Bogle: Tilt To Corporates For More Yield

Discuss all general (i.e. non-personal) investing questions and issues, investing news, and theory.
User avatar
Topic Author
Rick Ferri
Posts: 9708
Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2007 10:40 am
Location: Georgetown, TX. Twitter: @Rick_Ferri
Contact:

Bogle: Tilt To Corporates For More Yield

Post by Rick Ferri »

Here is a new interview with John Bogle by Olly Ludwig of ETF.com. This is the introduction:

John Bogle, Vanguard’s founder who built a second career as an author and the conscience of American capitalism, is still vigorous and relevant at the age of 84. As always, Bogle counsels investors to keep their focus on the long term, and to try to look past the near-term distractions in markets.

Total returns will always be the sum of earnings growth and dividend yield, plus whatever yield the bond market is serving up. Regarding the paltry bond yields that still prevail since markets crashed five years ago, Bogle reckons investors would be wise to work around the overweight in government debt that now characterizes the Total Bond Market Index.

He stressed that even ardent indexers like himself should always be focused on improving indexes, and he does that in the bond market by taking on a bit of extra risk and yields by including corporate debt in his retirement account and tax-free municipal debt in his non-retirement account.

Read more: Bogle: Tilt To Corporates For More Yield

Rick Ferri
The Education of an Index Investor: born in darkness, finds indexing enlightenment, overcomplicates everything, embraces simplicity.
User avatar
Doc
Posts: 10607
Joined: Sat Feb 24, 2007 12:10 pm
Location: Two left turns from Larry

Re: Bogle: Tilt To Corporates For More Yield

Post by Doc »

Rick Ferri wrote: Regarding the paltry bond yields that still prevail since markets crashed five years ago, Bogle reckons investors would be wise to work around the overweight in government debt that now characterizes the Total Bond Market Index.

He stressed that even ardent indexers like himself should always be focused on improving indexes, and he does that in the bond market by taking on a bit of extra risk and yields by including corporate debt in his retirement account and tax-free municipal debt in his non-retirement account.
I understand the avoidance of overweight in government debt but I don't see why that means you need to change the BarCap Agg Index. Just switch to a fund that follow the Barclays Capital U.S. Intermediate Government/Credit Bond Index.

Could the fact that Vanguard doesn't offer a fund that uses the Intermediate Gov/Credit portion of the Agg Index be a factor? :)


From Rick's link:
Bogle wrote:Well, I go to basically short-term and intermediate-term municipals in my personal account, and, in my retirement plan account, which is my largest asset here, I use intermediate-term corporate and short-term corporate debt.

The bond index is much more heavily weighted in government debt—72 percent—than most investors need to be. These days, when you need yield so badly, I don't think you should sacrifice all that yield. The spreads are large between governments and corporates, 100, 150 basis points or more. People are dying for income, and I'd rather have a lower Treasury position, change the Bond Market Index a bit, have a lower Treasury position and get extra income the way I’ve described instead of jumping into high-yield bonds.
A scientist looks for THE answer to a problem, an engineer looks for AN answer and lawyers ONLY have opinions. Investing is not a science.
User avatar
nisiprius
Advisory Board
Posts: 52216
Joined: Thu Jul 26, 2007 9:33 am
Location: The terrestrial, globular, planetary hunk of matter, flattened at the poles, is my abode.--O. Henry

Re: Bogle: Tilt To Corporates For More Yield

Post by nisiprius »

Image

I just don't see it. Corporates have more yield, but also very obviously more risk, and it showed up clearly in 2008-2009. Above, blue: Vanguard Intermediate-Term Investment grade, VFICX, which is mostly corporates, and orange, Morningstar's corporate bond benchmark, showing that VFICX is very similar in behavior to pure corporates.

Sure, green, Vanguard Total Bond (and Barclay's Aggregate, not shown but essentially identical) sacrifice return in exchange for going almost straight across in 2008-2009.

But Vanguard Intermediate-Term Bond Index (VBIIX) got you just about the same return. The 10-year returns of VBIIX and VFICX are 5.15% and 5.20% respectively.

And it got that return without the 10% dip in 2008-2009. Like the Barclay's Aggregate, it is dominated by government bonds, though not quite as heavily--58% government (including 48% Treasury), 42% corporate. It doesn't overweight corporates, it just goes out a bit more in duration (6.48 years vs 5.47 years). So you could have taken a small amount of extra risk, gotten a small amount of extra return, without any pothole in 2008-2009. Rather than suggesting that some investors might find it appropriate to take on a little more risk, why suggest corporates, specifically?

Why is tilting to corporates a better way of adding a little risk than VBIIX?

To put it another way, just what's so wrong with "the index?" If there's something wrong with the Barclay's Aggregate index because it has lower return than you want and you are willing to increase risk--what exactly is wrong with the index VBIIX uses, "Barclays U.S. 5–10 Year Government/Credit Float Adjusted Bond Index. This index includes all medium and larger issues of U.S. government, investment-grade corporate, and investment-grade international dollar-denominated bonds that have maturities between 5 and 10 years and are publicly issued?"

Why fix the Barclay's Aggregate index by overweighting corporates when the existing index used by Intermediate-Term Index, VBIIX seems to be fine? Why not just suggest that VBIIX might be more appropriate as an all-purpose "core" bond investment than Total Bond?
Last edited by nisiprius on Tue Apr 01, 2014 11:50 am, edited 2 times in total.
Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure nineteen nineteen and six, result happiness; Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure twenty pounds ought and six, result misery.
User avatar
nisiprius
Advisory Board
Posts: 52216
Joined: Thu Jul 26, 2007 9:33 am
Location: The terrestrial, globular, planetary hunk of matter, flattened at the poles, is my abode.--O. Henry

Re: Bogle: Tilt To Corporates For More Yield

Post by nisiprius »

Doc wrote:...Could the fact that Vanguard doesn't offer a fund that uses the Intermediate Gov/Credit portion of the Agg Index be a factor? :)
Are you drawing some fine distinction between that index and the "the Barclays U.S. 5–10 Year Government/Credit Float Adjusted Bond Index" tracked by Vanguard Intermediate-Term Bond Index Fund, VFICX?
Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure nineteen nineteen and six, result happiness; Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure twenty pounds ought and six, result misery.
User avatar
cfs
Posts: 4154
Joined: Fri Feb 23, 2007 12:22 am
Location: ~ Mi Propio Camino ~

Re: Bogle: Tilt To Corporates For More Yield

Post by cfs »

Thanks Rick for the link, I like his comments on Warren Buffet's de facto endorsement of the Vanguard 500 Index Fund.
~ Member of the Active Retired Force since 2014 ~
YDNAL
Posts: 13774
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2007 4:04 pm
Location: Biscayne Bay

Re: Bogle: Tilt To Corporates For More Yield

Post by YDNAL »

Rick Ferri wrote:Total returns will always be the sum of earnings growth and dividend yield, plus whatever yield the bond market is serving up. Regarding the paltry bond yields that still prevail since markets crashed five years ago, Bogle reckons investors would be wise to work around the overweight in government debt that now characterizes the Total Bond Market Index.
Bogle is off. BarCap Aggregate is what it is - no overweight anything!
  • 1. Bogle is lumping Gov't MBS (currently 22% of BarCap Agg) as "government debt."
    2. He wants more credit [less government], use Barclays US 5-10Yr Gov/Cr Fl Adj Index (Vanguard VBILX ~50/50 Gov't/Credit). He gets rid of Gov/t MBS to boot!
nisiprius » Tue Apr 01, 2014 1:48 pm wrote:
Doc wrote:...Could the fact that Vanguard doesn't offer a fund that uses the Intermediate Gov/Credit portion of the Agg Index be a factor? :)

