’s statement. The authorities involved can choose their own underwriters to arrange the sales.
Helps Banks
Guangdong has the highest gross domestic product among China’s 23 provinces at 4.6 trillion yuan in 2010, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. Zhejiang’s GDP climbed 21 percent to 2.8 trillion yuan last year, while the city of Shanghai’s economy was valued at 1.7 trillion yuan, the data show. The GDP of Shenzhen city was 951 billion yuan.
China’s overall GDP was $5.9 trillion last year, data collated by Bloomberg show.
“The trial program starts from places with relatively better fiscal conditions,” Fan Jianping, director of economic forecasting at China’s State Information Center, said by phone from Beijing yesterday. “Local governments will be able to gradually repay indirect borrowings, including bank loans, by raising funds from direct bond sales.”
Since March 2009, the Finance Ministry has issued bonds on behalf of cities and provinces collectively, repaying principal and interest. The ministry sold 17.6 billion yuan of three-year bonds this week at a yield of 3.67 percent on behalf of regional authorities, down from 4.01 percent at the last sale on Aug. 22. The yield on the central government’s benchmark three-year bonds fell 2.5 basis points to 3.48 percent today, Chinabond data show.
“Issuing bonds doesn’t solve the fundamental problem but it does help the banks because now the onus is not just on them,” said Yao Wei, a Hong Kong-based economist at Societe Generale SA. “The risk will be spread to other investors.”
--Fion Li, Judy Chen and Henry Sanderson. With assistance from Belinda Cao in New York. Editors: James Regan, Emma O’Brien
To contact the reporters on this story: Fion Li in Hong Kong at fli59@bloomberg.net; Judy Chen in Shanghai at xchen45@bloomberg.net; Henry Sanderson in Beijing at hsanderson@bloomberg.net
To contact the editors responsible for this story: Sandy Hendry at shendry@bloomberg.net; Shelley Smith at ssmith118@bloomberg.net

How to use bonds to cut investment risk







When paired with stocks, bonds diminish risk without crimping long-run returns. Forget fancy formulas -- 60/40 or 70/30 works for just about everybody. Here’s how to get started.

By Scott Gerlach
For the vast majority of investors, bonds serve a single, overriding role -- as ballast. True, bonds function well for income seekers, and, in the hands of an adept speculator, they can beat the stock market for long stretches. But most importantly, bonds help keep a stock-focused portfolio sturdy -- steadily, predictably sailing toward long-run returns.
Bonds suffered neglect during the 1990s bull market in stocks. Investors parked ever more of their assets in equities, afraid to miss out on the rocket ride. But when the rocket crashed in 2000, stocks-only portfolios shattered. Better-diversified accounts, however, enjoyed much of the moon shot without the crash landing.

Find the right mix

The first fixed-income question for most investors is, what's the right ratio of bonds to stocks?
Michael Holland, who manages the Holland Balanced fund (HOLBX), strongly advocates a 60/40 ratio of stocks to bond for most investors. With this mix, investors can expect 80% of the stock market's long-run return but with a truly moderate level of volatility.
Holland's fund offers something of a test lab -- and wouldn't be hard to emulate. It's split almost exactly 60/40, with the stock component spread over about 20 blue chips and the bond portion almost exclusively in Treasurys, the rock-solid bonds issued by the U.S. government. (Holland's tiny fund had only $50 million under management in early 2003. His marketing consists of one Wall Street Journal ad once a year, plus annual ads in the magazines Harvard and Nantucket. He says his 2,500 or so holders never sell.)
A $10,000 deposit in Holland's fund in April 1997 (its inception) was worth $11,711 in January 2003. An identical deployment in the Vanguard 500 Index fund (VFINX) amounted to $12,162. In 2001, when the S&P 500 ($INX) index skidded 11.1%, Holland's balanced fund edged down just 0.2%.
Interested in even more security than the Holland formula offers? The minimum-risk allocation mix probably is 80% fixed-income, 20% stock, according to Alan Gayle, senior investment strategist for Trusco Capital Management. Gayle oversees investment policy for a broad array of mutual funds, and he helps manage the $575 million STI Classic Growth and Income fund (CRVAX). In his view, a 100% bond allocation would be ill-advised, even for the most risk-averse investor, as bonds can suffer lengthy bear markets of their own.

