sharetrader
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 16 to 21 of 21
  1. #16
    Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    Posts
    108

    Default

    I don't think it's worthwhile relying on a rule of thumb. I intend to have 0% bonds at all age brackets.

  2. #17
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    25

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Investor View Post
    I don't think it's worthwhile relying on a rule of thumb. I intend to have 0% bonds at all age brackets.
    I also intend to have 0% bonds at all ages and to have enough in the market to ride the rollercoaster.

  3. #18
    Guru peat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Auckland, , New Zealand.
    Posts
    3,619

    Default

    the premise (1 in 30) is fully dubious in my opinion, I really dont see CEN falling over in half a decade. Almost no chance at all certainly not 1 in 30. This strikes me as intuitive rather than mathematical.

    And if you spend a good number of lines discounting the bond why is the equity investment not also risk adjusted

    Snoopy it seems your analysis discounts the bond for an arbitrary risk factor but the equity return should even more heavily discounted because the bond and its interest will be paid as a priority over the share being worth anything or the dividend being dropped.
    Last edited by peat; 07-09-2017 at 06:47 PM. Reason: additional thoughts

  4. #19
    Legend
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    , , New Zealand.
    Posts
    5,085

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by peat View Post
    the premise (1 in 30) is fully dubious in my opinion, I really dont see CEN falling over in half a decade. Almost no chance at all certainly not 1 in 30. This strikes me as intuitive rather than mathematical.
    It would be fascinating to know how Graeme Wheeler and the boffins at RBNZ equate a BBB rating with a one in thirty chance that "an investor will not receive repayment on a five-year investment on time and in full." The claim is that 1/30 is from 'historical data' (so not intuitive as you suggest Peat), but what data? Was it gathered in NZ only or is the data global? What industries made up the data?

    I think there is a difference between Contact 'falling over' and the bond 'falling over'. In the worst case, a capital injection from shareholders would stop Contact 'falling over'. But probably dividends would be suspended at the same time, and interest on the bonds might be a 'delayed payment' or maybe the interest would not be paid at all? In those circumstances existing bonds might become close to unsalable, unless the bondholder was willing to take a huge haircut.

    The problem with this 'probability of failure within five years' is that not all five year periods are equal. At the moment it does seem implausible. But I put it to you that if you think this, you are are probably being influenced by the bombardment of information on present day circumstances. Go back less than two years and Contact has its cash resources drained with a 50c special dividend. What if Tiwai point had announced its closure shortly after that? It didn't happen of course, but that is not the same as saying it could not have happened. Right now a 1 in 30 probability of failure looks ridiculous. But back then if my 'alternative fact' scenario had played out, the chance of failure could have been 1 in 10. Contact's relatively high debt load even today (high for companies in general, not high for power companies in particular) is deemed prudent because they have great security of cashflow. If the cashflow becomes less secure then there would rightly be more attention paid to overall debt levels.

    And if you spend a good number of lines discounting the bond why is the equity investment not also risk adjusted

    Snoopy it seems your analysis discounts the bond for an arbitrary risk factor but the equity return should even more heavily discounted because the bond and its interest will be paid as a priority over the share being worth anything or the dividend being dropped.
    I agree the equity (Contact shares) are likely to be more volatile than the 'Contact Bonds'. I did not discount that return because half of the volatility is negative (the share price might go down) and half is positive (the share price might go up). It is only negative volatility that is of concern for shareholders. Positive volatility is what we all seek and why we are in the game. 'Discounting' a share value and/or dividend because you might get 'positive volatility' makes no sense at all. "Positive Volatility' is an investment objective, not a risk factor.

    The big problem with bonds right now is that potential rising interest rates are a real threat to bond values and share values, but in a broad market sense probably more of a threat to bond values. Thus I see bonds right now as higher risk and lower return than shares, even though I acknowledge that shares are also high risk. Traditionally , when all those asset allocation text books were written, bonds and shares were more often than not 'out of sync'. I don't think this is so today, which is why I don't think the traditional textbook advice of the conservative investor weighting their portfolio towards bonds works in today's market.

    SNOOPY
    Last edited by Snoopy; 10-09-2017 at 03:44 PM.
    Management top tip: Share the responsibility. Change your name by deed-poll to "Someone Else"

  5. #20
    Guru peat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Auckland, , New Zealand.
    Posts
    3,619

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Snoopy View Post
    The claim is that 1/30 is from 'historical data' (so not intuitive as you suggest Peat), but what data? Was it gathered in NZ only or is the data global? What industries made up the data? SNOOPY
    Good questions but I wasnt actually saying that the statistic was intuitive, I was saying that my view is intuitive. Sorry for that lack of clarity.

    "Almost no chance at all certainly not 1 in 30. This strikes me as intuitive rather than mathematical."


    Quote Originally Posted by Snoopy View Post
    Thus I see bonds right now as higher risk and lower return than shares, even though I acknowledge that shares are also high risk. Traditionally , when all those asset allocation text books were written, bonds and shares were more often than not 'out of sync'. I don't think this is so today, which is why I don't think the traditional textbook advice of the conservative investor weighting their portfolio towards bonds works in today's market.SNOOPY
    Its worked pretty well I would've thought , capital gains, no failures (that I can think of) .
    For clarity, nothing I say is advice....

  6. #21
    Legend
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    , , New Zealand.
    Posts
    5,085

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by peat View Post
    Its worked pretty well I would've thought , capital gains, no failures (that I can think of) .
    With interest rates falling the capital value of any existing bond will rise. That is indisputable. It follows that in a climate of falling interest rates that most bondholders experiences will have been positive.

    However, I think it is a false belief to rely on this 'experience' and suggest that in a future climbing interest rate market, that most bond holders experiences will be positive. Many companies that issue bonds know this and have built in a future 'reset to market rates' clause at some time in the medium term future. That will stop the value of those bonds absolutely tanking as interest rates go up.

    SNOOPY
    Last edited by Snoopy; 12-09-2017 at 04:31 PM.
    Management top tip: Share the responsibility. Change your name by deed-poll to "Someone Else"

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
  •