 |
Bogleheads Investing Advice Inspired by Jack Bogle
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
knarf
Joined: 02 Mar 2007 Posts: 46 Location: Los Angeles
|
Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 6:26 pm Post subject: Swedroe, Ferri, and Bernstein |
|
|
I am much indebted to this trio and try to read everything they write.
I was quite interested to see on two issues of much contention between Swedroe and Ferri on this site, junk bonds and commodities futures, William Bernstein, in his new book "The Investor's Manifesto," takes Ferri's side.
After mentioning that commodities futures fell off the cliff in late 2008, he writes:
"Two things are wrong with this asset class. First, its future returns will likley to be low--certainly much lower than they have been in the past; commodites are what I call an 'asset class du jour,' on everyone's financial lips. This is a real warning sign, since when everyone owns something, few buyers may be left to push up the price. Second, I just do not trust any of the commodities funds, or the companies offering them. I will explain exactly why in chapter 5, which covers the brokerage and mutual fund industries."
Also, among his recommended funds is Vanguard's high yield corporate bond fund (VWEHX). |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
TJAJ9

Joined: 12 Sep 2009 Posts: 374 Location: Philadelphia, PA
|
Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 6:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I wouldn't recommend holding Vanguard High-Yield Corporate to anyone. There isn't any reason to take the added risk of "junk bonds." Take your added risk with your equities, not your bonds.
They are too volatile and their returns are poor for such a risky fund. They have under-performed most of Vanguard's other bond funds over the past 10 years. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
schwarm
Joined: 28 Oct 2007 Posts: 519 Location: Lower Alabama
|
Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 7:09 pm Post subject: Re: Swedroe, Ferri, and Bernstein |
|
|
| knarf wrote: | I
"Two things are wrong with this asset class. First, its future returns will likley to be low--certainly much lower than they have been in the past; commodites are what I call an 'asset class du jour,' on everyone's financial lips. This is a real warning sign, since when everyone owns something, few buyers may be left to push up the price. Second, I just do not trust any of the commodities funds, or the companies offering them. I will explain exactly why in chapter 5, which covers the brokerage and mutual fund industries."
|
I still think commodities funds are a bit arcane - they are not in most 401(k) plan choices, and the experts are divided on there usefulness in a portfolio, so I doubt "everyone owns" them. I own a small amount in my portfolio, and I don't own a commodities fund in the hope that more people will buy it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
AzRunner

Joined: 19 Feb 2007 Posts: 670 Location: Phoenix
|
Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 7:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I don't understand commodities well enough to own them. What I have read leads me more to Rick Ferri's view that commodities are not like stocks, where there are businesses growing to back up the stock price.
Wrt high yield bonds, I don't own them since I do not have room in my tax deferred account for them. On this one I go with Larry Swedroe since it seems like you are taking equity risk mixed with your fixed income and you are going to place one or the other in the wrong place in your taxable or tax deferred account.
The great thing about Bogleheads is that you can have knowledgeable people debate the topics and then you can make your own decision.
Norm |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
grok87
Joined: 27 Feb 2007 Posts: 2510
|
Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 10:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| TJAJ9 wrote: | I wouldn't recommend holding Vanguard High-Yield Corporate to anyone. There isn't any reason to take the added risk of "junk bonds." Take your added risk with your equities, not your bonds.
They are too volatile and their returns are poor for such a risky fund. They have under-performed most of Vanguard's other bond funds over the past 10 years. |
In 4 pillars Bernstein says to look at the Junk to Treasury spread (how much higher is the junk bond yield than treasuries). He says that if it is over 5% then Junk bonds may be worth buying. I think the spread is now something like 700 bps. (see this article for example which gives the yield at 10% or so vs. 3% for treasuries).
So I suppose Bernstein would say that they are a buy now. Or perhaps not in this economic environment the 5% spread rule of thumb may not apply.
Personally I agree that it's best to take the risk on the equity side...
cheers, _________________ grok, CFA |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
TJAJ9

