InSight

The Hidden Risks of Bond Funds: Diversification and Redemptions

Financial Planning Dentist

Investors often turn to bonds as a lower-risk alternative to stocks, and for many, bond funds offer a convenient way to diversify their portfolios. However, the notion that bond funds are an inherently safer bet can be misleading. In some circumstances, bond funds can actually carry more risk than the underlying bonds themselves. Let’s dive into how the supposed advantages of bond funds, like diversification and pooled investment, can sometimes be double-edged swords.

The Myth of Diversification 

The basic principle of diversification is “not putting all your eggs in one basket,” but what if some of the baskets are riskier than you’d like? In a bond fund, your investment is spread across various bonds issued by governments, municipalities, or corporations. While this mitigates the credit risk associated with any single issuer, it also exposes you to sectors or asset classes you might prefer to avoid.

Unwanted Risks

Bond funds often hold a wide range of assets, including corporate bonds, high-yield (junk) bonds, and even international bonds. For example, if you buy into a fund for its exposure to high-quality corporate bonds, you might unintentionally take on exposure to lower-rated or riskier bonds. You may also be exposed to interest rate risk, credit risk, and even currency risk if the fund invests internationally.

Lack of Control 

Unlike direct bond investments, where you can pick and choose your level of risk and yield, bond funds don’t offer the same level of control. You rely on the fund manager’s judgment, which may or may not align with your own risk tolerance and financial objectives.

The Domino Effect of Redemptions

One of the biggest risks with bond funds comes from the potential for large-scale redemptions. Unlike individual bonds, which you hold until maturity unless you decide to sell them, bond funds are subject to the investment whims of all the participants in the fund.

Forced Selling

If a significant number of investors decide to pull out of a bond fund, the fund may have to sell bonds to provide the cash for redemptions. This is especially problematic if the bonds have to be sold in a declining market, as it locks in losses that are passed on to remaining investors.

Liquidity Concerns

The need to meet redemptions could force the fund to sell its most liquid assets first, leaving the fund holding a larger proportion of illiquid or lower-quality bonds. This can affect the fund’s performance and potentially increase its volatility.

The Importance of Due Diligence

The key takeaway here is that while bond funds offer the advantage of professional management and diversification, they are not without their risks. Due diligence is crucial before adding any investment to your portfolio, including bond funds. If you or the person who manages your money insists on just stuffing more money into bond funds, it comes at a substantial cost you you in the form of added fees, performance, and risks. 

Investors should carefully read fund prospectuses and reports, understand the risks associated, and possibly consult a financial advisor to see if the fund aligns with their risk tolerance and investment goals. Only then can you make an informed decision about whether a bond fund is a right investment for you.

 

More related articles:

When should I start to add bonds to my portfolio? Do I even need to when I’m older?

So bonds are in a rough spot right now to invest in. In addition, there are several historical rules I’ve encountered when discussing bonds with clients. Some examples are: Having a percentage of bonds equal to your age, so something like 60% by age 60 20% in your earning years, 30% as you transition to retirement, and 50% in retirement While these “rules” trend in the right direction for investors, they miss an important point and none of them take into account the amount of money you have, and the income requirements of the money.  You should have more stability and less volatility as you need to count on that income as the sole source. But the amount of income you need will vary throughout retirement, the prevailing returns you get from bonds will change, and the duration of your bond might hinder the overall success of the portfolio. Here are a couple of things to focus on instead that will give you a better idea of how much you need to have in bonds, and at what age you should start How much money do you need your investments to produce? For example – if you have $1m in the bank and require $40,000 in income annually, you only need a 4% return. You can achieve that post-tax income from a 40/60 split in the current environment. An incredibly conservative portfolio. Begin with the end in mind.  How much up and down in the portfolio can you tolerate without taking action? Some money in bonds will inevitably lower the volatility, and lower the total return Do you have the capacity to earn money from employment? This can provide cash flow to add new equity positions in down markets, like the income from bonds, do. What other sources of income are available to you? Rental income, royalties, insurance payments, etc. The more options you have to evaluate that generate an income not reliant on the equities market, the less you need bonds. Bonds are really not a cut and dry issue. To figure out how much, and which to own is absolutely a science that will be worked out with a financial plan. Knowing the income needs today, tomorrow and in the future is key. Knowing exactly what you are trying to replace with your investments why we spend so much time on spending, and cash flow parts of the InSight-Full® plan. 

Read More »

Which debt should you prioritize paying off first? Smaller (car) or bigger (home)?