Are you drawing some fine distinction between that index and the "the Barclays U.S. 5–10 Year Government/Credit Float Adjusted Bond Index" tracked by Vanguard Intermediate-Term Bond Index Fund, VFICX?
Doc has a very strict definition of "intermediate."
Landy | Be yourself, everyone else is already taken -- Oscar Wilde
User avatar
Doc
Posts: 10607
Joined: Sat Feb 24, 2007 12:10 pm
Location: Two left turns from Larry

Re: Bogle: Tilt To Corporates For More Yield

Post by Doc »

nisiprius wrote:
Doc wrote:...Could the fact that Vanguard doesn't offer a fund that uses the Intermediate Gov/Credit portion of the Agg Index be a factor? :)
Are you drawing some fine distinction between that index and the "the Barclays U.S. 5–10 Year Government/Credit Float Adjusted Bond Index" tracked by Vanguard Intermediate-Term Bond Index Fund, VFICX?
No a very clear distinct line. The Intermediate Gov/Credit index is a 1-10 year index not a 5-10. There's that old "intermediate" term again that messes us all up from time to time.

I use the BarCap Intermediate Gov/Credit index as my bogey and have for over a decade and when I write myself a note I still write BarCap Intermediate Gov/Credit (1-10) to remind myself. :wink:
Landy wrote:Doc has a very strict definition of "intermediate."

That's Barclays term for their index subset not mine. :P
A scientist looks for THE answer to a problem, an engineer looks for AN answer and lawyers ONLY have opinions. Investing is not a science.
User avatar
Doc
Posts: 10607
Joined: Sat Feb 24, 2007 12:10 pm
Location: Two left turns from Larry

Re: Bogle: Tilt To Corporates For More Yield

Post by Doc »

YDNAL wrote: Bogle is off. BarCap Aggregate is what it is - no overweight anything!
  • 1. Bogle is lumping Gov't MBS (currently 22% of BarCap Agg) as "government debt."
The thing is the Agg Index Itself has changed a whole lot in the last five years. Prior to the '08 debacle it was more like 30/30/30 Treasury-Agency/Corporate/MBS. And the duration went from something like 40/40/20 to 30/30/30 for the short/Intermediate (5-10)/long. It may be the duration thing was because the Treasury started issuing thirty's again.
A scientist looks for THE answer to a problem, an engineer looks for AN answer and lawyers ONLY have opinions. Investing is not a science.
Fallible
Posts: 8798
Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2009 3:44 pm

Re: Bogle: Tilt To Corporates For More Yield

Post by Fallible »

A valuable article to again remind us of the risks in the search for higher yield. And for me it all comes down to these last grafs:

Bogle: "But the miracle of indexing is the simplest miracle ever created. Think about it this way: There's a stock market out there that we all own together and it’s worth, say, $17 trillion today. So we draw that big circle. About 30 percent of it is owned by people who have figured it all out and they own the total stock market by owning everything in it and never trading. And those are the indexers. And index funds are about, I think, 33 percent of the market today, counting institutional and mutual fund investors.

"The other 67 percent of the investors are also indexers themselves as a group. They own the same stocks as the direct index investors. They just trade them back and forth with one another. So it is a mathematical impossibility that they will outperform those who go to indexing directly and buy a low-cost index fund."

ETF.com: "That is a truism that many people just don’t quite grasp, isn’t it?"

Bogle: "It's just the mathematics, and it’s been proven over and over again."
"Yes, investing is simple. But it is not easy, for it requires discipline, patience, steadfastness, and that most uncommon of all gifts, common sense." ~Jack Bogle
garlandwhizzer
Posts: 3566
Joined: Fri Aug 06, 2010 3:42 pm

Re: Bogle: Tilt To Corporates For More Yield

Post by garlandwhizzer »

I totally agree with Bogle on emphasizing corporates over Treasuries in current bond portfolios. I own no Treasuries or TIPS at all, only corporates in my tax-advantaged accounts and either money market or munis in my taxable personal account. There is some increased repayment risk in investment grade corporates and munis, but it is very low in my opinion and more than worth the risk/return tradeoff relative to US govt. bonds of any type. Also, if markets tank as they did in 2008-9, I will not sell my corporate bonds at distressed prices because I keep sufficient money market funds in my personal account to provide for living expenses for 2-3 years. Money market funds produce no revenue but are nice to have in personal accounts at times of market distress because they are always very liquid (unlike TIPS which tanked during the 2008-9 crash) and you can either use them to provide for living expenses until the market storm abates or to buy equities at fire sale prices.

Garland Whizzer
RNJ
Posts: 863
Joined: Mon Apr 08, 2013 9:06 am

Re: Bogle: Tilt To Corporates For More Yield

Post by RNJ »

garlandwhizzer wrote:I totally agree with Bogle on emphasizing corporates over Treasuries in current bond portfolios. I own no Treasuries or TIPS at all, only corporates in my tax-advantaged accounts and either money market or munis in my taxable personal account. There is some increased repayment risk in investment grade corporates and munis, but it is very low in my opinion and more than worth the risk/return tradeoff relative to US govt. bonds of any type. Also, if markets tank as they did in 2008-9, I will not sell my corporate bonds at distressed prices because I keep sufficient money market funds in my personal account to provide for living expenses for 2-3 years. Money market funds produce no revenue but are nice to have in personal accounts at times of market distress because they are always very liquid (unlike TIPS which tanked during the 2008-9 crash) and you can either use them to provide for living expenses until the market storm abates or to buy equities at fire sale prices.

Garland Whizzer
2 thoughts:

1) By holding all of that cash aren't you de facto lowering your overall yield anyway?

2) One thing I like about Treasuries is that, in a real crisis (viz. 2008/9), a flight to quality allows one to sell them and buy distressed securities - something one cannot do (certainly not as profitably, anyway) with corporates.
User avatar
midareff
Posts: 7711
Joined: Mon Nov 29, 2010 9:43 am
Location: Biscayne Bay, South Florida

Re: Bogle: Tilt To Corporates For More Yield

Post by midareff »

RNJ wrote:
garlandwhizzer wrote:I totally agree with Bogle on emphasizing corporates over Treasuries in current bond portfolios. I own no Treasuries or TIPS at all, only corporates in my tax-advantaged accounts and either money market or munis in my taxable personal account. There is some increased repayment risk in investment grade corporates and munis, but it is very low in my opinion and more than worth the risk/return tradeoff relative to US govt. bonds of any type. Also, if markets tank as they did in 2008-9, I will not sell my corporate bonds at distressed prices because I keep sufficient money market funds in my personal account to provide for living expenses for 2-3 years. Money market funds produce no revenue but are nice to have in personal accounts at times of market distress because they are always very liquid (unlike TIPS which tanked during the 2008-9 crash) and you can either use them to provide for living expenses until the market storm abates or to buy equities at fire sale prices.

Garland Whizzer
2 thoughts:

1) By holding all of that cash aren't you de facto lowering your overall yield anyway?

2) One thing I like about Treasuries is that, in a real crisis (viz. 2008/9), a flight to quality allows one to sell them and buy distressed securities - something one cannot do (certainly not as profitably, anyway) with corporates.
I'm in Garland's camp, for better or worse on this one. ST and IT Corporates in IRA and Limited Term and IT Muni's in taxable. Have been maintaining roughly a 1/2 ratio of intermediate to shorter term. I like to keep 3 - 4 % of portfolio in an Ally MM (@.85%) and it makes the pillow softer by less than the portfolio drag.

