First 20% of bonds in long-term Treasuries

Discuss all general (i.e. non-personal) investing questions and issues, investing news, and theory.
Locked
User avatar
watchnerd
Posts: 13614
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 10:18 am
Location: Gig Harbor, WA, USA

Re: First 20% of bonds in long-term Treasuries

Post by watchnerd »

gtwhitegold wrote: Sun Mar 28, 2021 10:43 pm
watchnerd wrote: Sun Mar 28, 2021 4:00 pm
Fat-Tailed Contagion wrote: Sun Mar 28, 2021 3:32 pm What would you use in place of TBM?
My risk portfolio bond allocation is visible in my signature.

But it may not be suitable for many, as I use a long-short / nominal-TIPS / deflation-inflation targeted Treasury barbell.

This is coupled with a LMP portfolio of laddered 10 YR Treasury bonds that alternates between TIPS and zero-coupon nominal STRIPS rungs.
Your bond portfolio is very similar to my desired outcome. I'm targeting 20% LT STRIPS, around 15% ST TIPS and 5% cash. The cash amount may be less, but it's around that ballpark. I don't think that I have the patience to try and deal with a bond ladder.
Just to be clear, the 15% allocations to LTT and Short TIPS in my sig are in funds, not individual bonds.
Global stocks, IG/HY bonds, gold & digital assets at market weights 75% / 19% / 6% || LMP: TIPS ladder
gtwhitegold
Posts: 673
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2012 1:55 pm

Re: First 20% of bonds in long-term Treasuries

Post by gtwhitegold »

watchnerd wrote: Sun Mar 28, 2021 11:22 pm
gtwhitegold wrote: Sun Mar 28, 2021 10:43 pm
watchnerd wrote: Sun Mar 28, 2021 4:00 pm
Fat-Tailed Contagion wrote: Sun Mar 28, 2021 3:32 pm What would you use in place of TBM?
My risk portfolio bond allocation is visible in my signature.

But it may not be suitable for many, as I use a long-short / nominal-TIPS / deflation-inflation targeted Treasury barbell.

This is coupled with a LMP portfolio of laddered 10 YR Treasury bonds that alternates between TIPS and zero-coupon nominal STRIPS rungs.
Your bond portfolio is very similar to my desired outcome. I'm targeting 20% LT STRIPS, around 15% ST TIPS and 5% cash. The cash amount may be less, but it's around that ballpark. I don't think that I have the patience to try and deal with a bond ladder.
Just to be clear, the 15% allocations to LTT and Short TIPS in my sig are in funds, not individual bonds.
That's what I was thinking, but I wasn't sure.
gips
Posts: 1760
Joined: Mon May 13, 2013 5:42 pm

Re: First 20% of bonds in long-term Treasuries

Post by gips »

i clicked on this topic to see if vineviz was still answering questions and find he is. very impressive, i half expected you to go the way of hedgefundie, you are a patient man or woman. well done!
User avatar
Topic Author
vineviz
Posts: 14921
Joined: Tue May 15, 2018 1:55 pm
Location: Baltimore, MD

Re: First 20% of bonds in long-term Treasuries

Post by vineviz »

foosball wrote: Sun Mar 28, 2021 10:02 pm
cos wrote: Sun Mar 28, 2021 4:00 pm
Fat-Tailed Contagion wrote: Sun Mar 28, 2021 3:33 pm My reasoning is total market approach supplemented with some small hedges.

What allocation do you see as better for the bond allocation in a 50/50 portfolio?
Keep it simple. If you're worried about inflation, duration match with TIPS. If you aren't worried, duration match with nominal Treasuries.

And if you're more concerned about hedging than duration matching, I'd recommend going with either 100% long-term TIPS (e.g. LTPZ) or 100% long-term Treasuries (e.g. EDV). These assets are highly uncorrelated with equities while also delivering similar volatility and a non-zero return. They're the best equity hedges in town.
Suggesting that someone put half of their portfolio in very long term bonds is... extreme.
You mean extremely sensible?

Long-term investors should own long-term bonds, to the extent they own bonds at all.
"Far more money has been lost by investors preparing for corrections than has been lost in corrections themselves." ~~ Peter Lynch
LukeHeinz57
Posts: 166
Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2014 12:01 pm
Location: Ohio

Re: First 20% of bonds in long-term Treasuries

Post by LukeHeinz57 »

I am also impressed by Vineviz's incredible patience and persistence in helping others see the light and ditch the dogma surrounding long term bonds and how "risky" they are for long term investors...I was persuaded by the logic and benefitted tremendously a year ago as a result. You can't ask for a better asset to rebalance with after an equity down turn than long term treasuries...

Every time I see a news article where Yellen shoots down 50 or 100 year treasuries I sigh as that would be a very efficient tool for those of us who have a 30/40/50/60 year horizon ahead of us still.
"Contentment", the only thing you ever truly need more of!
User avatar
watchnerd
Posts: 13614
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 10:18 am
Location: Gig Harbor, WA, USA

Re: First 20% of bonds in long-term Treasuries

Post by watchnerd »

LukeHeinz57 wrote: Mon Mar 29, 2021 9:07 am I am also impressed by Vineviz's incredible patience and persistence in helping others see the light and ditch the dogma surrounding long term bonds and how "risky" they are for long term investors...I was persuaded by the logic and benefitted tremendously a year ago as a result. You can't ask for a better asset to rebalance with after an equity down turn than long term treasuries...

Every time I see a news article where Yellen shoots down 50 or 100 year treasuries I sigh as that would be a very efficient tool for those of us who have a 30/40/50/60 year horizon ahead of us still.
While LTT are logical (I hold them), I do think they present behavioral issues for many investors.

Because of their high interest rate sensitivity and volatility, they don't "act like bonds" in the eyes of many investors.

I've seen several threads where investors complain about how LTT fund NAV is declining in a rising rate environment....which, of course, is entirely expected and shouldn't be a surprise to anyone who understands what they're buying.

LTT investing requires you to really understand what you're buying, why you're holding it, how it will be behave, and the role it plays in portfolio construction.

I'm now of the opinion that bond understanding is actually not that great among Bogleheads and that familiarity with MPT is probably even lower.

There is a fraction of Bogheleads who are well versed in the nuances of financial instruments, but a lot of them are just diligent savers who want an EZ mode investment.

The genius of TBM is that it's idiot proof.
Global stocks, IG/HY bonds, gold & digital assets at market weights 75% / 19% / 6% || LMP: TIPS ladder
User avatar
Topic Author
vineviz
Posts: 14921
Joined: Tue May 15, 2018 1:55 pm
Location: Baltimore, MD

Re: First 20% of bonds in long-term Treasuries

Post by vineviz »

watchnerd wrote: Mon Mar 29, 2021 9:28 am While LTT are logical (I hold them), I do think they present behavioral issues for many investors.

Because of their high interest rate sensitivity and volatility, they don't "act like bonds" in the eyes of many investors.
I suspect ingrained behavioral biases are part of the problem, but I also think persistent misinformation is another part.

My hope is that with better information some investors will be empowered to make better investment decisions.

However, there will always be a tension between accommodating irrational behavior (eg “pick the hill you die on”) and adjusting the behavior. The “first 20%” heuristic is meant to help bridge the gap between the way bonds actually function for investors and they way investors THINK they function.
"Far more money has been lost by investors preparing for corrections than has been lost in corrections themselves." ~~ Peter Lynch
User avatar
imak
Posts: 212
Joined: Fri Mar 22, 2019 5:18 pm
Location: Austin, TX

Re: First 20% of bonds in long-term Treasuries

Post by imak »

LukeHeinz57 wrote: Mon Mar 29, 2021 9:07 am I am also impressed by Vineviz's incredible patience and persistence in helping others see the light and ditch the dogma surrounding long term bonds and how "risky" they are for long term investors...I was persuaded by the logic and benefitted tremendously a year ago as a result. You can't ask for a better asset to rebalance with after an equity down turn than long term treasuries...

Every time I see a news article where Yellen shoots down 50 or 100 year treasuries I sigh as that would be a very efficient tool for those of us who have a 30/40/50/60 year horizon ahead of us still.
+1. I too benefited immensely by following this thread and Vineviz's reasoning for LTT. I introduced 10% EDV in my portfolio on Jan 2020 and during March 2020 crash, it was a great real-time experience to rebalance from EDV to equities. Seeing true diversification in action is really amazing.
User avatar
cos
Posts: 506
Joined: Fri Aug 23, 2019 7:34 pm
Location: Boston
Contact:

Re: First 20% of bonds in long-term Treasuries

Post by cos »

foosball wrote: Sun Mar 28, 2021 10:02 pm Suggesting that someone put half of their portfolio in very long term bonds is... extreme.
I quite enjoy it! Although, to be fair, they make up more like 40% (120%?), not 50%, of my portfolio.
User avatar
watchnerd
Posts: 13614
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 10:18 am
Location: Gig Harbor, WA, USA

Re: First 20% of bonds in long-term Treasuries

Post by watchnerd »

vineviz wrote: Mon Mar 29, 2021 10:24 am
watchnerd wrote: Mon Mar 29, 2021 9:28 am While LTT are logical (I hold them), I do think they present behavioral issues for many investors.

Because of their high interest rate sensitivity and volatility, they don't "act like bonds" in the eyes of many investors.
I suspect ingrained behavioral biases are part of the problem, but I also think persistent misinformation is another part.

My hope is that with better information some investors will be empowered to make better investment decisions.

However, there will always be a tension between accommodating irrational behavior (eg “pick the hill you die on”) and adjusting the behavior. The “first 20%” heuristic is meant to help bridge the gap between the way bonds actually function for investors and they way investors THINK they function.
Yes, I think the supra-secular interest rate cycle since the 1980s has lead to a cognitive bias regarding "how bonds are supposed to behave."

Interventions by orthodox Bogleheads can reinforce the lack of a growth mindset, who sometimes pop into threads and tell people to basically "just go 3 fund" when alternative approaches to bond allocation are brought up.
Global stocks, IG/HY bonds, gold & digital assets at market weights 75% / 19% / 6% || LMP: TIPS ladder
secondopinion
Posts: 6011
Joined: Wed Dec 02, 2020 12:18 pm

Re: First 20% of bonds in long-term Treasuries

Post by secondopinion »

watchnerd wrote: Mon Mar 29, 2021 12:48 pm
vineviz wrote: Mon Mar 29, 2021 10:24 am
watchnerd wrote: Mon Mar 29, 2021 9:28 am While LTT are logical (I hold them), I do think they present behavioral issues for many investors.

Because of their high interest rate sensitivity and volatility, they don't "act like bonds" in the eyes of many investors.
I suspect ingrained behavioral biases are part of the problem, but I also think persistent misinformation is another part.

My hope is that with better information some investors will be empowered to make better investment decisions.

However, there will always be a tension between accommodating irrational behavior (eg “pick the hill you die on”) and adjusting the behavior. The “first 20%” heuristic is meant to help bridge the gap between the way bonds actually function for investors and they way investors THINK they function.
Yes, I think the supra-secular interest rate cycle since the 1980s has lead to a cognitive bias regarding "how bonds are supposed to behave."

Interventions by orthodox Bogleheads can reinforce the lack of a growth mindset, who sometimes pop into threads and tell people to basically "just go 3 fund" when alternative approaches to bond allocation are brought up.
I agree that too many people want bonds to act like cash, not to mention they want the upside without the downside. The long-term bonds are the only "true bonds"; the rest are more like cash. Long-term bonds are a unique asset, being fundamentally different from cash and stocks; it is the only asset that guarantees its returns over long periods (barring credit risk). They are not a protection of present principal like cash; they protect future returns (again, barring credit risk). Stocks have no guarantees either way.

Maybe I will post something on the side matter of long-term corporate bonds and why they are perfectly acceptable (some are fine with VGLT (or even EDV) but not VCLT, for example).
Passive investing: not about making big bucks but making profits. Active investing: not about beating the market but meeting goals. Speculation: not about timing the market but taking profitable risks.
User avatar
watchnerd
Posts: 13614
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 10:18 am
Location: Gig Harbor, WA, USA

Re: First 20% of bonds in long-term Treasuries

Post by watchnerd »

secondopinion wrote: Mon Mar 29, 2021 4:58 pm Maybe I will post something on the side matter of long-term corporate bonds and why they are perfectly acceptable (some are fine with VGLT (or even EDV) but not VCLT, for example).
I'll be curious to read that.

Generally, I'd want a pretty nice spread to take that bet.
Global stocks, IG/HY bonds, gold & digital assets at market weights 75% / 19% / 6% || LMP: TIPS ladder
whereskyle
Posts: 1911
Joined: Wed Jan 29, 2020 9:29 am

Re: First 20% of bonds in long-term Treasuries

Post by whereskyle »

Plenty of time till the ol' horizon, but I chose VGLT over EDV. Is this a terrible noob mistake? Should I just leave it alone?
"I am better off than he is – for he knows nothing and thinks that he knows. I neither know nor think that I know." - Socrates. "Nobody knows nothing." - Jack Bogle
User avatar
watchnerd
Posts: 13614
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 10:18 am
Location: Gig Harbor, WA, USA

Re: First 20% of bonds in long-term Treasuries

Post by watchnerd »

whereskyle wrote: Mon Mar 29, 2021 5:31 pm Plenty of time till the ol' horizon, but I chose VGLT over EDV. Is this a terrible noob mistake? Should I just leave it alone?
I also use VGLT.

If you're in a high equity portfolio, EDV becomes more important because the higher volatility allows you to use a smaller slice to offset equity volatility.

I can't given an opinion without knowing how many equities you have.

Also, EDV has an even longer duration than VGLT, so if you're using it in a barbell you need to take that weighting into account if you're trying to lower the average weighted duration of the entire barbell.

Even just using VGLT, I have to augment VTIP with a cash holding to lower the average weighted duration down to something more 'intermediate'.

Lastly, is your personal timeframe >24 years? Or closer to 18 years?
Global stocks, IG/HY bonds, gold & digital assets at market weights 75% / 19% / 6% || LMP: TIPS ladder
guppyguy
Posts: 463
Joined: Tue Jan 30, 2018 3:24 pm

Re: First 20% of bonds in long-term Treasuries

Post by guppyguy »

watchnerd wrote: Mon Mar 29, 2021 6:03 pm
whereskyle wrote: Mon Mar 29, 2021 5:31 pm Plenty of time till the ol' horizon, but I chose VGLT over EDV. Is this a terrible noob mistake? Should I just leave it alone?
I also use VGLT.

If you're in a high equity portfolio, EDV becomes more important because the higher volatility allows you to use a smaller slice to offset equity volatility.

I can't given an opinion without knowing how many equities you have.

Also, EDV has an even longer duration than VGLT, so if you're using it in a barbell you need to take that weighting into account if you're trying to lower the average weighted duration of the entire barbell.

Even just using VGLT, I have to augment VTIP with a cash holding to lower the average weighted duration down to something more 'intermediate'.

Lastly, is your personal timeframe >24 years? Or closer to 18 years?
What is your target duration for your bond side watchnerd? Would you mind explaining how you came up with your bond allocation?
donaldson
Posts: 45
Joined: Sun Jul 03, 2016 11:12 pm

Re: First 20% of bonds in long-term Treasuries

Post by donaldson »

watchnerd wrote: Mon Mar 29, 2021 6:03 pm
whereskyle wrote: Mon Mar 29, 2021 5:31 pm Plenty of time till the ol' horizon, but I chose VGLT over EDV. Is this a terrible noob mistake? Should I just leave it alone?
I also use VGLT.

If you're in a high equity portfolio, EDV becomes more important because the higher volatility allows you to use a smaller slice to offset equity volatility.

I can't given an opinion without knowing how many equities you have.

Also, EDV has an even longer duration than VGLT, so if you're using it in a barbell you need to take that weighting into account if you're trying to lower the average weighted duration of the entire barbell.

Even just using VGLT, I have to augment VTIP with a cash holding to lower the average weighted duration down to something more 'intermediate'.

Lastly, is your personal timeframe >24 years? Or closer to 18 years?
I use the mutual fund version of VGLT, VLGSX right now. My overall portfolio is 80/20, but my VLGSX holdings are closer to 13 percent because the rest are various cash-like investments, much of which I cannot change at the moment (such as mandatory contributions to a pension account that until vested, are all that I would be entitled to).

Because the cash-like portion is acting as a sort of barbell, logic dictates that I should be using EDV to get the duration of my bond portfolio closer to my actual time horizon (my FI target is tentatively set for ˜18 years from now). The only thing that holds me back is that I don't currently hold any ETFs and overall I do prefer mutual funds.

Every so often I glance at my IPS and think about making some changes to incorporate EDV, but inevitably stay the course with what I have, maybe more in the interest of simplicity than anything else. Any thoughts on that?

I'm also posting to say that vineviz's various threads on bond duration have been helpful over the years.
User avatar
watchnerd
Posts: 13614
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 10:18 am
Location: Gig Harbor, WA, USA

Re: First 20% of bonds in long-term Treasuries

Post by watchnerd »

guppyguy wrote: Mon Mar 29, 2021 6:45 pm
watchnerd wrote: Mon Mar 29, 2021 6:03 pm
whereskyle wrote: Mon Mar 29, 2021 5:31 pm Plenty of time till the ol' horizon, but I chose VGLT over EDV. Is this a terrible noob mistake? Should I just leave it alone?
I also use VGLT.

If you're in a high equity portfolio, EDV becomes more important because the higher volatility allows you to use a smaller slice to offset equity volatility.

I can't given an opinion without knowing how many equities you have.

Also, EDV has an even longer duration than VGLT, so if you're using it in a barbell you need to take that weighting into account if you're trying to lower the average weighted duration of the entire barbell.

Even just using VGLT, I have to augment VTIP with a cash holding to lower the average weighted duration down to something more 'intermediate'.

Lastly, is your personal timeframe >24 years? Or closer to 18 years?
What is your target duration for your bond side watchnerd? Would you mind explaining how you came up with your bond allocation?
It's long-short / nominal-TIPS / deflation-inflation, plus cash for zero correlation asset, additional deflation cushion, and optionality.

It's designed to be used in conjunction with a equity valuation-based tactical asset allocation strategy, per my IPS rules.

The primary role is to provide modest risk parity matching and defeasance of equity risk. As such, corporate bonds are axiomatically excluded.

The secondary role is currently inactive, as I'm still working. Once I stop working, I expect to tap into it (along with equities, as needed) in the years I have to wait before getting SS, with the expectation of a rising equity glide path by the time I hit full SS at 67 and/or delay to 70.

The target weighted duration for the barbell is around 5-6, because I plan to retire around 2025.

I like LTT to equities in about a 1:4 ratio, as this gives me the trade off I want between "just enough" anti-equity volatility reduction for my taste without going too far out on duration exposure for the whole port. I expect the LTT holdings to remain in perpetuity, although they may fluctuate according to rebalancing needs.

The whole bond allocation portion, over all, is designed to be large enough to handle a minimum of 10 years of living expenses, to last through a "lost decade" or bad bear without needing to sell equities at a loss. At current portfolio size, it's about 16 years worth.
Last edited by watchnerd on Mon Mar 29, 2021 11:07 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Global stocks, IG/HY bonds, gold & digital assets at market weights 75% / 19% / 6% || LMP: TIPS ladder
whereskyle
Posts: 1911
Joined: Wed Jan 29, 2020 9:29 am

Re: First 20% of bonds in long-term Treasuries

Post by whereskyle »

watchnerd wrote: Mon Mar 29, 2021 6:03 pm
whereskyle wrote: Mon Mar 29, 2021 5:31 pm Plenty of time till the ol' horizon, but I chose VGLT over EDV. Is this a terrible noob mistake? Should I just leave it alone?
I also use VGLT.

If you're in a high equity portfolio, EDV becomes more important because the higher volatility allows you to use a smaller slice to offset equity volatility.

I can't given an opinion without knowing how many equities you have.

Also, EDV has an even longer duration than VGLT, so if you're using it in a barbell you need to take that weighting into account if you're trying to lower the average weighted duration of the entire barbell.

Even just using VGLT, I have to augment VTIP with a cash holding to lower the average weighted duration down to something more 'intermediate'.

Lastly, is your personal timeframe >24 years? Or closer to 18 years?
I meet all the criteria for extending duration, (90/10 equities/LTT target allocation) but I didn't understand what a STRIP bond is, and I don't like buying things I don't understand. Now I think I do: the bond is sold at a discount to compensate for the extra waiting time for it to mature and then it pays out at par. Does that sum it up? Any additional risks to STRIPS apart from plain old duration (interest-rate) risk?
"I am better off than he is – for he knows nothing and thinks that he knows. I neither know nor think that I know." - Socrates. "Nobody knows nothing." - Jack Bogle
User avatar
watchnerd
Posts: 13614
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 10:18 am
Location: Gig Harbor, WA, USA

Re: First 20% of bonds in long-term Treasuries

Post by watchnerd »

whereskyle wrote: Mon Mar 29, 2021 8:04 pm
watchnerd wrote: Mon Mar 29, 2021 6:03 pm
whereskyle wrote: Mon Mar 29, 2021 5:31 pm Plenty of time till the ol' horizon, but I chose VGLT over EDV. Is this a terrible noob mistake? Should I just leave it alone?
I also use VGLT.

If you're in a high equity portfolio, EDV becomes more important because the higher volatility allows you to use a smaller slice to offset equity volatility.

I can't given an opinion without knowing how many equities you have.

Also, EDV has an even longer duration than VGLT, so if you're using it in a barbell you need to take that weighting into account if you're trying to lower the average weighted duration of the entire barbell.

Even just using VGLT, I have to augment VTIP with a cash holding to lower the average weighted duration down to something more 'intermediate'.

Lastly, is your personal timeframe >24 years? Or closer to 18 years?
I meet all the criteria for extending duration, (90/10 equities/LTT target allocation) but I didn't understand what a STRIP bond is, and I don't like buying things I don't understand. Now I think I do: the bond is sold at a discount to compensate for the extra waiting time for it to mature and then it pays out at par. Does that sum it up? Any additional risks to STRIPS apart from plain old duration (interest-rate) risk?
Generically, STRIPS can be either principal only (PO) or interest only (IO) deconstructions of nominal bonds.

When I buy Treasury STRIPS, I buy zero coupon / PO bonds.

If EDV is similarly buying zero coupon / PO bonds, I don't know where the yield it pays is coming from.
Global stocks, IG/HY bonds, gold & digital assets at market weights 75% / 19% / 6% || LMP: TIPS ladder
luckyducky99
Posts: 415
Joined: Sun Dec 15, 2019 6:47 pm

Re: First 20% of bonds in long-term Treasuries

Post by luckyducky99 »

watchnerd wrote: Mon Mar 29, 2021 9:39 pm
whereskyle wrote: Mon Mar 29, 2021 8:04 pm
watchnerd wrote: Mon Mar 29, 2021 6:03 pm
whereskyle wrote: Mon Mar 29, 2021 5:31 pm Plenty of time till the ol' horizon, but I chose VGLT over EDV. Is this a terrible noob mistake? Should I just leave it alone?
I also use VGLT.

If you're in a high equity portfolio, EDV becomes more important because the higher volatility allows you to use a smaller slice to offset equity volatility.

I can't given an opinion without knowing how many equities you have.

Also, EDV has an even longer duration than VGLT, so if you're using it in a barbell you need to take that weighting into account if you're trying to lower the average weighted duration of the entire barbell.

Even just using VGLT, I have to augment VTIP with a cash holding to lower the average weighted duration down to something more 'intermediate'.

Lastly, is your personal timeframe >24 years? Or closer to 18 years?
I meet all the criteria for extending duration, (90/10 equities/LTT target allocation) but I didn't understand what a STRIP bond is, and I don't like buying things I don't understand. Now I think I do: the bond is sold at a discount to compensate for the extra waiting time for it to mature and then it pays out at par. Does that sum it up? Any additional risks to STRIPS apart from plain old duration (interest-rate) risk?
Generically, STRIPS can be either principal only (PO) or interest only (IO) deconstructions of nominal bonds.

When I buy Treasury STRIPS, I buy zero coupon / PO bonds.

If EDV is similarly buying zero coupon / PO bonds, I don't know where the yield it pays is coming from.
For STRIPS, the IRS requires you to amortize the "phantom" interest that you'll earn at maturity as a lump sum over the lifetime of the bond. That is the yield that the fund pays out -- they pass it on as a dividend so that the fund doesn't have to pay those taxes, making the holder pay them instead. Presumably they sell to pay out but I dunno.
User avatar
watchnerd
Posts: 13614
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 10:18 am
Location: Gig Harbor, WA, USA

Re: First 20% of bonds in long-term Treasuries

Post by watchnerd »

luckyducky99 wrote: Mon Mar 29, 2021 11:21 pm For STRIPS, the IRS requires you to amortize the "phantom" interest that you'll earn at maturity as a lump sum over the lifetime of the bond. That is the yield that the fund pays out -- they pass it on as a dividend so that the fund doesn't have to pay those taxes, making the holder pay them instead. Presumably they sell to pay out but I dunno.
Yeah, even if they're passing on the phantom interest, the cash flow has to come from something.
Global stocks, IG/HY bonds, gold & digital assets at market weights 75% / 19% / 6% || LMP: TIPS ladder
User avatar
Scott S
Posts: 1937
Joined: Mon Nov 24, 2008 2:28 am
Location: building my position

Re: First 20% of bonds in long-term Treasuries

Post by Scott S »

donaldson wrote: Mon Mar 29, 2021 6:56 pm
watchnerd wrote: Mon Mar 29, 2021 6:03 pm
whereskyle wrote: Mon Mar 29, 2021 5:31 pmPlenty of time till the ol' horizon, but I chose VGLT over EDV. Is this a terrible noob mistake? Should I just leave it alone?
I also use VGLT.

If you're in a high equity portfolio, EDV becomes more important because the higher volatility allows you to use a smaller slice to offset equity volatility.
I use the mutual fund version of VGLT, VLGSX right now. My overall portfolio is 80/20, but my VLGSX holdings are closer to 13 percent because the rest are various cash-like investments, much of which I cannot change at the moment (such as mandatory contributions to a pension account that until vested, are all that I would be entitled to).

Every so often I glance at my IPS and think about making some changes to incorporate EDV, but inevitably stay the course with what I have, maybe more in the interest of simplicity than anything else. Any thoughts on that?

I'm also posting to say that vineviz's various threads on bond duration have been helpful over the years.
When the LTT thing started to click for me late last year, VLGSX is what I used my TBM holdings to buy. Then, as I did more reading, thinking, and back-testing, I moved it to EDV to get more bang for my buck.

This thread, De-Risking and Diversification aren't the same thing, and some of Tyler9000's posts have been instrumental in getting me to think of bonds (especially longer-term Treasuries) as more of an active participant in a portfolio rather than just something to water down the volatility of the stocks. Thanks vineviz and Tyler! :beer
"Old value investors never die, they just get their fix from rebalancing." -- vineviz
pascalwager
Posts: 2327
Joined: Mon Oct 31, 2011 8:36 pm

Re: First 20% of bonds in long-term Treasuries

Post by pascalwager »

watchnerd wrote: Mon Mar 29, 2021 9:28 am
LukeHeinz57 wrote: Mon Mar 29, 2021 9:07 am I am also impressed by Vineviz's incredible patience and persistence in helping others see the light and ditch the dogma surrounding long term bonds and how "risky" they are for long term investors...I was persuaded by the logic and benefitted tremendously a year ago as a result. You can't ask for a better asset to rebalance with after an equity down turn than long term treasuries...

Every time I see a news article where Yellen shoots down 50 or 100 year treasuries I sigh as that would be a very efficient tool for those of us who have a 30/40/50/60 year horizon ahead of us still.
While LTT are logical (I hold them), I do think they present behavioral issues for many investors.

Because of their high interest rate sensitivity and volatility, they don't "act like bonds" in the eyes of many investors.

I've seen several threads where investors complain about how LTT fund NAV is declining in a rising rate environment....which, of course, is entirely expected and shouldn't be a surprise to anyone who understands what they're buying.

LTT investing requires you to really understand what you're buying, why you're holding it, how it will be behave, and the role it plays in portfolio construction.

I'm now of the opinion that bond understanding is actually not that great among Bogleheads and that familiarity with MPT is probably even lower.

There is a fraction of Bogheleads who are well versed in the nuances of financial instruments, but a lot of them are just diligent savers who want an EZ mode investment.

The genius of TBM is that it's idiot proof.
You mention that you hold long-term bonds, but I calculated your fixed income (barbell bonds + cash) duration at only 7.8 years. So, I assume you don't actually believe in duration matching with investment horizon in one's risk portfolio even if long-term bonds do happen to appear in your personal fixed income portfolio.
User avatar
watchnerd
Posts: 13614
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 10:18 am
Location: Gig Harbor, WA, USA

Re: First 20% of bonds in long-term Treasuries

Post by watchnerd »

pascalwager wrote: Tue Mar 30, 2021 1:03 am
You mention that you hold long-term bonds, but I calculated your fixed income (barbell bonds + cash) duration at only 7.8 years. So, I assume you don't actually believe in duration matching with investment horizon in one's risk portfolio even if long-term bonds do happen to appear in your personal fixed income portfolio.
Oh I do. See above about remarks about early retirement in 2025 and rising equity glide path.

So my near term horizon is ~5 years, which is close enough to matching the ~7 weighted duration of the barbell that I don't sweat it.

The expectation is the cash and VTIP will get consumed sooner in early retirement, which will increase the duration of the barbell as I age to go along with the rising equity glide path.

We're currently at 40x, saving 2 years for every 1 year worked, so by 2025, at age 55, we'll be at ~50x (knock on wood).

25% (VTIP and cash) of 50x = 12.5 years

Burning through all the VTIP and cash in 12.5 years leaves us the bond allocation at 100% LTT by age 67 and past the pre-SS SOR danger zone.

Which is just in time to claim full Social Security and have the 100% weighted 18 year duration of VGLT in perpetuity for the rest of our lives.

(And in the meantime we're building out the LMP ladder outside of the risk portfolio, which is laddered 10 YR individual bonds, so very much duration matched to timeframes, as each ladder will be consumed as income on maturity, or invested, valuations depending)
Global stocks, IG/HY bonds, gold & digital assets at market weights 75% / 19% / 6% || LMP: TIPS ladder
LukeHeinz57
Posts: 166
Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2014 12:01 pm
Location: Ohio

Re: First 20% of bonds in long-term Treasuries

Post by LukeHeinz57 »

watchnerd wrote: Tue Mar 30, 2021 1:19 am
pascalwager wrote: Tue Mar 30, 2021 1:03 am
You mention that you hold long-term bonds, but I calculated your fixed income (barbell bonds + cash) duration at only 7.8 years. So, I assume you don't actually believe in duration matching with investment horizon in one's risk portfolio even if long-term bonds do happen to appear in your personal fixed income portfolio.
Oh I do. See above about remarks about early retirement in 2025 and rising equity glide path.

So my near term horizon is ~5 years, which is close enough to matching the ~7 weighted duration of the barbell that I don't sweat it.

The expectation is the cash and VTIP will get consumed sooner in early retirement, which will increase the duration of the barbell as I age to go along with the rising equity glide path.

We're currently at 40x, saving 2 years for every 1 year worked, so by 2025, at age 55, we'll be at ~50x (knock on wood).

25% (VTIP and cash) of 50x = 12.5 years

Burning through all the VTIP and cash in 12.5 years leaves us the bond allocation at 100% LTT by age 67 and past the pre-SS SOR danger zone.

Which is just in time to claim full Social Security and have the 100% weighted 18 year duration of VGLT in perpetuity for the rest of our lives.

(And in the meantime we're building out the LMP ladder outside of the risk portfolio, which is laddered 10 YR individual bonds, so very much duration matched to timeframes, as each ladder will be consumed as income on maturity, or invested, valuations depending)
This is the level of planning that I aspire to! :beer
"Contentment", the only thing you ever truly need more of!
User avatar
LadyGeek
Site Admin
Posts: 95686
Joined: Sat Dec 20, 2008 4:34 pm
Location: Philadelphia
Contact:

Re: First 20% of bonds in long-term Treasuries

Post by LadyGeek »

watchnerd wrote: Sun Mar 28, 2021 4:00 pm
Fat-Tailed Contagion wrote: Sun Mar 28, 2021 3:32 pm What would you use in place of TBM?
My risk portfolio bond allocation is visible in my signature.

But it may not be suitable for many, as I use a long-short / nominal-TIPS / deflation-inflation targeted Treasury barbell.

This is coupled with a LMP portfolio of laddered 10 YR Treasury bonds that alternates between TIPS and zero-coupon nominal STRIPS rungs.
Definitions:

barbell - The wiki has some background information: Barbell strategy

LMP = Liability Matching Portfolio

A good discussion is in this old thread: Liability Matching Portfolio? Really? (feel free to add to the discussion)

The wiki has some background info. The article is not intended for liability matching portfolios, but it shows the general idea of how you can create a strategy: Matching strategy

This is a different topic than what's discussed here, but I wanted to make sure that readers understood the concept.

(To new investors: This isn't something you need to know now. If you're still on the learning curve, you can skip it.)
Wiki To some, the glass is half full. To others, the glass is half empty. To an engineer, it's twice the size it needs to be.
User avatar
foosball
Posts: 122
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2016 4:45 pm

Re: First 20% of bonds in long-term Treasuries

Post by foosball »

vineviz wrote: Mon Mar 29, 2021 8:37 am
foosball wrote: Sun Mar 28, 2021 10:02 pm
cos wrote: Sun Mar 28, 2021 4:00 pm
Fat-Tailed Contagion wrote: Sun Mar 28, 2021 3:33 pm My reasoning is total market approach supplemented with some small hedges.

What allocation do you see as better for the bond allocation in a 50/50 portfolio?
Keep it simple. If you're worried about inflation, duration match with TIPS. If you aren't worried, duration match with nominal Treasuries.

And if you're more concerned about hedging than duration matching, I'd recommend going with either 100% long-term TIPS (e.g. LTPZ) or 100% long-term Treasuries (e.g. EDV). These assets are highly uncorrelated with equities while also delivering similar volatility and a non-zero return. They're the best equity hedges in town.
Suggesting that someone put half of their portfolio in very long term bonds is... extreme.
You mean extremely sensible?

Long-term investors should own long-term bonds, to the extent they own bonds at all.
Perhaps my point was poorly communicated. For a truly long-term investor, why recommend 50% of their portfolio be placed in bonds?
Tilterati
corp_sharecropper
Posts: 590
Joined: Thu Nov 07, 2013 1:36 pm

Re: First 20% of bonds in long-term Treasuries

Post by corp_sharecropper »

I've posted this before but here goes again. This the performance of SPX + long term treasuries (switching to STRIPS when VEDTX, the mutual fund equivalent to EDV, became available in ~2007).

Image
irwinmfletcher
Posts: 58
Joined: Wed Feb 22, 2012 10:55 am

Re: First 20% of bonds in long-term Treasuries

Post by irwinmfletcher »

Vineviz and Watchnerd, really appreciate your posts and knowledge in this and other threads.

I first read this thread about a year ago and to date haven't switched from keeping my 20% bonds in TBM and Inter-term bond index.

I've been planning to switch at least some of that 20% to LTT. I keep no separate emergency fund, so not sure I have the guts to go all 20% LTT. Is it reasonable to go half ITT and half LTT? I plan to stay 80/20 forever, although when I get to 25-30x I may reevaluate (probably about half way there right now, 10 years or so from retirement). I have no concern with seeing ITT go down 5-10%, but seeing LTT go down 15-20% would give me some heartburn if that is all I held for fixed income.
bagle
Posts: 329
Joined: Tue Feb 22, 2011 4:59 am

Re: First 20% of bonds in long-term Treasuries

Post by bagle »

watchnerd wrote: Tue Mar 30, 2021 1:19 am
The expectation is the cash and VTIP will get consumed sooner in early retirement, which will increase the duration of the barbell as I age to go along with the rising equity glide path.

We're currently at 40x, saving 2 years for every 1 year worked, so by 2025, at age 55, we'll be at ~50x (knock on wood).

25% (VTIP and cash) of 50x = 12.5 years

Burning through all the VTIP and cash in 12.5 years leaves us the bond allocation at 100% LTT by age 67 and past the pre-SS SOR danger zone.

Which is just in time to claim full Social Security and have the 100% weighted 18 year duration of VGLT in perpetuity for the rest of our lives.

(And in the meantime we're building out the LMP ladder outside of the risk portfolio, which is laddered 10 YR individual bonds, so very much duration matched to timeframes, as each ladder will be consumed as income on maturity, or invested, valuations depending)
The only part I don't understand is why you are hedging against unexpected inflation using TIPS only for the shorter term.

I see VTIPS, with their current 2.7 year TIPS duration, to hedge against this for the first 12.5 years. Later, I understand you are matching future liabilities with nominal rather then inflation-indexed Treasuries (using a combo of VGLA and individual T-bonds).

Perhaps this is because you believe that (i) 50x leaves enough margin to cover this risk, (ii) the equities in your rising glide path should eventually mitigate this, and (iii) there's a good chance that SS will be more-or-less inflation adjusted?
User avatar
watchnerd
Posts: 13614
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 10:18 am
Location: Gig Harbor, WA, USA

Re: First 20% of bonds in long-term Treasuries

Post by watchnerd »

bagle wrote: Wed Mar 31, 2021 11:01 am

The only part I don't understand is why you are hedging against unexpected inflation using TIPS only for the shorter term.

I see VTIPS, with their current 2.7 year TIPS duration, to hedge against this for the first 12.5 years. Later, I understand you are matching future liabilities with nominal rather then inflation-indexed Treasuries (using a combo of VGLA and individual T-bonds).
I'm actually not.

See the LMP in my sig that uses a mixture of TIPS and STRIPS that lives outside the RP.

As for why both TIPS and STRIPS -- because of liquidity differences in between TIPS and nominals in distressed markets, like 2008, gives me improved optionality, if desired, to pull rungs off the LMP for additional over-rebalancing when stocks are cheap.
Global stocks, IG/HY bonds, gold & digital assets at market weights 75% / 19% / 6% || LMP: TIPS ladder
bagle
Posts: 329
Joined: Tue Feb 22, 2011 4:59 am

Re: First 20% of bonds in long-term Treasuries

Post by bagle »

watchnerd wrote: Wed Mar 31, 2021 12:32 pm
I'm actually not.
Got it. Thanks for clarifying.
User avatar
drumboy256
Posts: 673
Joined: Sat Jun 06, 2020 2:21 pm

Re: First 20% of bonds in long-term Treasuries

Post by drumboy256 »

Huge thank you for vineviz for this thread--- I now understand bonds.... :D

If you're 30-40 years old, 20% should be in LTT because you are diversifying your total portfolio against risk, not necessarily return; This point was lost on me for a while but now I get it.
Second, "re-balancing" bonds is simply re-allocating money of your bond fund duration based on yield + time to access said bonds for cash/living expenses.
--> This point is important; Because LTT's now have a 24.5 year time duration, as one gets closer to retirement 55/60/65 etc. the investor needs to identify "re-balancing" to duration of bonds in line with their retirement plan / draw down strategy. The entire premise of holding LTT for a long investor is: A) diversity of investments and B) protection (in part) to steep downturns based on duration.

The flip side of this--- BND, BNDW, FXNAX, FUAMX etc. are localized to their duration yields, markets of allocation, risk spread of corporate bonds and other market factors. By virtue, LTT force said investor to actually understand their investment horizon to not only have that diversification but allow potentially return rates more favorable given their investment horizon.

Having said all of that, given that I will most likely be 75/25 in retirement for the long haul, I now have some good numbers to crunch on glide path down to shorter term once I start knocking on that door. Thanks again vineviz, really appreciate it!
Promise is one thing. Fulfilling that promise is quite another. - Sir Alex Ferguson | 20% IVV / 40% IBIT / 20% IXUS / 20% VGLT + chill
aschafer1984
Posts: 45
Joined: Tue May 28, 2019 10:48 pm

Re: First 20% of bonds in long-term Treasuries

Post by aschafer1984 »

Forgive me if his question has been asked but how would series I/ee fit into this 20% rule. If I’m mid 30s and want to start adding bonds in the next couple years would these be preferred over a fund like edv? With series ee bonds I’m getting a higher rate but only if held to 20 years, which means no rebalancing and possibly a tax hit right as I’m a few years from retirement. What would the priority of the first 20% in fixed income assuming access to series I/ee? And once owned do people here use either for rebalancing or do they just generally hold to maturity/20 years?
70% Equities (VT) | 30% Cash + Series I bonds
User avatar
watchnerd
Posts: 13614
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 10:18 am
Location: Gig Harbor, WA, USA

Re: First 20% of bonds in long-term Treasuries

Post by watchnerd »

aschafer1984 wrote: Fri Apr 02, 2021 5:21 am Forgive me if his question has been asked but how would series I/ee fit into this 20% rule. If I’m mid 30s and want to start adding bonds in the next couple years would these be preferred over a fund like edv? With series ee bonds I’m getting a higher rate but only if held to 20 years, which means no rebalancing and possibly a tax hit right as I’m a few years from retirement. What would the priority of the first 20% in fixed income assuming access to series I/ee? And once owned do people here use either for rebalancing or do they just generally hold to maturity/20 years?
If you're buying LTT for purposes of potential negative correlation to equities, I/EE don't do that, as they're not tradable.

And you can't directly use them for rebalancing because you can't hold them in a brokerage account.

I/EE are worth buying early in your investing career before your port gets too big, but they're a very different asset from LTT.

They're savings instruments, not marketable securities.
Global stocks, IG/HY bonds, gold & digital assets at market weights 75% / 19% / 6% || LMP: TIPS ladder
User avatar
jeffyscott
Posts: 13484
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 8:12 am

Re: First 20% of bonds in long-term Treasuries

Post by jeffyscott »

aschafer1984 wrote: Fri Apr 02, 2021 5:21 amWith series ee bonds I’m getting a higher rate but only if held to 20 years, which means no rebalancing and possibly a tax hit right as I’m a few years from retirement.
EE bonds actually earn interest for 30 years, so if you don't retire early you can delay the taxes for an additional 10 years. Of course, with the only guarantee being doubling in 20, the return for longer holding periods may make them less desirable. The interest rate for those extra 10 years can, apparently, be changed:
We may change the rate or the way an EE bond earns interest for the last 10 years of the bond's 30-year life. If we make a change, we have to do it before that 10-year period starts.
https://www.treasurydirect.gov/indiv/re ... ndafer.htm
And once owned do people here use either for rebalancing or do they just generally hold to maturity/20 years?
There's more flexibility with I bonds, since they earn a relatively normal (or better than normal) rate of interest for any holding period of up to 30 years. I sold all of ours shortly after retiring, except about $5000 worth of old ones that are at 3% real+. We used the money to buy a new car and they were pretty much our only "taxable" investment, the 0-0.3% real that they were earning was nothing special at the time.

With EE bonds, I think it makes little sense to buy them unless the intent is to hold them for at least 20 years. Of course, if 3 years after you buy them, you can get a 5 year CD at 7% or something, then it would make sense to sell early. The longer you hold them the, less likely it is to make sense to sell them, I have some with about 12 or so years to go and the effective interest rate for the remaining term is now over 5%. It is highly unlikely we will sell before they reach 20 years.

As for rebalancing, you can do that with other parts of your portfolio, assuming you have bonds other than the savings bonds.
User avatar
aj76er
Posts: 1179
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2015 10:34 pm
Location: Austin, TX

Re: First 20% of bonds in long-term Treasuries

Post by aj76er »

aschafer1984 wrote: Fri Apr 02, 2021 5:21 am Forgive me if his question has been asked but how would series I/ee fit into this 20% rule.
In general, EE-Bonds have never made sense to me as a portfolio construction tool. You can't really rebalance with them (as they are locked-up for 20yrs), and it seems like a very bad, pessimistic bet on the future to trade off the historical returns of diversified equities for a "known" 3.5% nominal in 20-years.

The only valid use-case I see for EE-bonds is in saving for a child's education, as there is a tax benefit for doing so. So buying $10k-$20k for the first 4-5 years of a child's life to cover college tuition and/or costs can make sense. Although a target-date fund in a 529 plan would likely do just as well, if not better.
"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
User avatar
Corsair
Posts: 584
Joined: Mon Oct 21, 2019 9:57 am
Location: USA

Re: First 20% of bonds in long-term Treasuries

Post by Corsair »

“Worst Q1 return for 30-year Treasury since 1919, worst Q1 for IG bonds since 1980, worst Q1 for gold since 1982: BOA”

Ouch :x
All posts are my own opinions and are not financial advice.
whereskyle
Posts: 1911
Joined: Wed Jan 29, 2020 9:29 am

Re: First 20% of bonds in long-term Treasuries

Post by whereskyle »

Corsair wrote: Sat Apr 03, 2021 8:12 pm “Worst Q1 return for 30-year Treasury since 1919, worst Q1 for IG bonds since 1980, worst Q1 for gold since 1982: BOA”

Ouch :x
Treasuries and gold had amazing 2020s. Everything in context.
"I am better off than he is – for he knows nothing and thinks that he knows. I neither know nor think that I know." - Socrates. "Nobody knows nothing." - Jack Bogle
User avatar
watchnerd
Posts: 13614
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 10:18 am
Location: Gig Harbor, WA, USA

Re: First 20% of bonds in long-term Treasuries

Post by watchnerd »

whereskyle wrote: Sat Apr 03, 2021 8:24 pm
Corsair wrote: Sat Apr 03, 2021 8:12 pm “Worst Q1 return for 30-year Treasury since 1919, worst Q1 for IG bonds since 1980, worst Q1 for gold since 1982: BOA”

Ouch :x
Treasuries and gold had amazing 2020s. Everything in context.
I'm still sitting on net LTT gains on a dollar basis, even after rebalancing into equities in March, 2020.
Global stocks, IG/HY bonds, gold & digital assets at market weights 75% / 19% / 6% || LMP: TIPS ladder
irwinmfletcher
Posts: 58
Joined: Wed Feb 22, 2012 10:55 am

Re: First 20% of bonds in long-term Treasuries

Post by irwinmfletcher »

I still struggle with how to tie the first 20% rule in with having short term reserves (or whether there should even be any of those).

If one keeps no dedicated emergency/liquidity fund and is 80/20, is it too conservative to keep all or a portion of that 20% in ITT (or shorter term fixed income)?

Let's say one has 15x saved and wants 1-3 years in low volatility investments to allow them to be able to switch careers if everything is tanking, use in the next 2 years in case of emergency, etc.

I believe I saw a reference in one of the threads to the 20% LTT being aside from liquidity reserves, but then the first 20% isn't really in LTT (unless we are bucketing or mental accounting and I missed that part).

Perhaps in my example there really are no "bonds" to hold--it's 20% short term reserves and the rest stocks, in that no fixed income is being held for long term investment.
whereskyle
Posts: 1911
Joined: Wed Jan 29, 2020 9:29 am

Re: First 20% of bonds in long-term Treasuries

Post by whereskyle »

irwinmfletcher wrote: Sun Apr 04, 2021 7:37 am I still struggle with how to tie the first 20% rule in with having short term reserves (or whether there should even be any of those).

If one keeps no dedicated emergency/liquidity fund and is 80/20, is it too conservative to keep all or a portion of that 20% in ITT (or shorter term fixed income)?

Let's say one has 15x saved and wants 1-3 years in low volatility investments to allow them to be able to switch careers if everything is tanking, use in the next 2 years in case of emergency, etc.

I believe I saw a reference in one of the threads to the 20% LTT being aside from liquidity reserves, but then the first 20% isn't really in LTT (unless we are bucketing or mental accounting and I missed that part).

Perhaps in my example there really are no "bonds" to hold--it's 20% short term reserves and the rest stocks, in that no fixed income is being held for long term investment.
Short-term reserves, I consider, an emergency fund (I.e., funds that are NOT invested). First bonds for investment in a high equity portfolio should be long term treasuries because of the recent negative correlation with equities in times of stress. The principle is simply this: your 80%+ equity position is driving your risk and return; why bother with any bonds that don't provide a robust return when equities crash?

Only when you want to actively "derisk" your portfolio should you consider intermediate and short-term fixed-income.

Emergency funds are not part of this equation.
"I am better off than he is – for he knows nothing and thinks that he knows. I neither know nor think that I know." - Socrates. "Nobody knows nothing." - Jack Bogle
alluringreality
Posts: 1511
Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2019 9:59 am

Re: First 20% of bonds in long-term Treasuries

Post by alluringreality »

irwinmfletcher wrote: Sun Apr 04, 2021 7:37 am Let's say one has 15x saved and wants 1-3 years in low volatility investments to allow them to be able to switch careers if everything is tanking, use in the next 2 years in case of emergency, etc.
Anything I don't put into stocks could potentially be used near-term. On the other hand, that might not be needed. The only way that I can think of to really bridge such a gap is I bonds. They have no principal risk, a 30 year term, yearly purchase limits, and pay nothing real before federal taxes. Right now the gap between savings bonds and market rates is still what I consider limited, so my choices would become more difficult if market rates are higher in the future. Essentially I know that I'm potentially trading some return within certain scenarios in exchange for no principal risk and additional tax deferred space, since 30 year TIPS are slightly positive and 20 year breakeven rates may favor TIPS in a tax-advantaged account for an appropriate intended holding period. Basically the original post here is centered around modern portfolio theory, and that is not my own primary concern.
45% US Indexes, 25% Ex-US Indexes, 30% Fixed Income - Buy & Hold
irwinmfletcher
Posts: 58
Joined: Wed Feb 22, 2012 10:55 am

Re: First 20% of bonds in long-term Treasuries

Post by irwinmfletcher »

whereskyle wrote: Sun Apr 04, 2021 7:46 am
irwinmfletcher wrote: Sun Apr 04, 2021 7:37 am I still struggle with how to tie the first 20% rule in with having short term reserves (or whether there should even be any of those).

If one keeps no dedicated emergency/liquidity fund and is 80/20, is it too conservative to keep all or a portion of that 20% in ITT (or shorter term fixed income)?

Let's say one has 15x saved and wants 1-3 years in low volatility investments to allow them to be able to switch careers if everything is tanking, use in the next 2 years in case of emergency, etc.

I believe I saw a reference in one of the threads to the 20% LTT being aside from liquidity reserves, but then the first 20% isn't really in LTT (unless we are bucketing or mental accounting and I missed that part).

Perhaps in my example there really are no "bonds" to hold--it's 20% short term reserves and the rest stocks, in that no fixed income is being held for long term investment.
Short-term reserves, I consider, an emergency fund (I.e., funds that are NOT invested). First bonds for investment in a high equity portfolio should be long term treasuries because of the recent negative correlation with equities in times of stress. The principle is simply this: your 80%+ equity position is driving your risk and return; why bother with any bonds that don't provide a robust return when equities crash?

Only when you want to actively "derisk" your portfolio should you consider intermediate and short-term fixed-income.

Emergency funds are not part of this equation.
So in other words, don't really put the first 20% of what is not in equities in LTT? That is, some % in short term and then LTT.

I don't keep a separate emergency fund at all (or as I think of it, every $ I have is part of the emergency fund, but some parts of it are safer than others, and every single dollar is "invested"). Then the question is, of the 20% of the portfolio that is not equities, what % is shorter term and what % is LTT?

For example, if one's 20% of non-equities was 3 years of expenses, perhaps split it 50/50 ITT/LTT, or maybe 66.6/33.3.
whereskyle
Posts: 1911
Joined: Wed Jan 29, 2020 9:29 am

Re: First 20% of bonds in long-term Treasuries

Post by whereskyle »

irwinmfletcher wrote: Sun Apr 04, 2021 9:16 am
whereskyle wrote: Sun Apr 04, 2021 7:46 am
irwinmfletcher wrote: Sun Apr 04, 2021 7:37 am I still struggle with how to tie the first 20% rule in with having short term reserves (or whether there should even be any of those).

If one keeps no dedicated emergency/liquidity fund and is 80/20, is it too conservative to keep all or a portion of that 20% in ITT (or shorter term fixed income)?

Let's say one has 15x saved and wants 1-3 years in low volatility investments to allow them to be able to switch careers if everything is tanking, use in the next 2 years in case of emergency, etc.

I believe I saw a reference in one of the threads to the 20% LTT being aside from liquidity reserves, but then the first 20% isn't really in LTT (unless we are bucketing or mental accounting and I missed that part).

Perhaps in my example there really are no "bonds" to hold--it's 20% short term reserves and the rest stocks, in that no fixed income is being held for long term investment.
Short-term reserves, I consider, an emergency fund (I.e., funds that are NOT invested). First bonds for investment in a high equity portfolio should be long term treasuries because of the recent negative correlation with equities in times of stress. The principle is simply this: your 80%+ equity position is driving your risk and return; why bother with any bonds that don't provide a robust return when equities crash?

Only when you want to actively "derisk" your portfolio should you consider intermediate and short-term fixed-income.

Emergency funds are not part of this equation.
So in other words, don't really put the first 20% of what is not in equities in LTT? That is, some % in short term and then LTT.

I don't keep a separate emergency fund at all (or as I think of it, every $ I have is part of the emergency fund, but some parts of it are safer than others, and every single dollar is "invested"). Then the question is, of the 20% of the portfolio that is not equities, what % is shorter term and what % is LTT?

For example, if one's 20% of non-equities was 3 years of expenses, perhaps split it 50/50 ITT/LTT, or maybe 66.6/33.3.
I would not hold "short-term reserves" in ITTs. Again, short-term reserves, imo, are not "investments." They are "reserves" you have access to when needed, and the only vehicle I'd consider appropriate is a HYS account. Such funds should not be put at risk at all. If someone wants a separate bucket besides an emergency fund, I don't see why they'd consider that something other than part of their portfolio or the cash they're planning on spending that year (I.e., not a part of the portfolio). I would not put money in my portfolio in short-term bonds unless I had a strategic reason to do so. If I'm taking my risk through a large equity allocation and my port has a long time horizon, my first bonds should be LTTs. I don't see why anyone who is not in or near the withdrawal phase would hold short-term bonds unless volatility makes them sick and they're pursuing something like the permanent portfolio or the Larry portfolio (large allocation to ITTs and the rest in high-risk equities like scv and em)
"I am better off than he is – for he knows nothing and thinks that he knows. I neither know nor think that I know." - Socrates. "Nobody knows nothing." - Jack Bogle
alluringreality
Posts: 1511
Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2019 9:59 am

Re: First 20% of bonds in long-term Treasuries

Post by alluringreality »

irwinmfletcher wrote: Sun Apr 04, 2021 9:16 am Then the question is, of the 20% of the portfolio that is not equities, what % is shorter term and what % is LTT?
Have you seen the following? I tend to consider it in line with the original post here.
viewtopic.php?t=340252
45% US Indexes, 25% Ex-US Indexes, 30% Fixed Income - Buy & Hold
irwinmfletcher
Posts: 58
Joined: Wed Feb 22, 2012 10:55 am

Re: First 20% of bonds in long-term Treasuries

Post by irwinmfletcher »

whereskyle wrote: Sun Apr 04, 2021 9:41 am
irwinmfletcher wrote: Sun Apr 04, 2021 9:16 am
whereskyle wrote: Sun Apr 04, 2021 7:46 am
irwinmfletcher wrote: Sun Apr 04, 2021 7:37 am I still struggle with how to tie the first 20% rule in with having short term reserves (or whether there should even be any of those).

If one keeps no dedicated emergency/liquidity fund and is 80/20, is it too conservative to keep all or a portion of that 20% in ITT (or shorter term fixed income)?

Let's say one has 15x saved and wants 1-3 years in low volatility investments to allow them to be able to switch careers if everything is tanking, use in the next 2 years in case of emergency, etc.

I believe I saw a reference in one of the threads to the 20% LTT being aside from liquidity reserves, but then the first 20% isn't really in LTT (unless we are bucketing or mental accounting and I missed that part).

Perhaps in my example there really are no "bonds" to hold--it's 20% short term reserves and the rest stocks, in that no fixed income is being held for long term investment.
Short-term reserves, I consider, an emergency fund (I.e., funds that are NOT invested). First bonds for investment in a high equity portfolio should be long term treasuries because of the recent negative correlation with equities in times of stress. The principle is simply this: your 80%+ equity position is driving your risk and return; why bother with any bonds that don't provide a robust return when equities crash?

Only when you want to actively "derisk" your portfolio should you consider intermediate and short-term fixed-income.

Emergency funds are not part of this equation.
So in other words, don't really put the first 20% of what is not in equities in LTT? That is, some % in short term and then LTT.

I don't keep a separate emergency fund at all (or as I think of it, every $ I have is part of the emergency fund, but some parts of it are safer than others, and every single dollar is "invested"). Then the question is, of the 20% of the portfolio that is not equities, what % is shorter term and what % is LTT?

For example, if one's 20% of non-equities was 3 years of expenses, perhaps split it 50/50 ITT/LTT, or maybe 66.6/33.3.
I would not hold "short-term reserves" in ITTs. Again, short-term reserves, imo, are not "investments." They are "reserves" you have access to when needed, and the only vehicle I'd consider appropriate is a HYS account. Such funds should not be put at risk at all. If someone wants a separate bucket besides an emergency fund, I don't see why they'd consider that something other than part of their portfolio. I would not put money in my portfolio in short-term bonds unless I had a strategic reason to do so. If I'm taking my risk through a large equity allocation and my port has a long time horizon, my first bonds should be LTTs. I don't see why anyone who is not in or near the withdrawal phase would hold short-term bonds unless volatility makes them sick and they're pursuing something like the permanent portfolio or the Larry portfolio (large allocation to ITTs and the rest in high-risk equities like scv and em)
I understand your position, but I don't have much concern with ITT dropping 5 or 10% if interest rates rise. I might be concerned if LTT drops 36% if rates rise 2%. I'm using reserves as short hand for relatively low risk (that is, unlikely to drop 20% in a year). I have just 1 bucket (every $ I have), and trying to decide what % of that bucket not in equities should be LTT. Right now all of that 20% non-equity bucket is in TBM and ITB, so it's just a change of degree. I'm completely comfortable with that mix, but contemplating changing that 20% up among ITT/LTT.
whereskyle
Posts: 1911
Joined: Wed Jan 29, 2020 9:29 am

Re: First 20% of bonds in long-term Treasuries

Post by whereskyle »

irwinmfletcher wrote: Sun Apr 04, 2021 9:57 am
whereskyle wrote: Sun Apr 04, 2021 9:41 am
irwinmfletcher wrote: Sun Apr 04, 2021 9:16 am
whereskyle wrote: Sun Apr 04, 2021 7:46 am
irwinmfletcher wrote: Sun Apr 04, 2021 7:37 am I still struggle with how to tie the first 20% rule in with having short term reserves (or whether there should even be any of those).

If one keeps no dedicated emergency/liquidity fund and is 80/20, is it too conservative to keep all or a portion of that 20% in ITT (or shorter term fixed income)?

Let's say one has 15x saved and wants 1-3 years in low volatility investments to allow them to be able to switch careers if everything is tanking, use in the next 2 years in case of emergency, etc.

I believe I saw a reference in one of the threads to the 20% LTT being aside from liquidity reserves, but then the first 20% isn't really in LTT (unless we are bucketing or mental accounting and I missed that part).

Perhaps in my example there really are no "bonds" to hold--it's 20% short term reserves and the rest stocks, in that no fixed income is being held for long term investment.
Short-term reserves, I consider, an emergency fund (I.e., funds that are NOT invested). First bonds for investment in a high equity portfolio should be long term treasuries because of the recent negative correlation with equities in times of stress. The principle is simply this: your 80%+ equity position is driving your risk and return; why bother with any bonds that don't provide a robust return when equities crash?

Only when you want to actively "derisk" your portfolio should you consider intermediate and short-term fixed-income.

Emergency funds are not part of this equation.
So in other words, don't really put the first 20% of what is not in equities in LTT? That is, some % in short term and then LTT.

I don't keep a separate emergency fund at all (or as I think of it, every $ I have is part of the emergency fund, but some parts of it are safer than others, and every single dollar is "invested"). Then the question is, of the 20% of the portfolio that is not equities, what % is shorter term and what % is LTT?

For example, if one's 20% of non-equities was 3 years of expenses, perhaps split it 50/50 ITT/LTT, or maybe 66.6/33.3.
I would not hold "short-term reserves" in ITTs. Again, short-term reserves, imo, are not "investments." They are "reserves" you have access to when needed, and the only vehicle I'd consider appropriate is a HYS account. Such funds should not be put at risk at all. If someone wants a separate bucket besides an emergency fund, I don't see why they'd consider that something other than part of their portfolio. I would not put money in my portfolio in short-term bonds unless I had a strategic reason to do so. If I'm taking my risk through a large equity allocation and my port has a long time horizon, my first bonds should be LTTs. I don't see why anyone who is not in or near the withdrawal phase would hold short-term bonds unless volatility makes them sick and they're pursuing something like the permanent portfolio or the Larry portfolio (large allocation to ITTs and the rest in high-risk equities like scv and em)
I understand your position, but I don't have much concern with ITT dropping 5 or 10% if interest rates rise. I might be concerned if LTT drops 36% if rates rise 2%. I'm using reserves as short hand for relatively low risk (that is, unlikely to drop 20% in a year). I have just 1 bucket (every $ I have), and trying to decide what % of that bucket not in equities should be LTT. Right now all of that 20% non-equity bucket is in TBM and ITB, so it's just a change of degree. I'm completely comfortable with that mix, but contemplating changing that 20% up among ITT/LTT.
What's your investment horizon?

A great contribution to the forum from Vineviz is distinguishing diversification from derisking. Bonds that don't match your time horizon in that they undershoot it can certainly be effective "deriskers", in that they lower the overall risk of your portfolio. They lower the stomach acid, so to speak, but they don't necessarily provide the most diversification. Diversification is most readily measured by low, zero, or even negative correlation. The lowest correlation asset to equities is Long-term treasuries. Intermediate-term treasuries are not far off, and they can certainly provide diversification while lowering the risk that LTTs provide. But consider whether you should be taking risk off the table by "derisking" rather than investing in different sources of risk by "diversifying." I think ITTs are a fine choice for most portfolios. With my long investing horizon though, I go long.
"I am better off than he is – for he knows nothing and thinks that he knows. I neither know nor think that I know." - Socrates. "Nobody knows nothing." - Jack Bogle
case_of_ennui
Posts: 298
Joined: Mon Aug 17, 2020 5:07 pm
Location: Montana

Re: First 20% of bonds in long-term Treasuries

Post by case_of_ennui »

In the initial post the OP mentioned how not everyone has access to a Long Term Treasury fund in their 401k and suggested those people just maintain a run of the mill long or intermediate term bond fund instead. Yet in skimming through this thread I've seen numerous people mention holding LTT funds in taxable instead. Is OP's recommendation due to the return of capital some of these LTT funds have done? The tax drag of the bond returns vs total stock market's low dividend yield? The tax event that would be created rebalancing during a downturn? All of these?

I'm 32 and 90/10 equities/bonds. Aside from a stable value fund the two bond funds offered in my employer's 401k are both intermediate term with a ~6yr duration (a total bond equivalent and a higher yield fund). I do hope to be able to retire early, but it's definitely looking like more than 6 years. Would one recommend I continue to hold the total bond fund in the 401k or would it be advantageous to move things around and hold my current 10% bonds as LTT's in my taxable account?
User avatar
watchnerd
Posts: 13614
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 10:18 am
Location: Gig Harbor, WA, USA

Re: First 20% of bonds in long-term Treasuries

Post by watchnerd »

case_of_ennui wrote: Sun Apr 04, 2021 11:05 am In the initial post the OP mentioned how not everyone has access to a Long Term Treasury fund in their 401k and suggested those people just maintain a run of the mill long or intermediate term bond fund instead. Yet in skimming through this thread I've seen numerous people mention holding LTT funds in taxable instead. Is OP's recommendation due to the return of capital some of these LTT funds have done? The tax drag of the bond returns vs total stock market's low dividend yield? The tax event that would be created rebalancing during a downturn? All of these?

I'm 32 and 90/10 equities/bonds. Aside from a stable value fund the two bond funds offered in my employer's 401k are both intermediate term with a ~6yr duration (a total bond equivalent and a higher yield fund). I do hope to be able to retire early, but it's definitely looking like more than 6 years. Would one recommend I continue to hold the total bond fund in the 401k or would it be advantageous to move things around and hold my current 10% bonds as LTT's in my taxable account?
When interest rates were higher, nominal bonds, in general, created a fair bit of taxable income.

This creates a tax drag on returns, which gets worse the higher your tax bracket.

But at current interest rates, it's far less of an issue.

We hold LTT in both taxable and rollover IRA accounts.

Why both? We ran out of space in tax preferred.
Last edited by watchnerd on Sun Apr 04, 2021 11:32 am, edited 1 time in total.
Global stocks, IG/HY bonds, gold & digital assets at market weights 75% / 19% / 6% || LMP: TIPS ladder
Locked