First, read Best way to get out of debt Now that you’ve read that you know that car debt is erosive debt. At InSight, if we can avoid erosive debt we do. With that being said, you still need to make a decision as to what to pay off.  Income – Savings = Expenses Always prioritize your future rather than paying off debt especially if it’s erosive unless: The interest rate is higher than what you can earn somewhere else. I.e. If you were to invest that money properly in the market and earn overtime 8% and your interest rate on your car is 4% then there is no benefit to paying off your car faster. If you’re someone that can’t stand debt I understand. I’ve known a lot of clients that can stand the thought of having debt and owing someone but try if you can to avoid this thinking. The value of compounding money is way more valuable than the immediate gratification of getting out of debt. Also, on average, people that pay off debt quickly typically find new ways of getting into debt or they start buying things within their budget they don’t need which hurts their future self. A home is a form of accretive debt. Everyone should own one as it helps you grow your net worth. On top of that, there are great tax incentives in the United States to own one so paying it off quickly especially if your interest rate is low which over the past couple of decades they’re at historic lows.  Paying off your house fast is essentially saying that you cannot earn more overtime investing that money than the interest you pay for your house. Unless you have a very high-interest rate (~6%+) it is hard to justify paying something off instead of investing that money. Investing also enables you to pay for unexpected expenses. It gives you your “room for error” to pay for things like a new water heater, roof, plumbing system, etc which is extremely important. Meanwhile, the person focused on paying off their debt may have little to no savings or investments and has to use a credit card (interest rate 18-25%) to pay for that same expense which is exactly where you don’t want to be.  If you found this helpful please share it and/or leave a comment! 

Read More »
Boulder
Articles
Peter Locke

Why I moved to Boulder, Colorado and started my own Registered Investment Advisory Business

To start, I grew up in Northern Virginia, right outside of Washington D.C. I am the youngest of three boys who live all over the United States and proud son of my mother and father. Growing up my parents or schools never taught me the importance of investing or planning. My parents taught me to work hard, get a good job, and make sure you buy things on sale. My mother, no matter what, cooked every night and took pride in providing us the best life possible.  Health was her main focus and my father’s area of expertise was academia. However, my great grandfather was a pioneer in the investing space.  His legacy provided three generations the ability to go to college debt free. This provided my parents the opportunity to give us the best that education had to offer and catapulted me into where I am today here in Boulder. His desire to give future generations this opportunity is something I’ve now dedicated my life to as well. Early in my life I learned that the greatest currency in life is the effect that you have on other people. When I was at summer camp as a young man, I learned invaluable lessons that I still live by today. Those lessons taught me that if I dedicate myself to others and help guide them through one of the most difficult things we have to handle as individuals, finances, then I will find all of the fulfillment I need.  Unfortunately, our education system does a very poor job of educating our youth to make good financial decisions. We’re taught the more you make the more you can have and we live in a never ending cycle of wanting more. Over the past decade of working in Boulder with individual clients and families, I’ve learned some of the biggest mistakes people have made and why they make them. I’ve also learned what the most successful people in some of the most affluent cities in the U.S. do to accumulate and keep wealth. The financial advising world, however, has a bad name and for good reason. For far too long, advisors were and still are, compensated for the wrong reasons like selling their own products for commissions. In my opinion, financial advisors should never be able to sell products for commissions. It represents far too big of a conflict of interest and should be done away with. However, we aren’t there yet even though there is a big movement to do so.  That leaves me with where I am today.  Starting my own advisory firm with a business partner that shares my same vision in Boulder, CO.  Now I can proudly say, I’ve never sold my own product or fund to a client. At big firms, you’re told to stay in the corporate lanes of what can be offered to clients. This goes beyond not being able to help clients with questions around stock advice. You’re given strict instructions to never tell clients about third-party solutions that would better meet their needs, or share a name of a company/person for tax planning, estate planning, insurance planning, mortgages, 529 plans, brokers, or retirement plan administrators or companies.  Even when you’re a CFP® professional, you’re bound by the same restrictions.  How could I continue serving clients in a holistic manner as their fiduciary when I can really only help them with the investment piece? The investment solutions I was selling though were fine. They gave clients well-diversified portfolios for a percentage of assets under management. The problem was, we were giving clients a solution that met the company’s guidelines, meaning, it wasn’t really my advice. If the clients had a certain net worth, made a certain income, and said they could handle a certain amount of risk, the ‘algorithm’ spit out a couple of portfolios that the company said we could give to the client. This is not financial planning. Although it was appropriate for some clients that just wanted something very safe and didn’t have the time, desire, or expertise to do it on their own, it wasn’t adequate if you truly wanted to be their fiduciary and meet the standards of the CFP® Board. So I left.   I no longer could work for a firm that wasn’t allowing me to serve clients in the manner they need to be served. I needed to offer clients solutions that would serve them more than investment management based on a theory (Modern Portfolio Theory) that was developed almost 70 years ago. Now I am not saying or attempting to say the theory is incorrect by any stretch of the imagination, but what I am saying is, right now a large portion of the theory isn’t doing what it has in the past and portfolio managers across the country aren’t adapting accordingly.  The clients I worked with for many years here in Boulder, knew they didn’t get rich with their investment strategy. They got rich with their savings and spending strategy. They focused on key elements like automating a certain amount of savings for their retirement and after-tax accounts before spending. They knew if they could save 20%-30% of their income they could retire earlier and live a more fulfilling life. To clarify, they didn’t live a better life because they had more in their retirement accounts. They had prioritized what was important, like focusing on shared experiences with family and friends, traveling, exercising, eating better instead of buying the newest and shiniest clothes, cars, and things. They stayed disciplined with their strategies as they knew that tinkering with their investments or savings meant prolonging their working days. They surrounded themselves with the right people, the right process, and the policies to hold them accountable and that’s what my business partner and I at InSight will do for our clients.  As fiduciaries in Boulder, we will always put the client first. 

Read More »

Pin It on Pinterest