Corporates will not hold up as well in a financial crunch but with my first RMD due in 2018 @ 70 1/2 plenty of recovery time exists. As far as the IT Index is concerned I agree there is little difference over the last dozen years and it held up much better in the 2007-08 crunch. Let's see how it compares as the Fed tapers off and more strongly contemplates interest rates in 2015.
User avatar
Munir
Posts: 3200
Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2007 3:39 pm
Location: Oregon

Re: Bogle: Tilt To Corporates For More Yield

Post by Munir »

garlandwhizzer wrote:I totally agree with Bogle on emphasizing corporates over Treasuries in current bond portfolios. I own no Treasuries or TIPS at all, only corporates in my tax-advantaged accounts and either money market or munis in my taxable personal account. There is some increased repayment risk in investment grade corporates and munis, but it is very low in my opinion and more than worth the risk/return tradeoff relative to US govt. bonds of any type. Also, if markets tank as they did in 2008-9, I will not sell my corporate bonds at distressed prices because I keep sufficient money market funds in my personal account to provide for living expenses for 2-3 years. Money market funds produce no revenue but are nice to have in personal accounts at times of market distress because they are always very liquid (unlike TIPS which tanked during the 2008-9 crash) and you can either use them to provide for living expenses until the market storm abates or to buy equities at fire sale prices.

Garland Whizzer
Totally agree. My fixed income is mostly in intermediate and short term Investment grade bond funds, with cash in an online savings account to cover two years living expenses and a smattering of I bonds (also have three SPIAS). The dip the corporate bond funds took in 2008 was just that- a temporary dip for which they more than recovered in 2009. In looking for total return for both years, corporates were ahead of treasuries. Should one plan the total fixed income strategy on what temporarily happened in one year only? Does not make sense to me.
User avatar
ray.james
Posts: 1902
Joined: Tue Jul 19, 2011 4:08 am

Re: Bogle: Tilt To Corporates For More Yield

Post by ray.james »

I would be a bit concerned with reduced diversification rather than yield return. Treasury are the safest, but they are still 1 country's 1 type of debt and "if" they overload the "total" bond fund...I would be concerned... Sunny days never last forever as seen from roman empire to Britain to Japan.
Doc wrote:
YDNAL wrote: Bogle is off. BarCap Aggregate is what it is - no overweight anything!
  • 1. Bogle is lumping Gov't MBS (currently 22% of BarCap Agg) as "government debt."
The thing is the Agg Index Itself has changed a whole lot in the last five years. Prior to the '08 debacle it was more like 30/30/30 Treasury-Agency/Corporate/MBS. And the duration went from something like 40/40/20 to 30/30/30 for the short/Intermediate (5-10)/long. It may be the duration thing was because the Treasury started issuing thirty's again.
Doc,

Is there a way to see these numbers historically?
When in doubt, http://www.bogleheads.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=79939
dkturner
Posts: 1940
Joined: Sun Feb 25, 2007 6:58 pm

Re: Bogle: Tilt To Corporates For More Yield

Post by dkturner »

Munir wrote:
garlandwhizzer wrote:I totally agree with Bogle on emphasizing corporates over Treasuries in current bond portfolios. I own no Treasuries or TIPS at all, only corporates in my tax-advantaged accounts and either money market or munis in my taxable personal account. There is some increased repayment risk in investment grade corporates and munis, but it is very low in my opinion and more than worth the risk/return tradeoff relative to US govt. bonds of any type. Also, if markets tank as they did in 2008-9, I will not sell my corporate bonds at distressed prices because I keep sufficient money market funds in my personal account to provide for living expenses for 2-3 years. Money market funds produce no revenue but are nice to have in personal accounts at times of market distress because they are always very liquid (unlike TIPS which tanked during the 2008-9 crash) and you can either use them to provide for living expenses until the market storm abates or to buy equities at fire sale prices.

Garland Whizzer
Totally agree. My fixed income is mostly in intermediate and short term Investment grade bond funds, with cash in an online savings account to cover two years living expenses and a smattering of I bonds (also have three SPIAS). The dip the corporate bond funds took in 2008 was just that- a temporary dip for which they more than recovered in 2009. In looking for total return for both years, corporates were ahead of treasuries. Should one plan the total fixed income strategy on what temporarily happened in one year only? Does not make sense to me.
Add me in too. Going into September 2008 my bond portfolio was about 75% Governments. Between December 2008 and the Spring of 2009 completely converted to corporates. Haven't looked back since. When I saw the incredible spreads between Treasuries and high quality corporates I just couldn't resist the temptation.

In a similar vein, since 2000 we have had 2 heavy duty equity bear markets. In both cases from peak to trough losses were in the neighborhood of 50%. Over that 14 year period the Barclays 5-10 year Credit index has produced higher annualized total returns, with lower standard deviation of those returns, than the Barclays 5-10 year Treasury index. Call me careless, but I can live with that type of risk. :beer
YDNAL
Posts: 13774
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2007 4:04 pm
Location: Biscayne Bay

Re: Bogle: Tilt To Corporates For More Yield

Post by YDNAL »

ray.james wrote:I would be a bit concerned with reduced diversification rather than yield return. Treasury are the safest, but they are still 1 country's 1 type of debt and "if" they overload the "total" bond fund...I would be concerned... Sunny days never last forever as seen from roman empire to Britain to Japan.
Doc wrote:
YDNAL wrote: Bogle is off. BarCap Aggregate is what it is - no overweight anything!
1. Bogle is lumping Gov't MBS (currently 22% of BarCap Agg) as "government debt."
The thing is the Agg Index Itself has changed a whole lot in the last five years. Prior to the '08 debacle it was more like 30/30/30 Treasury-Agency/Corporate/MBS. And the duration went from something like 40/40/20 to 30/30/30 for the short/Intermediate (5-10)/long. It may be the duration thing was because the Treasury started issuing thirty's again.
Doc,

Is there a way to see these numbers historically?
I didn't want to challenge Doc (he's my pal, I think?), but the percentages were *reasonably* comparable in the decade pre-2009.
http://www.bogleheads.org/wiki/Barclays ... [code]Year Government Corporate Mortgage Backed Asset Backed
1973 49.00% 51.00% 0.00% 0.00%
1983 59.00% 24.00% 17.00% 0.00%
1993 53.00% 17.00% 28.00% 2.00%
1998 46.00% 22.00% 31.00% 1.00%
1999 42.00% 21.00% 34.00% 2.00%
2000 38.00% 24.00% 35.00% 4.00%
2001 34.00% 27.00% 35.00% 4.00%
2005 40.20% 19.50% 34.90% 5.30%
2006 39.40% 19.40% 35.10% 6.10%
2007 35.40% 19.60% 38.60% 6.50%
2008 38.60% 17.70% 39.60% 4.10%
2009 40.80% 18.80% 36.80% 3.60%
2010 45.80% 18.80% 32.70% 2.80%[/code]
Landy | Be yourself, everyone else is already taken -- Oscar Wilde
User avatar
Doc
Posts: 10607
Joined: Sat Feb 24, 2007 12:10 pm
Location: Two left turns from Larry

Re: Bogle: Tilt To Corporates For More Yield

Post by Doc »