Joined: 12 Sep 2009 Posts: 374 Location: Philadelphia, PA
|
Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 1:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
| grok87 wrote: | In 4 pillars Bernstein says to look at the Junk to Treasury spread (how much higher is the junk bond yield than treasuries). He says that if it is over 5% then Junk bonds may be worth buying. I think the spread is now something like 700 bps. (see this article for example which gives the yield at 10% or so vs. 3% for treasuries).
So I suppose Bernstein would say that they are a buy now. Or perhaps not in this economic environment the 5% spread rule of thumb may not apply.
Personally I agree that it's best to take the risk on the equity side...
cheers, |
Thanks for filling me in on his exact reasoning of when they are recommended. I still wouldn't touch them, though. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
bikeguyken
Joined: 02 Jan 2008 Posts: 14
|
Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 8:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
I use the learnings from all three gentlemen. I use Vanguard's High Yield fund for 10% of fixed income (Ferri) but treat High Yield as 25/75% Equity/FI (Swedroe) and am somewhat of a Portfolio Junkie (Bernstein-Four Pillars) with ownership of about 12 different Vanguard funds which include my casino/sector funds of Precious Metals, Energy and Health. Like another gentleman on this forum has frequently said: "There are many roads to Dublin". Note that as a retiree approaching 70, we are conservatively invested at 28/72% Equity/FI based on need/willingness/ability to take risk (Swedroe).
Ken the Trek bikeguy |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
grok87
Joined: 27 Feb 2007 Posts: 2510
|
Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 11:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
| TJAJ9 wrote: | | grok87 wrote: | In 4 pillars Bernstein says to look at the Junk to Treasury spread (how much higher is the junk bond yield than treasuries). He says that if it is over 5% then Junk bonds may be worth buying. I think the spread is now something like 700 bps. (see this article for example which gives the yield at 10% or so vs. 3% for treasuries).
So I suppose Bernstein would say that they are a buy now. Or perhaps not in this economic environment the 5% spread rule of thumb may not apply.
Personally I agree that it's best to take the risk on the equity side...
cheers, |
Thanks for filling me in on his exact reasoning of when they are recommended. I still wouldn't touch them, though. |
Sure no problem. Again I'm not a fan of high yield bonds- I wonder if Mr. Bernstein would recommend them at today's yield spreads in today's economic environment.
cheers, _________________ grok, CFA |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
gadfly888
Joined: 13 Apr 2007 Posts: 60
|
Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 5:26 pm Post subject: I add Nassim Taleb to that list......... |
|
|
For years my investment knowledge regimen has been reading and
re-reading the collective books of Berrnstein, Swedroe, Ferrie, and
for an acute appreciation for the darkness of a black swan, Mr. Taleb.
Gad- |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Wabbit
Joined: 06 Feb 2009 Posts: 35
|
Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 7:35 pm Post subject: Re: Swedroe, Ferri, and Bernstein |
|
|
| knarf wrote: |
I was quite interested to see on two issues of much contention between Swedroe and Ferri on this site, junk bonds and commodities futures, William Bernstein, in his new book "The Investor's Manifesto," takes Ferri's side.
|
Actually Bernstein wrote a brief article about commodities and futures before the new book: he posted this on his website in Sept 2006. (even before the recent market hoopla.) In case you haven't read it, or for others' reference, the link is
http://www.efficientfrontier.c..../stuff.htm |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Taylor Larimore Moderator

Joined: 27 Feb 2007 Posts: 7149 Location: Miami Florida
|
Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 8:46 pm Post subject: Bogleheads Guide on junk bonds |
|
|
Bogleheads:
This is what we wrote in our "Bogleheads Guide to Investing":
| Quote: | High Yield Bonds
High-yield bonds, also known as junk bonds, appeal to many investors because of their higher yields and sometimes higher returns than their more staid cousins. We have not included them in our portfolios for several reasons:
1. Bonds are primarily for safety. Stocks are primarily for higher return (and risk). Junk bond funds behave somewhere between traditioinal high-quality bonds and stocks. This tends to muddy the important distinction between bonds and stocks in a portfolio, thereby making risk control more difficult.
2. Taxable high-yield bonds are among the most tax-inefficient of all securities. By placing high-yield bond funds in retirement accounts (where they belong), there is less room for other tax-inefficient funds.
3. High-yield bond funds often have higher returns (and risk) than other bond funds. However, we believe that for investors willing to give up the safety of traditional good-quality bonds, it's more efficient (higher return per unit of risk) to invest in stocks, rather than hi-yield bonds.
4. High-yield bond funds are more closely correlated to stocks. Thus, they offer less diversification benefit than do traditional bond funds. |
_________________ Best wishes
Taylor
The Majesty of Simplicity |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|