Bond allocation guidelines

Whatever your asset-allocation goal, Gayle offers some guidelines for splitting up the bond portion:
  • Start with 25% or more in bonds with as little default risk as possible: Treasurys, inflation-indexed Treasurys or municipal bonds.
  • Then add bond funds with "economic exposure," such as those focused on highly rated corporate bonds. These usually outperform Treasurys when the economy heats up. (A fund offers the diversification few investors achieve with individual corporate bonds.)
  • Don't neglect junk bonds. They deserve at least 10% of your bond investment. They correlate more closely with equities than with fixed income, and their higher yields can compensate when Treasury yields are low. Funds are the only way to play the high-yield market.

The safest bond

The safest choice of ballast material for your portfolio is Treasurys (and inflation-protected Treasurys). Only rarely do Treasurys offer the fixed-income world's biggest returns. But their issuer -- Uncle Sam -- won't be going bankrupt. Here are the best ways to buy them:
Directly from the government. The U.S. Department of the Treasury has Web site called TreasuryDirect that allows for the purchase of Treasurys. It's easily accessible to individual investors, and Treasurys can be bought at auction at no fee.
Mutual funds. There are relatively few Treasurys-only mutual funds. But some exchange-traded funds have emerged that are modeled on Treasury indexes. (Exchange-traded funds, or ETFs, are essentially baskets of actual securities that are broken into pieces for individual investors to buy. ETFs offer low fees and have certain tax advantages.) In summer 2002, Barclays Global Advisors launched three ETFs pegged to four Lehman Brothers Treasury indexes: the Lehman 1-3 year Treasury(SHYnewsmsgs), Lehman 7-10 year Treasury (IEFnewsmsgs) and Lehman 20+ year Treasury (TLTnewsmsgs).
Government bond funds. The most common Treasury proxy is the ubiquitous "government bond fund," which usually amalgamates Treasurys, highly rated agency debt (from the Federal Home Loan Bank, Ginnie Mae and other entities) and even short-term corporate bonds. Vanguard, T. Rowe Price and PIMCO offer government funds of various durations with excellent track records. (Just be careful which class of fund shares you buy -- sales loads can be high, particularly from PIMCO.)
Simplicity is the primary advantage of these funds. Writing a check to a fund company takes less effort than buying individual bonds and can, for some investors, be worth a small annual fee. Many financial planners scorn government-bond funds, though. The problem? Few bond funds feature a single maturity date. Most managers buy and sell to take profits or pounce on perceived bargains. The only way to guarantee stability of principal is to buy individual bonds and hold them to maturity. (An exception: American Century offers a series of "target maturity" funds that hold only bonds that mature in a single year. When held until maturity, these funds closely mirror the experience of buying individual securities.)

The municipal alternative

While Treasurys tend to be the first bond category beginning investors consider, they aren't always the best option. Treasurys perform best in tax-deferred accounts, since Uncle Sam treats interest payments as regular income. And they can melt in value during periods of inflation.
One alternative: high-rated municipal bonds. These promise Treasury-like safety from default as well as important tax breaks. Buy bonds issued by municipalities in your home state, and you usually dodge federal, state and local taxes -- the "triple tax free" promise that makes munis favored income vehicles for the well heeled.
Even for the rest of us, munis make good sense. Assume you're in a hypothetical 30% federal tax bracket. A muni yielding 5% earns just as much -- after federal taxes -- as a Treasury yielding more than 7%. In early 2003, 7% Treasurys existed only in the recollections of old-timers.
"If someone were to get a fixed-income portfolio and their money were sufficient, I would think that they should own outright some high-quality municipal bonds," says Trusco's Gayle. He recommends insured or triple-A-rated general-obligation bonds.
The main problem with munis is getting your hands on them. A round lot of any particular bond goes for as much as $250,000. Buy less and you pay a higher markup. Financial planners see $100,000 as just about the smallest allocation that can go into individual munis.
Yes, you can go the mutual fund route, as muni funds accept smaller amounts. But be careful to know exactly what you're buying. "If they're going to own mutual funds, then they need to be examining the prospectus to see what the quality parameters are," Gayle says.
MSN Money offers tools for just such an examination. Start with our Top Performers screens to find consistently performing muni funds focused on your home state. Seek a low expense ratio -- it can be as little as a quarter percentage point -- and a long-tenured manager.