YDNAL wrote:I didn't want to challenge Doc (he's my pal, I think?), but the percentages were *reasonably* comparable in the decade pre-2009.
http://www.bogleheads.org/wiki/Barclays ... [code]Year Government Corporate Mortgage Backed Asset Backed
1973 49.00% 51.00% 0.00% 0.00%
1983 59.00% 24.00% 17.00% 0.00%
1993 53.00% 17.00% 28.00% 2.00%
1998 46.00% 22.00% 31.00% 1.00%
1999 42.00% 21.00% 34.00% 2.00%
2000 38.00% 24.00% 35.00% 4.00%
2001 34.00% 27.00% 35.00% 4.00%
2005 40.20% 19.50% 34.90% 5.30%
2006 39.40% 19.40% 35.10% 6.10%
2007 35.40% 19.60% 38.60% 6.50%
2008 38.60% 17.70% 39.60% 4.10%
2009 40.80% 18.80% 36.80% 3.60%
2010 45.80% 18.80% 32.70% 2.80%[/code]
My historic memory only goes back to 2001. Here's the data from 2008 to 2012. :(

https://ecommerce.barcap.com/indices/sh ... Factsheets

Interestingly Landy's data goes back to 1973 which is some 13 years before the index was "invented".
Baclays wrote:The U.S. Aggregate Index was created in 1986, with index history backfilled to January 1, 1976.
The MBS component is really varied. Prior to the Savings and Loan crisis most mortgages were held by S&L. I believe Freddie or Fannie were "asked" to find a way to collateralize mortgages to replace the S&L function. Then late in the Clinton administration we got changes in the commercial/investment bank separation and investment banks started "issuing" MBS. And since 2008 these have been disappearing leaving only Freddie and Fannie and a few other "letters" in the business. So we went from no MBS to some 40% in 2008 and back to 20% (including other asset backed) in 2012. Meanwhile in the last ten years we have seen an increase in Federal Government debt and a concurrent increase in the Treasury component of the Aggregate Index as Bogle notes. Also we have had the Treasury issuing thirty year bonds again in the past several years.

This is one hell of a way to define an index in my opinion and apparently Jack agrees with me. :-J

My solution to this is to ignore the TBM concept, don't buy MBS or long bonds ala Swedroe and just do a 50/50 Treasury/Corporate 1-10 index. Also you then get to replace some of those nominal Treasuries with TIPS without leaving Jack's road to a new index altogether.

I don't think the whole index concept which works so well with equities can be translated to FI. Equity investors have one common purpose - total return. I don't think FI investors have anywhere near a common goal. In FI we have income, liability matching and just plain trading income with maybe total return as a last thought.
A scientist looks for THE answer to a problem, an engineer looks for AN answer and lawyers ONLY have opinions. Investing is not a science.
User avatar
abuss368
Posts: 27850
Joined: Mon Aug 03, 2009 2:33 pm
Location: Where the water is warm, the drinks are cold, and I don't know the names of the players!
Contact:

Re: Bogle: Tilt To Corporates For More Yield

Post by abuss368 »

Hi Rick,

That was an excellent article. Thank you for sharing.

I was surprised, and correct me if I am wrong, but Jack Bogle does not invest in Total Bond Index anymore? He noted Short and Intermediate Tax Exempt in his taxable account and Short and Intermediate Corporate in his retirement accounts?

Wow!

I wonder if the index will be update to include all bonds???

I also found it interesting that Mr. Bogle is still not investing in TIPS, High Yield, or the new International bonds.
John C. Bogle: “Simplicity is the master key to financial success."
YDNAL
Posts: 13774
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2007 4:04 pm
Location: Biscayne Bay

Re: Bogle: Tilt To Corporates For More Yield

Post by YDNAL »

Doc wrote:Interestingly Landy's data goes back to 1973 which is some 13 years before the index was "invented".
Baclays wrote:The U.S. Aggregate Index was created in 1986, with index history backfilled to January 1, 1976.
It's not my data, I borrowed it from Bogleheads Wiki. Here's the data they used (I haven't checked).
http://www.scribd.com/doc/19601818/Lehm ... me-Indices
Landy | Be yourself, everyone else is already taken -- Oscar Wilde
User avatar
Doc
Posts: 10607
Joined: Sat Feb 24, 2007 12:10 pm
Location: Two left turns from Larry

Re: Bogle: Tilt To Corporates For More Yield

Post by Doc »

YDNAL wrote:
Doc wrote:Interestingly Landy's data goes back to 1973 which is some 13 years before the index was "invented".
Baclays wrote:The U.S. Aggregate Index was created in 1986, with index history backfilled to January 1, 1976.
It's not my data, I borrowed it from Bogleheads Wiki. Here's the data they used (I haven't checked).
http://www.scribd.com/doc/19601818/Lehm ... me-Indices
Yes the Barclay's website did say it was "backfilled". In any case there seem to be a lot of changes in sector weights over the past 50 years, maybe even more so recently.

From Landy's link"
In 1986, Lehman broadened its Government/Corporate Index to include MBS securities. This expansion was called the U.S. Aggregate Index and backdated to 1976. The U.S. Aggregate Index and its subcomponents have become the dominant fixed income benchmarks used by U.S. money managers, pension fund sponsors, and plan consultants to measure and evaluate the investment performance of fixed income portfolios. An estimated 90% of U.S. fixed income index users rely on this index
When Lehman went under largely because of MBS maybe we should have let the Aggregate Index go down with them. :D
A scientist looks for THE answer to a problem, an engineer looks for AN answer and lawyers ONLY have opinions. Investing is not a science.
dkturner
Posts: 1940
Joined: Sun Feb 25, 2007 6:58 pm

Re: Bogle: Tilt To Corporates For More Yield

Post by dkturner »

Doc wrote: From Landy's link"
In 1986, Lehman broadened its Government/Corporate Index to include MBS securities. This expansion was called the U.S. Aggregate Index and backdated to 1976. The U.S. Aggregate Index and its subcomponents have become the dominant fixed income benchmarks used by U.S. money managers, pension fund sponsors, and plan consultants to measure and evaluate the investment performance of fixed income portfolios. An estimated 90% of U.S. fixed income index users rely on this index
:D
Interesting. If 90% of U.S. fixed income users "rely" on the Aggregate Index maybe they like it because it's perceived to be easier to beat than some of the other bond indices? Sort of like why the Russell 2000 is a favorite of most active small-cap equity managers.
User avatar
Hector
Posts: 1879
Joined: Fri Dec 24, 2010 1:21 pm
Contact:

Re: Bogle: Tilt To Corporates For More Yield

Post by Hector »

garlandwhizzer wrote:I totally agree with Bogle on emphasizing corporates over Treasuries in current bond portfolios. I own no Treasuries or TIPS at all, only corporates in my tax-advantaged accounts and either money market or munis in my taxable personal account. There is some increased repayment risk in investment grade corporates and munis, but it is very low in my opinion and more than worth the risk/return tradeoff relative to US govt. bonds of any type. Also, if markets tank as they did in 2008-9, I will not sell my corporate bonds at distressed prices because I keep sufficient money market funds in my personal account to provide for living expenses for 2-3 years. Money market funds produce no revenue but are nice to have in personal accounts at times of market distress because they are always very liquid (unlike TIPS which tanked during the 2008-9 crash) and you can either use them to provide for living expenses until the market storm abates or to buy equities at fire sale prices.

Garland Whizzer
I think many bogleheads believe in maintaining AA. Investors in their accumulation phase is doing it by adding new funds. Others do it by selling appropriated asset class.
For others, if something similar to 2008-09 happen, their stock portion would go down a lot more than the bond portion that they would want to sell bond to buy stock. As you mentioned that even bond markets would get hit. Corporate bond would be worse than treasury bond. If they are determine not to sell bonds, wouldn't they loose the opportunity to buy stock at lower price - may be at the lowest point in a decade?
User avatar
abuss368
Posts: 27850
Joined: Mon Aug 03, 2009 2:33 pm
Location: Where the water is warm, the drinks are cold, and I don't know the names of the players!
Contact:

Re: Bogle: Tilt To Corporates For More Yield

Post by abuss368 »

Do I see a similarity between Jack Bogle and Warren Buffett? Hmmmm. Jack has two bonds funds in his account and Warren recommends one!

No need for multiple bond funds.

Keep investing simple.
John C. Bogle: “Simplicity is the master key to financial success."
User avatar
Munir
Posts: 3200
Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2007 3:39 pm
Location: Oregon

Re: Bogle: Tilt To Corporates For More Yield

Post by Munir »

[quote="Hector

I think many bogleheads believe in maintaining AA. Investors in their accumulation phase is doing it by adding new funds. Others do it by selling appropriated asset class.
For others, if something similar to 2008-09 happen, their stock portion would go down a lot more than the bond portion that they would want to sell bond to buy stock. As you mentioned that even bond markets would get hit. Corporate bond would be worse than treasury bond. If they are determine not to sell bonds, wouldn't they loose the opportunity to buy stock at lower price - may be at the lowest point in a decade?[/quote]

How many investors do actually SELL bonds to BUY stocks when equities hit severe lows? Maybe a few Bogleheads do but the overwhelming majority don't. The message is to sit tight or have cash to buy at severe market lows- both stocks and bonds.
User avatar
Doc
Posts: 10607
Joined: Sat Feb 24, 2007 12:10 pm
Location: Two left turns from Larry

Re: Bogle: Tilt To Corporates For More Yield

Post by Doc »

dkturner wrote:Interesting. If 90% of U.S. fixed income users "rely" on the Aggregate Index maybe they like it because it's perceived to be easier to beat than some of the other bond indices? Sort of like why the Russell 2000 is a favorite of most active small-cap equity managers.
It's not about beating some index. It's about what you want your bond portfolio to do.

Nisi presented one of his very illustrative growth charts earlier in this thread that showed over a couple of years period the '08 debacle was pretty irrelevant from the point of view of your bond portfolio in isolation. This is what you should look at if you are a strict buy and hold forever investor who only looks at his portfolio on January 1 or on his mother in law's birthday.

But if you subscribe to the buy and hold but rebalance philosophy you get more info from a rolling return chart like the following which shows what happened to Treasury vs. Corporates during the equity bear as illustrated by SPY the S&P ETF.

Image

http://quote.morningstar.com/fund/chart ... %2C0%22%7D

If you are going to rebalance into an equity bear market the Treasury (orange) curve is the way to go. You can still have your bond portfolio look like Nisi's over the long run. You just have to break up the TBM into two or three components instead of having a single fund.
A scientist looks for THE answer to a problem, an engineer looks for AN answer and lawyers ONLY have opinions. Investing is not a science.
garlandwhizzer
Posts: 3566
Joined: Fri Aug 06, 2010 3:42 pm

Re: Bogle: Tilt To Corporates For More Yield

Post by garlandwhizzer »

RNJ wrote:2 thoughts:

1) By holding all of that cash aren't you de facto lowering your overall yield anyway?

2) One thing I like about Treasuries is that, in a real crisis (viz. 2008/9), a flight to quality allows one to sell them and buy distressed securities - something one cannot do (certainly not as profitably, anyway) with corporates.
These two things pointed out by RNJ are true and selling Treasuries to provide for living expenses or buying stocks at distressed prices would work as well as, or perhaps better than, MM cash during a stock market collapse. Treasuries prepare you for a market collapse very well. The problem with Treasuries as I see it is low yields combined with duration risk. One advantage of MM is that it has a duration of essentially zero. Over the past year, in spite of a slight positive return in 2014 YTD, the Vanguard Intermediate Term Treasury Fund has lost 2.09% because its principal loss exceeded its interest return by that much in the last 12 months. MM with a zero return outperformed both that fund and to a lesser extent the Short Term Treasury fund and TBM fund during that same time period. The combo of low yield and duration risk showed up in 2013. Conversely, both short term and intermediate term investment grade funds outperformed MM, TBM, and Treasuries during that time period due largely to their higher yields. I believe that there is historical evidence that in a rising interest rate environment corporates tend to outperform Treasuries. I further believe that the question at present is not whether interest rates will eventually normalize but rather the pace at which it will occur. I don't believe anyone can predict accurately beforehand what that pace will be.

Treasuries are rock solid when they most need to be. But as a risk/reward tradeoff, I tend to side at present with corporates and a MM cash cushion over TBM or Treasuries or TIPS. No government bonds are immune to duration risk and with their low yields they are not risk-free going forward in this very low interest rate environment. Those who bought Treasuries in the last very low interest rate environment in the US, the mid-1940s, learned too well in subsequent 4 decades (1940 - 1980) that there can be plenty of risk in them.

Garland Whizzer
SGM
Posts: 3341
Joined: Wed Mar 23, 2011 4:46 am

Re: Bogle: Tilt To Corporates For More Yield

Post by SGM »

I thought I heard Jack and maybe Rick and others on a panel at the BH meeting last October in Phillie mention tilting to corporates. I did add to my intermediate corporate holdings in my retirement accounts following the meeting. I am not worried about a dip like 2008. I don't expect to have to sell those funds in a downturn. I don't mind taking more risk in my retirement accounts because I don't expect to tap them anytime soon.

I also have muni funds in my taxable accounts. The only absolute consistency I abide by is keep investment costs as low as possible.
stlutz
Posts: 5585
Joined: Fri Jan 02, 2009 12:08 am

Re: Bogle: Tilt To Corporates For More Yield

Post by stlutz »

One mental exercise I recommend is to ask one's self when it comes to this issue: If all yields were 3% higher than they are today, would you still load up on corporates vs. higher rates types of debt? I suspect Bogle would not have the same advice if yields were higher, which makes it questionable advice in my view.

Corporates vs. Treasuries should be about the *relative* risk/reward between the two, and not whether rates in general are viewed as being "too low". Right now credit spreads are rather small--meaning that you still get all of the risk but not a huge amount of potential additional return by loading up on corporates.

I agree with everyone (including, apparently, Bogle) that TBM is not really the optimal bond vehicle as one's fixed income risks shouldn't really be determined by what issuers happen to be adding to the market--just because XYZ is selling doesn't mean I need to be buying.
columbia
Posts: 3023
Joined: Tue Aug 27, 2013 5:30 am

Re: Bogle: Tilt To Corporates For More Yield

Post by columbia »

If you want to chase higher returns, why not own more stocks.
I'm very comfortable with TBM, as is.
User avatar
abuss368
Posts: 27850
Joined: Mon Aug 03, 2009 2:33 pm
Location: Where the water is warm, the drinks are cold, and I don't know the names of the players!
Contact:

Re: Bogle: Tilt To Corporates For More Yield

Post by abuss368 »

columbia wrote:If you want to chase higher returns, why not own more stocks.
I'm very comfortable with TBM, as is.
Well said. You and me both.
John C. Bogle: “Simplicity is the master key to financial success."
User avatar
LH
Posts: 5490
Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2007 2:54 am

Re: Bogle: Tilt To Corporates For More Yield

Post by LH »

Chasing yield is a very human thing.


At any given time, one can add riskier assets to get more yield expectantly........

Unless the risk shows up.

Then you get the hit.

So sure, as worldwide, debt to GDP ratios go up in the west, start moving on the risk curve for yield... Surely no possible bad outcomes from that...... Right?

Well... No, actually there are bad outcomes possible, which is why one owns treasuries to begin with.... One gave up some yield, for safety.

Stay the course, one cannot expectantly time this.

Risk, defined here as possible loss of principle in real terms permanently in ones financial lifetime, is very very very real.

I suggest anyone doing this, read some real life Detroit, Cyprus, madoff, US 1933, and MF corzine bedtime stories from actual investors/pensioners and think hard about why you chose treasuries to begin with.
User avatar
Sunny Sarkar
Posts: 2443
Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2007 12:02 am
Location: Flower Mound, TX
Contact:

Why I own Vanguard Intermediate-Term Bond Index and not TBM

Post by Sunny Sarkar »

nisiprius wrote:Why fix the Barclay's Aggregate index by overweighting corporates when the existing index used by Intermediate-Term Index, VBIIX seems to be fine? Why not just suggest that VBIIX might be more appropriate as an all-purpose "core" bond investment than Total Bond?
While I've followed Taylor's 3-fund portfolio since I started investing, I ended up owning the Intermediate-Term Bond Index instead of the Total Bond Index fund. Here's how...
  • I started investing with a Intermediate bond fund (not Vanguard's) in my 401k
  • In Bogleheads 2004 reunion, Jack Bogle said he was uncomfortable with the state of MBS, and suggested that the Intermediate Bond Index fund would be a good option compared to TBM (although either would be just fine)
  • Then Vanguard did the active management snafu in the TBM fund
  • So, when I rolled over my 401k to a Vanguard IRA (changed jobs), I felt more comfortable with the Intermediate Bond index because of the above; plus it was also a better equivalent of my 401k's Intermediate bond fund I was rolling over from
  • Fast forward to 2012 reunion. Jack Bogle said he was uncomfortable with the state of government bonds, and suggested a 50/50 allocation of government & corporate bonds. Guess which fund has exactly that allocation.
    Vanguard Intermediate-Term Bond Index wrote:This index fund offers a low-cost, diversified approach to bond investing, providing broad exposure to U.S. investment-grade bonds with maturities from five to ten years. Reflecting this goal, the fund invests about 50% of assets in corporate bonds and 50% in U.S. government bonds within that maturity range.
    https://personal.vanguard.com/us/funds/ ... IntExt=INT
I still feel more comfortable with the Intermediate bond index. I also own TIPS, which is also a government bond, and feel that TBM + TIPS is a really high in government bonds allocation - might as well buy treasuries.
:sharebeer
Last edited by Sunny Sarkar on Tue Apr 01, 2014 10:50 pm, edited 5 times in total.
"Buy-and-hold, long-term, all-market-index strategies, implemented at rock-bottom cost, are the surest of all routes to the accumulation of wealth" - John C. Bogle
RNJ
Posts: 863
Joined: Mon Apr 08, 2013 9:06 am

Re: Bogle: Tilt To Corporates For More Yield

Post by RNJ »

LH wrote:Chasing yield is a very human thing.


At any given time, one can add riskier assets to get more yield expectantly........

Unless Until the risk shows up.

Then you get the hit.

So sure, as worldwide, debt to GDP ratios go up in the west, start moving on the risk curve for yield... Surely no possible bad outcomes from that...... Right?

Well... No, actually there are bad outcomes possible, which is why one owns treasuries to begin with.... One gave up some yield, for safety.

Stay the course, one cannot expectantly time this.

Risk, defined here as possible loss of principle in real terms permanently in ones financial lifetime, is very very very real.

I suggest anyone doing this, read some real life Detroit, Cyprus, madoff, US 1933, and MF corzine bedtime stories from actual investors/pensioners and think hard about why you chose treasuries to begin with.
ftobin
Posts: 1071
Joined: Fri Mar 20, 2009 3:28 pm

Re: Bogle: Tilt To Corporates For More Yield

Post by ftobin »

stlutz wrote:I agree with everyone (including, apparently, Bogle) that TBM is not really the optimal bond vehicle as one's fixed income risks shouldn't really be determined by what issuers happen to be adding to the market--just because XYZ is selling doesn't mean I need to be buying.
I really don't get this. Noone following the index buys just the issuer is selling -- they're buying because an active manager values what is being sold, and at the price the active manager thinks is appropriate. If no-one was interested in buying the issue, it wouldn't be in the index.

As YDNAL noted, the index doesn't overweight anything. It's the aggregation of all active management's valuation of the various bonds issued in the US. If active management thinks treasuries in total are more valuable than corporates in total, then the index will allocate more towards treasuries than corporates.

Think of applying the same logic in the stock market: just because a company goes public doesn't mean it gets included in your index if no-one values it enough. There's thousands of pinksheet-listed stocks which aren't included in TSM because active management doesn't believe in their value.
User avatar
Munir
Posts: 3200
Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2007 3:39 pm
Location: Oregon

Re: Bogle: Tilt To Corporates For More Yield

Post by Munir »

I wish Vanguard would use the Intermediate Bond Index (VBILX) in some of its Target Retirement and Life Strategy Funds instead of sticking with the Total Bond Index (VBTLX) all the time. It would satisfy those of us who have reservations about VBTLX such as Jack Bogle, Larry Swedroe, and some ordinary Bogleheads.
User avatar
stemikger
Posts: 4950
Joined: Thu Apr 08, 2010 5:02 am

Re: Bogle: Tilt To Corporates For More Yield

Post by stemikger »

columbia wrote:If you want to chase higher returns, why not own more stocks.
I'm very comfortable with TBM, as is.
I agree with this. If I was going to take more risk in the bond market, I would rather do what Warren Buffett has been telling the average investor to do and just keep adding money in the Vanguard S&P Index Fund. I could be wrong on this, but there does not seem to be enough upside in the bond market to take the additional risk. Doesn't that go against why we hold bonds in the first place?
Choose Simplicity ~ Stay the Course!! ~ Press on Regardless!!!
dkturner
Posts: 1940
Joined: Sun Feb 25, 2007 6:58 pm

Re: Bogle: Tilt To Corporates For More Yield

Post by dkturner »

Doc wrote:
dkturner wrote:Interesting. If 90% of U.S. fixed income users "rely" on the Aggregate Index maybe they like it because it's perceived to be easier to beat than some of the other bond indices? Sort of like why the Russell 2000 is a favorite of most active small-cap equity managers.
It's not about beating some index. It's about what you want your bond portfolio to do.
Spare me.

Portfolio managers want to be compared to an index which, they believe, they have the ability to best on a regular basis.
Dandy
Posts: 6701
Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2010 7:42 pm

Re: Bogle: Tilt To Corporates For More Yield

Post by Dandy »

If you are going to tilt toward corporates it is better to do it when the economy is in recovery (albeit slow) and to do it on the high rated bonds. Some of the intermediate CD rates look competitive and tend to offset the default risk of corporates. Why not a tilt to a little of both to supplement Total Bond or Total Intermediate? It might generate a bit more income in the intermediate term - over the long term it might not make a huge difference.

If you are searching for increased yield it is a less risky approach than going for long term or high yield bonds or upping your equity allocation.
pingo
Posts: 2638
Joined: Sat Sep 19, 2009 8:24 pm

Re: Bogle: Tilt To Corporates For More Yield

Post by pingo »

Doc wrote:It's about what you want your bond portfolio to do.

Nisi presented one of his very illustrative growth charts earlier in this thread that showed over a couple of years period the '08 debacle was pretty irrelevant from the point of view of your bond portfolio in isolation. This is what you should look at if you are a strict buy and hold forever investor who only looks at his portfolio on January 1 or on his mother in law's birthday.

But if you subscribe to the buy and hold but rebalance philosophy you get more info from a rolling return chart like the following which shows what happened to Treasury vs. Corporates during the equity bear as illustrated by SPY the S&P ETF. […] If you are going to rebalance into an equity bear market the Treasury (orange) curve is the way to go. You can still have your bond portfolio look like Nisi's over the long run. You just have to break up the TBM into two or three components instead of having a single fund.
I think Doc nailed one of the great keys to understanding statements such as Mr. Bogle's. I've heard Bogle state that he is a buy and hold investor, but that he doesn't consider himself a buy, hold and rebalance investor. On occasion, when markets or spreads hit extremes, he re-allocates to reflect his desire for risk (or lack thereof) and his desire for yield which is an extremely important part of the equation for him. That is, it has been for these few years that I've been paying attention to him.

That's one area (among many, I suppose) where it appears he differs from other fan favorites such as Bernstein and Swedroe, not that they are completely immune to adjusting for spreads. I believe that they want bonds for safety and even negative correlation with equities to benefit from what happens when one buys, holds and rebalances. I have always gotten the sense that Mr. Ferri is a little more flexible on such matters, or perhaps he simply has a different philosophy. It seems he is often somewhere between the two camps.

It is all reasonable in my view. We exercise control wherever we think we've found it.
Last edited by pingo on Wed Apr 02, 2014 11:10 pm, edited 4 times in total.
dkturner
Posts: 1940
Joined: Sun Feb 25, 2007 6:58 pm

Re: Bogle: Tilt To Corporates For More Yield

Post by dkturner »

pingo wrote: I've heard Bogle state that he is a buy and hold investor, but that he doesn't consider himself a buy, hold and rebalance investor. On occasion, when markets or spreads hit extremes, he re-allocates to reflect his desire of risk (or lack thereof) and his desire for yield which is an extremely important part of the equation for him. That is, it has been as far back as I've been paying attention to him.

That one major area (among many, I suppose) where it appears he differs from other fan favorites such as Bernstein and Swedroe, not that they would be completely immune to adjusting for spreads. I believe that they want safety and even a hint less correlation with equities to benefit from what that does when you are buy, hold and rebalance. I have always gotten the sense that Mr. Ferri is a little more flexible on such matters, or at least that he frequently finds himself somewhere in the middle.

It is all reasonable in my view. We exercise control wherever we think we've found it.
Well stated.

I think many of the Bogle acolytes fail to understand that their mentor is an imaginative individual who probably has trouble sitting on his hands. He says seemingly contradictory stuff because he's a complex individual. Whenever I read these "say it ain't so Jack" comments they remind me of Emerson's quip that: "a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds".
User avatar
Munir
Posts: 3200
Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2007 3:39 pm
Location: Oregon

Re: Bogle: Tilt To Corporates For More Yield

Post by Munir »

stemikger wrote:
columbia wrote:If you want to chase higher returns, why not own more stocks.
I'm very comfortable with TBM, as is.
I agree with this. If I was going to take more risk in the bond market, I would rather do what Warren Buffett has been telling the average investor to do and just keep adding money in the Vanguard S&P Index Fund. I could be wrong on this, but there does not seem to be enough upside in the bond market to take the additional risk. Doesn't that go against why we hold bonds in the first place?
Bonds are bonds and stocks are stocks- the two cannot be confused one for the other. If you want total safety, put your money in an insured CD or under the mattress. You cannot equate the risk of adding some corporates to your portfolio with adding more stocks. The corporates help balance your fixed income portfolio, have a higher yield, and increase total return- all at minimal risk.

PS: Rick Ferri posted Bogle's interview above but he did not state his own opinion on the subject- or did I miss it?
IlliniDave
Posts: 2388
Joined: Fri May 17, 2013 7:09 am

Re: Bogle: Tilt To Corporates For More Yield

Post by IlliniDave »

dkturner wrote:
pingo wrote: I've heard Bogle state that he is a buy and hold investor, but that he doesn't consider himself a buy, hold and rebalance investor. On occasion, when markets or spreads hit extremes, he re-allocates to reflect his desire of risk (or lack thereof) and his desire for yield which is an extremely important part of the equation for him. That is, it has been as far back as I've been paying attention to him.

...
Well stated.

I think many of the Bogle acolytes fail to understand that their mentor is an imaginative individual who probably has trouble sitting on his hands. He says seemingly contradictory stuff because he's a complex individual. Whenever I read these "say it ain't so Jack" comments they remind me of Emerson's quip that: "a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds".
That's true. I'm actually more of Bogle admirer than a boglehead per se. Bogle appears to invest to make money more so than manage risk. I remember being somewhat surprised when he mentioned he switched from ~60% equities to ~20% in 1999 in part because of PEs (I also think he 'retired' around that time, so there was more to it than just the PEs). I've tried to absorb his entire body of work and avoid taking some of the soundbites too literally and extending them to their logical extremes. I think the strict buy/hold/rebalance/age-in-bonds script is a fine approach and I'm glad to see so many people happy and successful with it. I sleep better making some of the marginal adjustments to that framework, including some of the items he mentions from time-to-time. Many roads to Dublin is the expression I've heard here.
Don't do something. Just stand there!
User avatar
Doc
Posts: 10607
Joined: Sat Feb 24, 2007 12:10 pm
Location: Two left turns from Larry

Re: Bogle: Tilt To Corporates For More Yield

Post by Doc »

ftobin wrote: As YDNAL noted, the index doesn't overweight anything. It's the aggregation of all active management's valuation of the various bonds issued in the US. If active management thinks treasuries in total are more valuable than corporates in total, then the index will allocate more towards treasuries than corporates.
The underlined statement isn't valid. A portfolio manager for an insurance company may have a charter that says he will fund future obligations at the best cost. But if his future obligation is 30 years he can't buy a 10 year note because it has a better value. He is unable by charter to assume the term risk for years 10 through 30. Other portfolio managers may have other constraints that forces them to not take on the "most valued" asset.

In the case of the BarCap Aggregate we have had a major change in the sector allocation not because the market makers value corporates less than they five or ten years ago but because the Treasury is issuing more debt and the Fed is buying that debt by printing money. These factors are not controlled by fund managers seeking alpha.

When the sectors in the Total Stock Market change it is because of slow changes in the economy. The market for the goods and services change over time and the size and value of the companies in that sector change as a result. This is not what has happened with the Total Bond Market. The changes there are not a result of the free market but largely the result of government actions - both through budget and stimulus policies.

Bogel is not advocating a "tilt" towards corporates as much as saying that the Aggregate Index no longer represents the actual free market for debt.
Bogle: We Need to Fix the Bond Index wrote:The benchmark index doesn't reflect the true allocations of U.S. bond investors, and the industry needs to look again at corporate-bond index funds or rework the current index, says Vanguard founder Jack Bogle.
Benz: ... And given that historically current yields have been a good predictor of future bond market performance, why would anyone hunker down in the Barclays Aggregate given that yield disadvantage?

Bogle: Well, let me first say that the Barclays bond indexes are cost-free.
http://www.morningstar.com/cover/videoc ... ?id=592689
A scientist looks for THE answer to a problem, an engineer looks for AN answer and lawyers ONLY have opinions. Investing is not a science.
User avatar
abuss368
Posts: 27850
Joined: Mon Aug 03, 2009 2:33 pm
Location: Where the water is warm, the drinks are cold, and I don't know the names of the players!
Contact:

Re: Bogle: Tilt To Corporates For More Yield

Post by abuss368 »

My question is if an investor exchanges Total Bond for Intermediate Bond, you are 1) losing MBS included with Total Bond, 2) less Treasuries, and 3) more corporate risk.

Is the difference between giving up mortgage backed securities for more corporates really much of a material difference? Are we splitting hairs?
Last edited by abuss368 on Thu Apr 24, 2014 9:01 am, edited 1 time in total.
John C. Bogle: “Simplicity is the master key to financial success."
User avatar
Doc
Posts: 10607
Joined: Sat Feb 24, 2007 12:10 pm
Location: Two left turns from Larry

Re: Bogle: Tilt To Corporates For More Yield

Post by Doc »

abuss368 wrote:My questions is if an investor exchanges Total Bond for Intermediate Bond, you are 1) losing MBS included with Total Bond, 2) less Treasuries, and 3) more corporate risk.

Is the difference between giving up mortgage backed securities for more corporates really much of a material difference? Are we splitting hairs?
If all you hairs are bonds the answer is yes. If some of your hairs are equities the answer is no.

In October 2008 the S&P was down some 24% and Vg's Intermediate Term Bond Index was down almost 8% while while the Intermediate Treasury fund was up over 4%. The difference in the two bond sectors was 1/2 of the loss in the S&P. That's not hair splitting.

http://quote.morningstar.com/fund/chart ... %2C0%22%7D
A scientist looks for THE answer to a problem, an engineer looks for AN answer and lawyers ONLY have opinions. Investing is not a science.
YDNAL
Posts: 13774
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2007 4:04 pm
Location: Biscayne Bay

Re: Bogle: Tilt To Corporates For More Yield

Post by YDNAL »

Doc wrote:
abuss368 wrote:My questions is if an investor exchanges Total Bond for Intermediate Bond, you are 1) losing MBS included with Total Bond, 2) less Treasuries, and 3) more corporate risk.

Is the difference between giving up mortgage backed securities for more corporates really much of a material difference? Are we splitting hairs?
If all you hairs are bonds the answer is yes. If some of your hairs are equities the answer is no.

In October 2008 the S&P was down some 24% and Vg's Intermediate Term Bond Index was down almost 8% while while the Intermediate Treasury fund was up over 4%. The difference in the two bond sectors was 1/2 of the loss in the S&P. That's not hair splitting.
Yeah... but all Equity market corrections are NOT created equal. In 2000-02 the S&P 500 Index dropped from 1,500 to 815, while VG IT Bond Index had hefty total returns each year.

Code: Select all

Vanguard Intermediate-Term Bond Index Fund Investor Shares (VBIIX)
2000	12.78%
2001	 9.28%
2002	10.85%
That said, when Fixed Income is there to mitigate Equity risk, that's what you want it to do.
Landy | Be yourself, everyone else is already taken -- Oscar Wilde
User avatar
Doc
Posts: 10607
Joined: Sat Feb 24, 2007 12:10 pm
Location: Two left turns from Larry

Re: Bogle: Tilt To Corporates For More Yield

Post by Doc »

YDNAL wrote: Yeah... but all Equity market corrections are NOT created equal. In 2000-02 the S&P 500 Index dropped from 1,500 to 815, while VG IT Bond Index had hefty total returns each year.

Code: Select all

Vanguard Intermediate-Term Bond Index Fund Investor Shares (VBIIX)
 [/quote]

Right that's why using only a single bond fund has extra risk. Better to break that bond fund into several components so that you have a better chance at having dry powder somewhere to shoot that next bear
A scientist looks for THE answer to a problem, an engineer looks for AN answer and lawyers ONLY have opinions. Investing is not a science.
letsgobobby
Posts: 12073
Joined: Fri Sep 18, 2009 1:10 am

Re: Bogle: Tilt To Corporates For More Yield

Post by letsgobobby »

garlandwhizzer wrote:I totally agree with Bogle on emphasizing corporates over Treasuries in current bond portfolios. I own no Treasuries or TIPS at all, only corporates in my tax-advantaged accounts and either money market or munis in my taxable personal account. There is some increased repayment risk in investment grade corporates and munis, but it is very low in my opinion and more than worth the risk/return tradeoff relative to US govt. bonds of any type. Also, if markets tank as they did in 2008-9, I will not sell my corporate bonds at distressed prices because I keep sufficient money market funds in my personal account to provide for living expenses for 2-3 years. Money market funds produce no revenue but are nice to have in personal accounts at times of market distress because they are always very liquid (unlike TIPS which tanked during the 2008-9 crash) and you can either use them to provide for living expenses until the market storm abates or to buy equities at fire sale prices.

Garland Whizzer
If that is the only risk - that markets storm, but the storm abates - then why do you own any bonds at all?
YDNAL
Posts: 13774
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2007 4:04 pm
Location: Biscayne Bay

Re: Bogle: Tilt To Corporates For More Yield

Post by YDNAL »

Doc wrote:
YDNAL wrote:Yeah... but all Equity market corrections are NOT created equal. In 2000-02 the S&P 500 Index dropped from 1,500 to 815, while VG IT Bond Index had hefty total returns each year.
Vanguard Intermediate-Term Bond Index Fund Investor Shares (VBIIX)
Right that's why using only a single bond fund has extra risk. Better to break that bond fund into several components so that you have a better chance at having dry powder somewhere to shoot that next bear
Aren't you preaching to the choir? :)

ps. Vanguard VBIIX was not down 8% by October 2008, nor did it post a loss in 2008 (or annually thereafter until 2013).
Doc » Wed Apr 02, 2014 2:14 pm wrote:In October 2008 the S&P was down some 24% and Vg's Intermediate Term Bond Index was down almost 8% while while the Intermediate Treasury fund was up over 4%. <snip>

Code: Select all

Vanguard Intermediate-Term Bond Index Fund Investor Shares				
					
Year	1 Qtr	  2 Qtr	 3 Qtr	 4 Qtr	Year-End Return
2014	 2.48%
2013	 0.32%	–3.97%	 0.73%	–0.60%	–3.54%
2012	 0.61%	 3.28%	 2.43%	 0.44%	 6.91%
2011	 0.24%	 3.32%	 5.18%	 1.55%	10.62%
2010	 2.19%	 5.32%	 4.71%	–2.95%	 9.37%
2009	–0.76%	 2.14%	 5.39%	–0.03%	 6.79%
2008	 3.20%	–2.21%	–2.67%	 6.83%	 4.93%
Landy | Be yourself, everyone else is already taken -- Oscar Wilde
User avatar
abuss368
Posts: 27850
Joined: Mon Aug 03, 2009 2:33 pm
Location: Where the water is warm, the drinks are cold, and I don't know the names of the players!
Contact:

Re: Bogle: Tilt To Corporates For More Yield

Post by abuss368 »

I would expect like investing in general an investor has to do what enables them to sleep well at night.
John C. Bogle: “Simplicity is the master key to financial success."
Post Reply