sharetrader
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 21
  1. #1
    ShareTrader Legend Beagle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Auckland
    Posts
    21,362

    Default Portfilio allocation to Bonds

    Watching CNBC this morning and Jim Cramers mad money and he got talking about investing for your age.
    Zero bonds under 25
    In your 30's 10-20%
    In your 40's 20-30%
    In your 50's 30-40%
    In your 60's 40-50%
    When retired approx. 60-70%

    Bond yields are pretty low but even so this approach seems to make prudent common sense to me.
    He has a book out called Get Rich Carefully - pretty smart guy - anyone know where I can get a copy ?

    To be honest this weeks political and geopolitical events have sharpened my focus on risk management.
    Who knows what sort of Government we have coming soon or quite how things will play out with North Korea ?

    Your thoughts on the above allocation strategy, make sense ?, what do you think Peat ?
    Last edited by Beagle; 12-08-2017 at 10:50 AM.
    Ecclesiastes 11:2: “Divide your portion to seven, or even to eight, for you do not know what misfortune may occur on the earth.
    Ben Graham - In the short run the market is a voting machine but in the long run the market is a weighing machine

  2. #2
    Legend peat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Whanganui, New Zealand.
    Posts
    6,435

    Default

    yes that approximately what the textbook says Beagle. Bonds, NB True Bonds (not junk) are seen as a smoother of ones portfolio returns as they tend to, or at least have in the past, operated countercyclically to equities. However QE and this era of very low interest rates hasnt panned out exactly like that in that interest rates have gone lower and lower (making bonds worth more) and equities have gone higher and higher meaning that we appear to be in a bull market for BOTH at the same time.

    Traditionally interest rates fall during recessions and depressions etc when there is low demand for money and in that environment equities tend to perform poorly. But this time round its different huh
    They still act to smooth out returns because of their relatively lower volatility and their fixed returns but just not counter-cyclically so much.

    Gotta watch out for junk bonds though as they tend to act more like equities in testing times when the issuer's ability to pay interest and pay the capital back becomes more questionable. In that case the price of the bond will fall, and yields will become high (but maybe that coupon payment wont actually be received).

    I recently sent out an article via a Sharechat mailout on this subject which said that (in a deep and liquid ) bond market , prices of the bonds were a good predictor of shareprice following an company profit result.
    https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...rnings-reports

    Its not in the textbooks but I think for many retail investors Term Deposits act as this smoother device and while there is opportunity cost risk with these if interest rates move there isnt any real capital value change because retailers dont have to mark to market like say a bond fund would have to.

    NZ has a pretty good bond market these days. Thats actually the place where NZX has been growing its revenues - we all know how few new equity listings there have been.
    Hopefully there will be some new bond issues in the next few months - I will of course keep everyone informed as these come through. ;+)
    For clarity, nothing I say is advice....

  3. #3
    Veteran novice
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    , , .
    Posts
    7,289

    Default

    Bonds certainly have their place in portfolios but anyone newly retired 5-10 years ago would be wondering about that text-book advice if they had switched from equity-heavy to 60-70% bonds. It would probably be argued that the low interest rate environment of the last several years is abnormal - but then so is the low inflation environment - and retirees' spending patterns probably don't correlate with CPI weightings. Perhaps the "60-70%" theory needs a critical re-evaluation in the light of changing conditions.

  4. #4
    percy
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    christchurch
    Posts
    17,221

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Beagle View Post
    Watching CNBC this morning and Jim Cramers mad money and he got talking about investing for your age.
    Zero bonds under 25
    In your 30's 10-20%
    In your 40's 20-30%
    In your 50's 30-40%
    In your 60's 40-50%
    When retired approx. 60-70%

    Bond yields are pretty low but even so this approach seems to make prudent common sense to me.
    He has a book out called Get Rich Carefully - pretty smart guy - anyone know where I can get a copy ?

    To be honest this weeks political and geopolitical events have sharpened my focus on risk management.
    Who knows what sort of Government we have coming soon or quite how things will play out with North Korea ?

    Your thoughts on the above allocation strategy, make sense ?, what do you think Peat ?
    Always interesting doing the opposite.Added to that, I recently decided I did not have enough of our portfolios in higher risk shares.These have been very rewarding to us over the years.So have increased to near 20%.
    So a 68 year old's alternative portfolio....
    .......................................My wife's............................Mine.
    NZ shares...........................79.53%........... ..................52.82%
    Aussie shares.......................0.26%................ ..............28.65%
    Unlisted/via company.............14.56%........................ ....15.01%
    Cash at broker.......................5.66%................ ..............3.52%
    We also have enough money in our savings accounts to last us a couple or three years.
    No bonds.
    "well positioned".
    NZ governments .All have been very kind to me over the years.No worries there.
    ..

    ..
    The Book ,Get Rich Carefully $21.99 Bookdepository.com
    Last edited by percy; 13-08-2017 at 12:51 PM.

  5. #5
    ShareTrader Legend Beagle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Auckland
    Posts
    21,362

    Default

    Thanks for your thoughts folks. The theory appears to be sound but with the current abysmal returns I am not sure it presently works very well. To be honest with bond yields so low I have been using REIT"s as quassi bonds with PIE structures giving tax paid returns around 5%, 7.5% gross for taxpayers on a 33% rate, this to me gives an acceptable return for the risk involved, many REIT's have fairly well defined gearing parameters.