Tips on TIPS

While munis guard your interest from the tax man, TIPS fend off income investors' other bugaboo: inflation. Treasury Inflation-Protected Securities pay a small coupon yearly, plus their principal value is adjusted once a year to match changes in the Consumer Price Index. TIPS are cheapest when the economy is heading south and no one fears inflation. Traders hate them, but buy-and-hold investors find their inflation insurance comforting.
"It's possible sometime in our lifetime we'll have inflation again bite us in the butt," says Holland.
The downside: TIPS present tax problems. The inflation adjustment counts as income in the year it is made, even though investors don't pocket the principal until maturity. Also, TIPS are auctioned less frequently than other Treasurys. The government promises a new 10-year TIPS each July, and it reopens them for new investment in October and January.
In general, TIPS and munis move in sway with Treasurys. They make equally good ballast to counteract stock gyrations.

Reaching for yield

Money managers and investment planners debate the wisdom of sinking your entire bond allocation in low-yielding (but rock-solid) Treasurys and munis. Holland wouldn't have it any other way. But Richard Lehmann, publisher of the Forbes/Lehmann Income Securities Investor newsletter, recommends mixing it up.
Corporate bonds, junk, mortgage-backeds, mid-tier municipals and a host of other higher-yielding options abound. But it's hard or impossible for individuals to buy many of them. Minimum investments are large, and individual bonds carry exponentially more risk than a diversified bunch. Moreover, expensive research tools give professional traders huge advantages in valuing each bond's unique features -- maturity, coupon, call dates, credit rating and more. And unlike stocks, few bonds aside from Treasurys have easily accessible price histories. Fewer than 100 corporate bonds are listed on the New York Stock Exchange.
"In fixed-income investing, it is much more complicated to select the instrument you want to invest in," Lehmann says. "With common stock, everything is the same."
A typical investor seeking diversification and total return has two realistic options: Buy mutual funds or make fixed income a hobby and find a guru like Lehmann to follow. Funds encapsulate every segment of the bond market into bite-size portions, though at the price of a management fee and without a guarantee of principal. Bond newsletter writers, among whom Lehmann is the dean, make specific recommendations but leave the portfolio in your hands.
For simplicity, Trusco's Gayle suggests sticking with highly rated corporate-bond funds. He guides individual investors away from mortgage-backeds because their boom and bust cycles are less predictable. He and Holland offer a few basic rules to guide bond-fund purchases:
  • Pick a sensible credit-rating range. Moody's and Standard & Poor's use slightly different scales that appraise corporate bonds from D (in default) to triple-A (zero perceived default risk). Enter a fund's five-letter symbol in the MSN Money quote box, then click Fund Portfolio in the left-hand navigation -- the fund's average credit rating is the first data point you'll see. The PIMCO Total Return Fund (PTTAX), managed with great success by the legendary Bill Gross, has an average rating of double-A.
  • Pick a duration that doesn't make you sweat. Each bond fund has an average duration, related to (but different than) the average maturity of the fund's holdings. Duration essentially measures a bond's sensitivity to interest rates. It's given in years. PIMCO Total Return in early 2003 had an average duration of 4.4 years -- a middling number. A smaller figure offers greater defense against rising interest rates; a larger number offers more market sensitivity to declining interest rates.
  • Follow the other usual guidelines for buying funds. That means low fees, a reputable manager and a solid track record.

Regular maintenance pays off

Stocks have no ceiling. Theoretically, share prices can rise unceasingly so long as earnings expectations keep growing. But bonds run in cycles. They have ceilings -- and floors. Yields don't fall to zero or rise to infinity.
For that reason, they need to be treated differently than stocks. Watch a few different bond categories over time and you'll quickly learn to capitalize on their individual peaks and troughs. In early 2003, for instance, Treasurys looked very pricey, high-grade corporates were mending and junk bonds had come back from their 2002 collapse. Munis weren't sure what to make of a proposed cut in dividend taxes, which might lower their status among income investors.
But even before you harmonize with the bond universe, you can employ a mechanistic approach. Strike that stocks/bonds mix and rebalance to it once a year. Employ a similar approach with your bond holdings. Pare back winners and reallocate more to losers.
"It's very important not to take your eye off of the goal line," Gayle says.
You'll also have to decide what to do with the interest checks. In tax-deferred portfolios, they're best reinvested to avoid steep penalties.
In non-retirement holdings, income reinvestment helps build up bond allocations more quickly -- though you must weigh the costs and benefits. Interest is taxable in the year it's earned, regardless of whether it's reinvested. And taking income from bonds actually helps cut investment risk even further. If they get ploughed back in to principal, those interest checks are in play. Alternatively, they are beyond the market's reach once they go into cash or get used for everyday expenses.
At the time of original publication, Scott Gerlach owned or controlled shares in the following securities mentioned in this article: PIMCO Total Return.