    I look at the yields of longer dated bonds like Infratil at circa 5% gross before tax, 3.35% after tax, and I know their balance sheet carries very substantial debt and I struggle to get interested because they're unrated and probably more highly geared than most REIT's and quite probably more vulnerable to a major exogenous shock.
    The other thing I don't think many investors consider with Banks capital note issues is that these are subject to the Reserve Bank's open banking resolution and some people may be investing in these ignorant of the fact that in a severe GFC Mk2 situation they could get a serious haircut. This risk obviously doesn't apply to corporate bonds or REIT's.

    I would speculate I'm not the only one using REIT's to get a fair type of bond return by any means.

    Term deposits at circa 3.7% for around 1 year also leave me fairly cold as by taking a little commercial risk in a well diversified good quality REIT you can get double the return. Further the term deposit is not without capital risk due to the above mentioned open banking resolution. Bank term deposits give a very poor return on a risk, tax and inflation adjusted basis in my opinion.

    I have a number of clients who have done very well out of commercial property over the years and although the capitalisation rates on commercial property are at all time lows with consequent revaluations giving strong NTA increases I don't think they'll change much in the foreseeable future so I think on balance going forward I'll continue to use my strategy of REIT's.

    The other thing is that the theory assumes one has to protect against volatility in one's portfolio as they age. In practice however people who've worked themselves into an extremely comfortable position are well positioned to withstand higher volatility and therefore well positioned to benefit from an ongoing higher portfolio allocation to shares.

    I'll keep an eye out for new bond issues though Peat and thanks for sharing your thoughts but at this stage I think my strategy probably only needs a minor tweak.
    Currently holding too much cash but this is not necessarily a bad thing going into an election and with current level's of geopolitical risk and the markets have run pretty hard.
    Last edited by Beagle; 13-08-2017 at 05:12 PM.
    Ecclesiastes 11:2: “Divide your portion to seven, or even to eight, for you do not know what misfortune may occur on the earth.
    Ben Graham - In the short run the market is a voting machine but in the long run the market is a weighing machine

  6. #6
    Advanced Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Wellington
    Posts
    2,451

    Default

    "Currently holding too much cash" can never have too much cash

  7. #7
    Legend peat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Whanganui, New Zealand.
    Posts
    6,435

    Default

    I wouldnt compare bonds with REITS myself. The risks are very different and comparing the current returns isnt valid either
    The thing about a good bond is that its top of the pecking order and so capital loss is almost a zero probablity (well maybe not quite ) They should be better than bricks and mortar - they should be rock solid. Hence low returns are acceptable for that part of the portfolio because its actually more about capital preservation.
    I agree that growth should be held longer and more of it in the investment lifecycle nowadays due to increasing longevity and low nominal returns but for those who arent - shall we say - extremely comfortable- capital preservation can still be very important in the later stages.

    We're actually offering a REIT of REITS at the moment (shameless plug)
    For clarity, nothing I say is advice....

  8. #8
    Speedy Az winner69's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Location
    , , .
    Posts
    37,738

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by peat View Post
    I wouldnt compare bonds with REITS myself. The risks are very different and comparing the current returns isnt valid either
    The thing about a good bond is that its top of the pecking order and so capital loss is almost a zero probablity (well maybe not quite ) They should be better than bricks and mortar - they should be rock solid. Hence low returns are acceptable for that part of the portfolio because its actually more about capital preservation.
    I agree that growth should be held longer and more of it in the investment lifecycle nowadays due to increasing longevity and low nominal returns but for those who arent - shall we say - extremely comfortable- capital preservation can still be very important in the later stages.

    We're actually offering a REIT of REITS at the moment (shameless plug)
    Peat, whose the WE in your last sentence?
    “ At the top of every bubble, everyone is convinced it's not yet a bubble.”

  9. #9
    Legend peat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Whanganui, New Zealand.
    Posts
    6,435

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by winner69 View Post
    Peat, whose the WE in your last sentence?
    replied via PM so as to keep the touting to a bare minimum ;+)
    For clarity, nothing I say is advice....

  10. #10
    Guru
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    4,659

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Beagle View Post
    Watching CNBC this morning and Jim Cramers mad money and he got talking about investing for your age.
    Zero bonds under 25
    In your 30's 10-20%
    In your 40's 20-30%
    In your 50's 30-40%
    In your 60's 40-50%
    When retired approx. 60-70%

    Bond yields are pretty low but even so this approach seems to make prudent common sense to me.
    He has a book out called Get Rich Carefully - pretty smart guy - anyone know where I can get a copy ?

    To be honest this weeks political and geopolitical events have sharpened my focus on risk management.
    Who knows what sort of Government we have coming soon or quite how things will play out with North Korea ?

    Your thoughts on the above allocation strategy, make sense ?, what do you think Peat ?
    The allocation you have for bonds must depend on whether or not you own your home and whether or not you still have an outstanding mortgage on your home.

    If you have a home and still have a mortagage, I think it would make more sense to discharge your mortgage prior to accumulating a bond portfolio.

    Most people, who are (fortunate enough to be able to buy a home in an Auckland context these days) in their 30's are often still owing a decent mortgage. So I doubt it would be prudent for them to own any bonds, which would probably be paying them a smaller gross interest rate than what they would have to pay (from their taxed income) on their mortgage.

    Also, if you own your own home mortgage-free, as you already have a considerable asset which (in NZ in the past) tends not to drop as much as shares in a downturn, then you already have a conservative equity-type investment, so your allocation to property, retirement or conservative shares should be smaller than if you do not own a house.

    We are increasingly in an era where real estate property ownership can no longer be assumed for all investors. Many commentators suggest that NZ real estate property ownership need no longer be a goal. (Mostly I suspect these commentators already own their own homes).

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •