Book Explicitly Recommends Against TBM [Total Bond Market]
Book Explicitly Recommends Against TBM [Total Bond Market]
I just read Larry Swedroe's excellent book, The Only Guide To a Winning Bond Strategy You'll Ever Need. What caught me by surprise was that the author explicitly mentioned that he did not recommend Vanguard TBM. The author explained that the duration of mortgage-backed securities increases during a rising rate environment, and since greater duration increases correlation with equities, MBS's correlation with stocks during downturns due to rising rates make them poor diversifiers.
In summary, on page 161 of the book, Swedroe states: "Vanguard's Total Bond Market Fund includes about one-third allocation to MBS. Therefore, we cannot recommend the fund. The first reason is that the duration of the Treasury and corporate bonds in the fund is greater than preferred. Second, the fund does contain MBS and has the associated risks."
Does this change anyone's mind about holding TBM? Would a 50/50 mix of Short Term Treasury and Intermediate Term Treasury funds be the better way to go from a diversification standpoint?
In summary, on page 161 of the book, Swedroe states: "Vanguard's Total Bond Market Fund includes about one-third allocation to MBS. Therefore, we cannot recommend the fund. The first reason is that the duration of the Treasury and corporate bonds in the fund is greater than preferred. Second, the fund does contain MBS and has the associated risks."
Does this change anyone's mind about holding TBM? Would a 50/50 mix of Short Term Treasury and Intermediate Term Treasury funds be the better way to go from a diversification standpoint?
-
- Posts: 3289
- Joined: Mon Nov 24, 2014 10:30 pm
Re: Book Explicitly Recommends Against TBM
Assumption: Where experts disagree, either option is probably a rational decision.LMK5 wrote: ↑Thu Oct 28, 2021 8:31 am I just read Larry Swedroe's excellent book, The Only Guide To a Winning Bond Strategy You'll Ever Need. What caught me by surprise was that the author explicitly mentioned that he did not recommend Vanguard TBM. The author explained that the duration of mortgage-backed securities increases during a rising rate environment, and since greater duration increases correlation with equities, MBS's correlation with stocks during downturns due to rising rates make them poor diversifiers.
In summary, on page 161 of the book, Swedroe states: "Vanguard's Total Bond Market Fund includes about one-third allocation to MBS. Therefore, we cannot recommend the fund. The first reason is that the duration of the Treasury and corporate bonds in the fund is greater than preferred. Second, the fund does contain MBS and has the associated risks."
Does this change anyone's mind about holding TBM? Would a 50/50 mix of Short Term Treasury and Intermediate Term Treasury funds be the better way to go from a diversification standpoint?
That being said, I personally hold very very low risk bonds, but maybe less of them, then others would recommend. I take my risk on the equity side.
Earned 43 (and counting) credit hours of financial planning related education from a regionally accredited university, but I am not your advisor.
Re: Book Explicitly Recommends Against TBM
Bond investing arguably has more opinion differences than other areas of investing, and it appears that a (the?) key variable is based on an analysis of individual circumstances in terms of portfolio totals, whether investors are in accumulation or preservation/disbursal stages, willing to add complexity through such as establishing a bond ladder, feel that it is an area where active management is preferred, duration and type of bonds to include, risk tolerance, etc.
Tim
Tim
Re: Book Explicitly Recommends Against TBM
OP,
No. I am not smart enough to agree to disagree with Larry. Hence, I use the default option: TBM.
If you are asking this question, it means that you do not know enough to agree or disagree either.
I use the Wellington Fund to actively manage 40% of my portfolio.
KlangFool
No. I am not smart enough to agree to disagree with Larry. Hence, I use the default option: TBM.
If you are asking this question, it means that you do not know enough to agree or disagree either.
I use the Wellington Fund to actively manage 40% of my portfolio.
KlangFool
30% VWENX | 16% VFWAX/VTIAX | 14.5% VTSAX | 19.5% VBTLX | 10% VSIAX/VTMSX/VSMAX | 10% VSIGX| 30% Wellington 50% 3-funds 20% Mini-Larry
Re: Book Explicitly Recommends Against TBM
It is really difficult to establish that the fate of an investment plan is sensitive to the nuances of exactly what choices one holds in bonds. That is true even if the nuances are in fact real. I don't think I know of an area where so many actual differences matter so little. And, generally I recommend Larry Swedroe for investment advice. I don't recall seeing any robust data that shows how any particular outcome might be a affected by the choice.
I would put this sort of discussion in the category of the more it is talked about the less it matters.
I would put this sort of discussion in the category of the more it is talked about the less it matters.
Re: Book Explicitly Recommends Against TBM
OP,
I have held Total Bond Fund for decades and it has served me VERY well. Total Bond has an EXCELLENT track record. I think Swedroe is wrong on this, and I will not be changing my portfolio due to Swedroe's recommendations (though I hold him in high regard!).
Full disclosure: My portfolio is three-funds (total US stock, Total International Stock and Total Bond) in 35/65 allocation.
I have held Total Bond Fund for decades and it has served me VERY well. Total Bond has an EXCELLENT track record. I think Swedroe is wrong on this, and I will not be changing my portfolio due to Swedroe's recommendations (though I hold him in high regard!).
Full disclosure: My portfolio is three-funds (total US stock, Total International Stock and Total Bond) in 35/65 allocation.
Re: Book Explicitly Recommends Against TBM
You'll be fine with TBM, or Intermediate Bond, or Intermediate Treasuries. This isn't as if the wrong choice is going to ruin you, to emphasize what dbr said earlier. It's amazing that more time is spent debating bond funds than is spent debating stock funds (except for international )
Re: Book Explicitly Recommends Against TBM
People have different preferences about bonds. The "default" here is total bond market but in truth any reasonable vanilla intermediate term bond fund will do the job, the lower cost the better.
Maybe a more important question is what bond funds you you have available in certain accounts. For example, many of us feel that bonds are best held in a work plan (401k, etc) or traditional IRA. For someone just starting out, that is likely the work plan - what is available there? might be the question you want to ask.
People who have strong preferences for or against a certain aspect of bonds might make a different choice (for example Larry S), but using the best bond choice in a work plan is a good plan for most people in my opinion.
Maybe a more important question is what bond funds you you have available in certain accounts. For example, many of us feel that bonds are best held in a work plan (401k, etc) or traditional IRA. For someone just starting out, that is likely the work plan - what is available there? might be the question you want to ask.
People who have strong preferences for or against a certain aspect of bonds might make a different choice (for example Larry S), but using the best bond choice in a work plan is a good plan for most people in my opinion.
Link to Asking Portfolio Questions
- quantAndHold
- Posts: 10141
- Joined: Thu Sep 17, 2015 10:39 pm
- Location: West Coast
Re: Book Explicitly Recommends Against TBM
Yeah, when I read that book and understood what he was saying, I realized that I really don’t want to hold mortgages in my portfolio.
Also in that book, he says something to the effect that in the long run when you add in defaults, Treasuries actually pay as well as corporate bonds, with less risk. So I hold Treasuries for the bulk of my fixed income portion. VGSH, VGIT, or VGLT, depending on what duration I want (usually a mix). I also hold some individual TIPS, bought when interest rates were higher. Sadly, they’re about to mature.
But really, I think this is all quibbles, and the main thing is just to *have* fixed income.
Also in that book, he says something to the effect that in the long run when you add in defaults, Treasuries actually pay as well as corporate bonds, with less risk. So I hold Treasuries for the bulk of my fixed income portion. VGSH, VGIT, or VGLT, depending on what duration I want (usually a mix). I also hold some individual TIPS, bought when interest rates were higher. Sadly, they’re about to mature.
But really, I think this is all quibbles, and the main thing is just to *have* fixed income.
- nisiprius
- Advisory Board
- Posts: 52211
- Joined: Thu Jul 26, 2007 9:33 am
- Location: The terrestrial, globular, planetary hunk of matter, flattened at the poles, is my abode.--O. Henry
Re: Book Explicitly Recommends Against TBM
I think it's a shrug. It comes with the indexing territory. To me, mortgage-backed bonds seem weird and unpleasant, but they're only 20% of Total Bond. Look inside any index fund and you'll see things that seem as if you might be better off without them. Do I really want everything? Even that? And yet.
Vanguard's GNMA Fund is older than Total Bond. Maybe a shrewd financial engineer can beat Total Bond on risk-adjusted return by omitting them. Maybe.
But is there serious risk? Really? And it hasn't shown up in forty years? Despite generally falling interest rates that would incentivize prepayment? Despite a global financial crisis that originated in mortgages?
If I were a DFA investor it wouldn't bother me that they don't include them (I don't think they do). But I'm a Vanguard Total Bond investor, and it doesn't bother me that it does.
From a longer posting I made earlier today here.
I don't know how the composition of the Aggregate Index has varied, but just to do a back-of-the-envelope reality check let's say it's been around 20% mortgage-backed. Let's assume we can do a sketchy proxy for an imaginary "securitized-bond-free" bond allocation as 125% Total Bond, -25% Vanguard GNMA.
So. Blue: pure Total Bond, securitized bonds and all.
Red: What Total Bond might have been without securitized bonds.
Yellow: pure Vanguard GNMA.
Source
And now again, but with 60% in stocks:
Source
Vanguard's GNMA Fund is older than Total Bond. Maybe a shrewd financial engineer can beat Total Bond on risk-adjusted return by omitting them. Maybe.
But is there serious risk? Really? And it hasn't shown up in forty years? Despite generally falling interest rates that would incentivize prepayment? Despite a global financial crisis that originated in mortgages?
If I were a DFA investor it wouldn't bother me that they don't include them (I don't think they do). But I'm a Vanguard Total Bond investor, and it doesn't bother me that it does.
From a longer posting I made earlier today here.
I don't know how the composition of the Aggregate Index has varied, but just to do a back-of-the-envelope reality check let's say it's been around 20% mortgage-backed. Let's assume we can do a sketchy proxy for an imaginary "securitized-bond-free" bond allocation as 125% Total Bond, -25% Vanguard GNMA.
So. Blue: pure Total Bond, securitized bonds and all.
Red: What Total Bond might have been without securitized bonds.
Yellow: pure Vanguard GNMA.
Source
And now again, but with 60% in stocks:
Source
Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure nineteen nineteen and six, result happiness; Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure twenty pounds ought and six, result misery.
Re: Book Explicitly Recommends Against TBM
Agreed. In fact I dogeared that page in my copy of the first edition of the book, March 2006.LMK5 wrote: ↑Thu Oct 28, 2021 8:31 am I just read Larry Swedroe's excellent book, The Only Guide To a Winning Bond Strategy You'll Ever Need.
...
In summary, on page 161 of the book, Swedroe states: "Vanguard's Total Bond Market Fund includes about one-third allocation to MBS. Therefore, we cannot recommend the fund.
There's probably a lot of Boglehead posts on the quote in the past.
A scientist looks for THE answer to a problem, an engineer looks for AN answer and lawyers ONLY have opinions. Investing is not a science.
Re: Book Explicitly Recommends Against TBM
Nisiprius likes to use long term growth charts to show differences or lack thereof for various "similar" funds. And those charts usually show that there is little difference in final amount over long periods. That's often correct but it's only part of the story.nisiprius wrote: ↑Thu Oct 28, 2021 11:14 am I think it's a shrug. It comes with the indexing territory. To me, mortgage-backed bonds seem weird and unpleasant, but they're only 20% of Total Bond. Look inside any index fund and you'll see things that seem as if you might be better off without them. Do I really want everything? Even that? And yet.
Regarding "The Role of MBS in a Portfolio" Swedroe wrote on page 161 of the first edition of his bond book:
"However, from the perspective of price risk, reinvestment risk, and correlation with equites they cannot be recommended."
If you are a buy and hold forever investor these factors are not very important. But if you rebalnce between equites and fixed income then, not so much.
Nisi's chart shows little difference in the long run so why not avoid MBS and thereby avoid the short term problems that Swedroe highlights.
To be honest I do own some MBS. About 2% of my fixed income portfolio use broad indices which include maybe 25% MBS.
A scientist looks for THE answer to a problem, an engineer looks for AN answer and lawyers ONLY have opinions. Investing is not a science.
- White Coat Investor
- Posts: 17409
- Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2007 8:11 pm
- Location: Greatest Snow On Earth
Re: Book Explicitly Recommends Against TBM
I bought into that argument, but MBSs have done well since then so hard to complain too much about their effect on TBM.LMK5 wrote: ↑Thu Oct 28, 2021 8:31 am I just read Larry Swedroe's excellent book, The Only Guide To a Winning Bond Strategy You'll Ever Need. What caught me by surprise was that the author explicitly mentioned that he did not recommend Vanguard TBM. The author explained that the duration of mortgage-backed securities increases during a rising rate environment, and since greater duration increases correlation with equities, MBS's correlation with stocks during downturns due to rising rates make them poor diversifiers.
In summary, on page 161 of the book, Swedroe states: "Vanguard's Total Bond Market Fund includes about one-third allocation to MBS. Therefore, we cannot recommend the fund. The first reason is that the duration of the Treasury and corporate bonds in the fund is greater than preferred. Second, the fund does contain MBS and has the associated risks."
Does this change anyone's mind about holding TBM? Would a 50/50 mix of Short Term Treasury and Intermediate Term Treasury funds be the better way to go from a diversification standpoint?
1) Invest you must 2) Time is your friend 3) Impulse is your enemy |
4) Basic arithmetic works 5) Stick to simplicity 6) Stay the course
Re: Book Explicitly Recommends Against TBM
I don't think that there's a strong argument for TBM vs the other choices. I also think that there's an irrational promotion of TBM as the best choice.
Get most of it right and don't make any big mistakes. All else being equal, simpler is better. Simple is as simple does.
- nisiprius
- Advisory Board
- Posts: 52211
- Joined: Thu Jul 26, 2007 9:33 am
- Location: The terrestrial, globular, planetary hunk of matter, flattened at the poles, is my abode.--O. Henry
Re: Book Explicitly Recommends Against TBM
Let's look. I've never done this before. I don't know how it will turn out. I'm going to look at three kinds of bond funds for their correlations with stocks. 500 Index for "stocks."
DFIGX, DFA US 5-year Government Fixed Income Portfolio, for a mortgage-free bond fund.
VBMFX, Vanguard Total Bond Market Index Fund, for a maybe-20%-mortgage-bond fund.
VFIIX, Vanguard GNMA fund, for pure mortgage bond fund.
I'll use a graphics program to superimpose the three rolling return charts. (Crude).
Source (but you have to keep rearranging the order of the symbols because it only plots the first three)
I don't see any obvious indication that the blue line (mortgage-free) was a far better diversifier than the red line (pure mortgage). Total Bond had a higher correlation with stocks during 2008-2009, which I'm guessing is due to the inclusion of corporate bonds in Total Bond.
Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure nineteen nineteen and six, result happiness; Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure twenty pounds ought and six, result misery.
Re: Book Explicitly Recommends Against TBM
Wasn't 2008 a complete disaster for MBS? Yet Total Bond had a 5.15% total return. Perhaps the fears are overblown?
-
- Posts: 6011
- Joined: Wed Dec 02, 2020 12:18 pm
Re: Book Explicitly Recommends Against TBM
That is true, the duration does increase when rates increase; however, most bonds do the opposite. In some regards, the duration risk is somewhat kept more constant in that regard (not to say the index will not change in duration by other means).LMK5 wrote: ↑Thu Oct 28, 2021 8:31 am I just read Larry Swedroe's excellent book, The Only Guide To a Winning Bond Strategy You'll Ever Need. What caught me by surprise was that the author explicitly mentioned that he did not recommend Vanguard TBM. The author explained that the duration of mortgage-backed securities increases during a rising rate environment, and since greater duration increases correlation with equities, MBS's correlation with stocks during downturns due to rising rates make them poor diversifiers.
In summary, on page 161 of the book, Swedroe states: "Vanguard's Total Bond Market Fund includes about one-third allocation to MBS. Therefore, we cannot recommend the fund. The first reason is that the duration of the Treasury and corporate bonds in the fund is greater than preferred. Second, the fund does contain MBS and has the associated risks."
Does this change anyone's mind about holding TBM? Would a 50/50 mix of Short Term Treasury and Intermediate Term Treasury funds be the better way to go from a diversification standpoint?
Second, the total bond market is not my idea of "high duration", versus what Swedroe says. Since the gold standard of yields is the 10-year treasury, that should be the basis of "typical" duration; Since that is about 9.4 years duration I am guessing for 10-year treasuries, BND (total bond market) duration being at 6.8 is not as risky. The maturity of BND is about 8.7 years versus the obvious 10 years of the 10-year treasury; even if you adjust for maturity dates, the duration of BND would be in theory 7.8 years (still less than 10-year treasuries). I do not see Swedroe argument meaning much when MBSs are only 1/3 of the total bond market (these days, the amount I think is less due to the increase in treasuries contained).
The only argument is if one cannot afford duration risk; but then the MBS are not the main offender unless the desired duration is below 5-6 years. But the root question is then whether a mixture of cash with bonds would be better instead (since short-term bonds are more cash-like).
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.
Re: Book Explicitly Recommends Against TBM
I can think of one reason...a very good place to hold bonds is in a work plan like a 401k. Picking the best bond choice in 401k is frequently a good strategy. If the best bond choice includes MBS, I think it would be a mistake to avoid it for that reason...unless there is another good bond choice that does not include MBS.
Once a portfolio is sufficiently large though, these types of avoidances might be easier.
Link to Asking Portfolio Questions
Re: Book Explicitly Recommends Against TBM
Holding bonds in a 401k has little to do with "which bonds". A good choice in your 401k might be a gov/credit index fund or two separate funds like a Treasury and a corporate fund. Then when the stock market tanks you could then sell T's and buy equities. You would then rebalance the fixed income when the "blip" recovered. There are also many corporate/Treasury funds available if you want to have only one fund for your FI.retiredjg wrote: ↑Thu Oct 28, 2021 2:07 pmI can think of one reason...a very good place to hold bonds is in a work plan like a 401k. Picking the best bond choice in 401k is frequently a good strategy. If the best bond choice includes MBS, I think it would be a mistake to avoid it for that reason...unless there is another good bond choice that does not include MBS.
Once a portfolio is sufficiently large though, these types of avoidances might be easier.
I see Nisi revised his chart to use a three year rolling return. That's better. I suggest a more appropriate presentation might be a 3 week rolling return. Using price rather than returns is even more appropriate for evaluating the type of bonds that is best if your overall plan has your rebalancing in a stock market crash as opposed to a buy and hold forever plan that rebalances only on your mother-in-laws birthday.
A scientist looks for THE answer to a problem, an engineer looks for AN answer and lawyers ONLY have opinions. Investing is not a science.
- nisiprius
- Advisory Board
- Posts: 52211
- Joined: Thu Jul 26, 2007 9:33 am
- Location: The terrestrial, globular, planetary hunk of matter, flattened at the poles, is my abode.--O. Henry
Re: Book Explicitly Recommends Against TBM
For subprime mortgage-backed securities.
It holds government-guaranteed mortgage-backed securities. Morningstar rates the Vanguard GNMA fund as having credit quality AAA, same as U. S. Treasury issues. And thus it rates Total Bond as being 70% invested in bonds rated AAA and having an average rating of AA. (And, yes, these are legitimate ratings... unlike the disturbingly wrong high ratings the ratings agencies ought not to have given to CDO's built out of subprime mortgages).Yet Total Bond had a 5.15% total return.
The risks of the MBS in Total Bond are not credit quality risks. They are subtle risks about the exact way this kind of bond reacts to interest rate changes.
Perhaps the fears are overblown?
Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure nineteen nineteen and six, result happiness; Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure twenty pounds ought and six, result misery.
-
- Posts: 6011
- Joined: Wed Dec 02, 2020 12:18 pm
Re: Book Explicitly Recommends Against TBM
I actually hold a good amount of my fixed income outside of my IRA (that is, all my short term fixed income [except if they are high-yield or inflation-adjusted] and intermediate treasuries); right now, my tax situation favors doing this. It is also well-suited for money that I can touch in emergencies.retiredjg wrote: ↑Thu Oct 28, 2021 2:07 pmI can think of one reason...a very good place to hold bonds is in a work plan like a 401k. Picking the best bond choice in 401k is frequently a good strategy. If the best bond choice includes MBS, I think it would be a mistake to avoid it for that reason...unless there is another good bond choice that does not include MBS.
Once a portfolio is sufficiently large though, these types of avoidances might be easier.
Of course, why should one dodge MBS to begin with? One is receiving a premium for the risks they have; it is not uncompensated.
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.
Re: Book Explicitly Recommends Against TBM
Right that's exactly what Swedroe presents in his book. Those risks are "price risk, reinvestment risk, and correlation with equites ... "
Also "From a credit risk, perspective MBS, as long as the issuers are Ginnie Mae, Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac, are prudent investments that meet our criteria."
We are getting way off the OP's original topic.
A scientist looks for THE answer to a problem, an engineer looks for AN answer and lawyers ONLY have opinions. Investing is not a science.
-
- Posts: 9881
- Joined: Mon Sep 07, 2009 2:57 pm
- Location: Milky Way
Re: Book Explicitly Recommends Against TBM
I love Larry, but sometimes he does seem to get too hung-up on esoteric points that make very little difference at the end of the day.
Best regards, -Op |
|
"In the middle of difficulty lies opportunity." Einstein
Re: Book Explicitly Recommends Against TBM
Great stuff!nisiprius wrote: ↑Thu Oct 28, 2021 12:20 pmLet's look. I've never done this before. I don't know how it will turn out. I'm going to look at three kinds of bond funds for their correlations with stocks. 500 Index for "stocks."
DFIGX, DFA US 5-year Government Fixed Income Portfolio, for a mortgage-free bond fund.
VBMFX, Vanguard Total Bond Market Index Fund, for a maybe-20%-mortgage-bond fund.
VFIIX, Vanguard GNMA fund, for pure mortgage bond fund.
I'll use a graphics program to superimpose the three rolling return charts. (Crude).
Source (but you have to keep rearranging the order of the symbols because it only plots the first three)
I don't see any obvious indication that the blue line (mortgage-free) was a far better diversifier than the red line (pure mortgage). Total Bond had a higher correlation with stocks during 2008-2009, which I'm guessing is due to the inclusion of corporate bonds in Total Bond.
-
- Posts: 1428
- Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2020 1:52 am
Re: Book Explicitly Recommends Against TBM
Generally agree with nisiprius that this is at best a shrug. Munis have similar risks yet there are plenty who hold those.
The stock/bond ratio you pick is almost certainly going to affect risk more than flavors of bonds. That said, if you would rather hold something like a treasury fund, that seems fine and there are people who do this. Would go either intermediate term or hold a total treasury fund like GOVT. One can of course tweak this further, but it might be worth figuring out if that's actually needed (IOW what do you want to achieve?). Some people opt to tweak their stock/bond allocation when switching to treasuries due to their safer & lower returning nature.
Lots of past threads on this topic. Here is a subset:
The stock/bond ratio you pick is almost certainly going to affect risk more than flavors of bonds. That said, if you would rather hold something like a treasury fund, that seems fine and there are people who do this. Would go either intermediate term or hold a total treasury fund like GOVT. One can of course tweak this further, but it might be worth figuring out if that's actually needed (IOW what do you want to achieve?). Some people opt to tweak their stock/bond allocation when switching to treasuries due to their safer & lower returning nature.
Lots of past threads on this topic. Here is a subset:
"Anyone who claims to understand quantum theory is either lying or crazy" -- Richard Feynman
-
- Posts: 15363
- Joined: Fri Apr 10, 2015 12:29 am
Re: Book Explicitly Recommends Against TBM
Mortgage-backed securities present in TBM have reduced not increased correlation with equities in the last 34 years:
https://www.portfoliovisualizer.com/ass ... &months=36
In the inflation of the 1970's bonds had a much higher outcome correlation with stocks. Duration extension caused mortgages to underperform treasuries then. Mortgages also generally were assumable then, and with increases in interest rates, homebuyers generally tried to assume existing mortgages from home sellers when possible, which meant that most mortgages never were paid off early, leading to extreme duration extension as mortgages with about a 7 year expected duration then lasting 20 years (standard amortization term then) instead. In other words, lenders greatly underpriced the assumability option.
Today, VA loans are the only significant source of assumable mortgages in TBM, as far as I know. I believe they are about 33% of GNMAs and I believe GNMAs are about 33% of MBS in TBM, and MBS are sbout 25% of TBM. Thus, I think assumable mortgages are about 2.5% of TBM, but I have not checked the aforementioned numbers recently.
Residential lenders got hammered by inflation and rising rates in the 1970's. It was the root cause of the S&L crisis. Extension risk for residential mortgages still is a significant risk today but it is not the same as when residential mortgages commonly were assumable. I believe the risk is likely to be priced more accurately today as well.
The part of TBM that has been the biggest driver of equity correlation over the last 35-40 years is corporate bonds.
https://www.portfoliovisualizer.com/ass ... &months=36
In the inflation of the 1970's bonds had a much higher outcome correlation with stocks. Duration extension caused mortgages to underperform treasuries then. Mortgages also generally were assumable then, and with increases in interest rates, homebuyers generally tried to assume existing mortgages from home sellers when possible, which meant that most mortgages never were paid off early, leading to extreme duration extension as mortgages with about a 7 year expected duration then lasting 20 years (standard amortization term then) instead. In other words, lenders greatly underpriced the assumability option.
Today, VA loans are the only significant source of assumable mortgages in TBM, as far as I know. I believe they are about 33% of GNMAs and I believe GNMAs are about 33% of MBS in TBM, and MBS are sbout 25% of TBM. Thus, I think assumable mortgages are about 2.5% of TBM, but I have not checked the aforementioned numbers recently.
Residential lenders got hammered by inflation and rising rates in the 1970's. It was the root cause of the S&L crisis. Extension risk for residential mortgages still is a significant risk today but it is not the same as when residential mortgages commonly were assumable. I believe the risk is likely to be priced more accurately today as well.
The part of TBM that has been the biggest driver of equity correlation over the last 35-40 years is corporate bonds.
Re: Book Explicitly Recommends Against TBM
Price chart from 2008 crashCall_Me_Op wrote: ↑Thu Oct 28, 2021 3:44 pm I love Larry, but sometimes he does seem to get too hung-up on esoteric points that make very little difference at the end of the day.
PTRIX: Mortgage backed
SPY: S&P
VFITX: Intermediate Treasury
Did you rebalance in the 2008 crash? Were the bonds you sold TIPS or nominal Treasuries?
Was the difference esoteric?
(BTW Larry's is the best bond guru in my whole neighborhood so I may be biased. )
A scientist looks for THE answer to a problem, an engineer looks for AN answer and lawyers ONLY have opinions. Investing is not a science.
-
- Posts: 4743
- Joined: Sat Jul 08, 2017 10:09 am
- Location: New Jersey, USA
Re: Book Explicitly Recommends Against TBM
I agree, I hold some VWLUX (Long-term Muni) with a duration of 5.6, but a Maturity of 15.6! It will get whooped if interest rates rise quickly!tomsense76 wrote: ↑Thu Oct 28, 2021 4:40 pm Generally agree with nisiprius that this is at best a shrug. Munis have similar risks yet there are plenty who hold those.
TBM is only 6.8 duration vs. 8.7 Maturity.
-
- Posts: 15363
- Joined: Fri Apr 10, 2015 12:29 am
Re: Book Explicitly Recommends Against TBM
Interesting, but in looking at the total return data for each of the funds for 2008, 2009:Doc wrote: ↑Thu Oct 28, 2021 4:53 pmPrice chart from 2008 crashCall_Me_Op wrote: ↑Thu Oct 28, 2021 3:44 pm I love Larry, but sometimes he does seem to get too hung-up on esoteric points that make very little difference at the end of the day.
PTRIX: Mortgage backed
SPY: S&P
VFITX: Intermediate Treasury
Did you rebalance in the 2008 crash? Were the bonds you sold TIPS or nominal Treasuries?
Was the difference esoteric?
(BTW Larry's is the best bond guru in my whole neighborhood so I may be biased. )
VFITX: 13.32%, -1.69%
PTRIX: -0.44%, 14.4%
What do you make of it? Regression to the mean for each fund in 2009?
Re: Book Explicitly Recommends Against TBM [Total Bond Market]
Let me throw in my 2 cents.
You should hold assets that best match your market expectations, risk tolerance, and goals. This is basic stuff that everybody accepts.
The basis that you should hold a market weighted basket is actually pretty weak. There is not much basis that this will produce the most efficient portfolio. i.e., highest return for the lowest risk. There is no evidence that it is the best fit for you.
Let us start with equities. The market weighted basket is actually pretty efficient. I could make a solid argument that the particular characteristics of a value stocks or small cap stocks would be a better fit for your goals. However the argument would be long, complex, and nuanced. The characteristics of the value factor move over time. This is seriously advance stuff.
Bonds are much easier. There are lots of solid arguments that TBM is not the best fit for your goals and risk tolerances. Can you construct something better? Should you invest in Treasuries or Corporates? Short or Long Term? This is simple stuff. Stuff that they cover in basic bond pricing. Stuff that a average Bogleheads can wrap their head around and make informed actionable decisions on.
I would lob MBS in the intermediate category. On the flip side I don't think it is going to have much impact to your portfolio so I am pretty relaxed going either way.
You should hold assets that best match your market expectations, risk tolerance, and goals. This is basic stuff that everybody accepts.
The basis that you should hold a market weighted basket is actually pretty weak. There is not much basis that this will produce the most efficient portfolio. i.e., highest return for the lowest risk. There is no evidence that it is the best fit for you.
Let us start with equities. The market weighted basket is actually pretty efficient. I could make a solid argument that the particular characteristics of a value stocks or small cap stocks would be a better fit for your goals. However the argument would be long, complex, and nuanced. The characteristics of the value factor move over time. This is seriously advance stuff.
Bonds are much easier. There are lots of solid arguments that TBM is not the best fit for your goals and risk tolerances. Can you construct something better? Should you invest in Treasuries or Corporates? Short or Long Term? This is simple stuff. Stuff that they cover in basic bond pricing. Stuff that a average Bogleheads can wrap their head around and make informed actionable decisions on.
I would lob MBS in the intermediate category. On the flip side I don't think it is going to have much impact to your portfolio so I am pretty relaxed going either way.
Former brokerage operations & mutual fund accountant. I hate risk, which is why I study and embrace it.
Re: Book Explicitly Recommends Against TBM [Total Bond Market]
It's worth pointing out that the much-foretold rising rate environment has mostly failed to materialize, although we might be in one now, unless we're not. So the idea that MBS is bad in a rising rate environment hasn't really been tested.
Personally I prefer treasuries when I can get them (not always an option in a 401K) but doubt that it matters much in practice. If holding TBM is an error, it's an exceedingly tiny one.
Personally I prefer treasuries when I can get them (not always an option in a 401K) but doubt that it matters much in practice. If holding TBM is an error, it's an exceedingly tiny one.
Re: Book Explicitly Recommends Against TBM [Total Bond Market]
Well, pricing MBS in a rising interest rate environment is supper easy. Very basic bond pricing formulas and we do have excellent data for other periods which did have rising rates.
And I don't know anybody who says that MBS are bad in a raising interest rate environment. To be supper specific, MBS would do just as poorly as other bonds. People don't prepay their mortgages to refinance to a cheaper rate.
Former brokerage operations & mutual fund accountant. I hate risk, which is why I study and embrace it.
Re: Book Explicitly Recommends Against TBM [Total Bond Market]
Now that I read the opening post again, Swedroe says that the correlation between MBS and equities increases in a rising rate environment. That's not the same as saying MBS is bad, although that is how I originally read it.
Re: Book Explicitly Recommends Against TBM [Total Bond Market]
I would think MBS would be less desirable in a falling rate environment, because when rates fall homeowners refinance to lower rates, thus missing out some of the gains that falling rates bring to bonds. If rates are rising there is much less likelihood that they will refinance, and the MBS is likely getting a higher yield than a comparable treasury.
-
- Posts: 15363
- Joined: Fri Apr 10, 2015 12:29 am
Re: Book Explicitly Recommends Against TBM [Total Bond Market]
The benefit of MBS in TBM is that corporate bonds and MBS respond to interest rate changes in different ways so holding both is a diversificatuon opportunity with respect to risk.
Re: Book Explicitly Recommends Against TBM [Total Bond Market]
This book came out in 2006, so it's pretty genius that he's warning against MBS right before the real estate bubble imploded.LMK5 wrote: ↑Thu Oct 28, 2021 8:31 am I just read Larry Swedroe's excellent book, The Only Guide To a Winning Bond Strategy You'll Ever Need. What caught me by surprise was that the author explicitly mentioned that he did not recommend Vanguard TBM. The author explained that the duration of mortgage-backed securities increases during a rising rate environment, and since greater duration increases correlation with equities, MBS's correlation with stocks during downturns due to rising rates make them poor diversifiers.
In summary, on page 161 of the book, Swedroe states: "Vanguard's Total Bond Market Fund includes about one-third allocation to MBS. Therefore, we cannot recommend the fund. The first reason is that the duration of the Treasury and corporate bonds in the fund is greater than preferred. Second, the fund does contain MBS and has the associated risks."
Does this change anyone's mind about holding TBM? Would a 50/50 mix of Short Term Treasury and Intermediate Term Treasury funds be the better way to go from a diversification standpoint?
Re: Book Explicitly Recommends Against TBM [Total Bond Market]
That book was released April 1st, 2007.LMK5 wrote: ↑Thu Oct 28, 2021 8:31 am I just read Larry Swedroe's excellent book, The Only Guide To a Winning Bond Strategy You'll Ever Need. What caught me by surprise was that the author explicitly mentioned that he did not recommend Vanguard TBM. The author explained that the duration of mortgage-backed securities increases during a rising rate environment, and since greater duration increases correlation with equities, MBS's correlation with stocks during downturns due to rising rates make them poor diversifiers.
Since then, Vanguard Total Bond Market Index Fund has return 4.10% a year, with it's worst drawdown being 3.94% from April 2008 - October 2008 (but it recovered by December 2008)
"The best tools available to us are shovels, not scalpels. Don't get carried away." - vanBogle59
Re: Book Explicitly Recommends Against TBM [Total Bond Market]
Except he was wrong because Total Bond Market Index Fund wasn't affected that much, even WITH a real estate bubble imploding.rockstar wrote: ↑Thu Oct 28, 2021 10:37 pmThis book came out in 2006, so it's pretty genius that he's warning against MBS right before the real estate bubble imploded.LMK5 wrote: ↑Thu Oct 28, 2021 8:31 am I just read Larry Swedroe's excellent book, The Only Guide To a Winning Bond Strategy You'll Ever Need. What caught me by surprise was that the author explicitly mentioned that he did not recommend Vanguard TBM. The author explained that the duration of mortgage-backed securities increases during a rising rate environment, and since greater duration increases correlation with equities, MBS's correlation with stocks during downturns due to rising rates make them poor diversifiers.
In summary, on page 161 of the book, Swedroe states: "Vanguard's Total Bond Market Fund includes about one-third allocation to MBS. Therefore, we cannot recommend the fund. The first reason is that the duration of the Treasury and corporate bonds in the fund is greater than preferred. Second, the fund does contain MBS and has the associated risks."
Does this change anyone's mind about holding TBM? Would a 50/50 mix of Short Term Treasury and Intermediate Term Treasury funds be the better way to go from a diversification standpoint?
Anyone following Larry Swedroe's advice in the past 15 years has less money than those who didn't. Maybe he was right, but just unlucky. That's certainly possible.
"The best tools available to us are shovels, not scalpels. Don't get carried away." - vanBogle59
-
- Posts: 15363
- Joined: Fri Apr 10, 2015 12:29 am
Re: Book Explicitly Recommends Against TBM [Total Bond Market]
So rates were up sharply in 2013, the so called taper tantrum. Performance of US stocks, GNMAs, and intermediate treasuries for the year:
https://www.portfoliovisualizer.com/bac ... ion3_3=100
No guarantee of the same moving forward. The amortization process for MBS returns principal for reinvestment monthly at par (along with interest) to be reinvested at the new, higher rates. Generally, the velocity of rate rises will determine whether MBS without credit risk overperform or underperform treasuries. If rates rise sharply enough, MBS will underperform due to duration extension, but if rate rises are sufficiently gradual, the amortization feature will enable them to beat duration-matched treasuries, as occurred in 2013.
Last edited by Northern Flicker on Fri Oct 29, 2021 12:47 am, edited 4 times in total.
Re: Book Explicitly Recommends Against TBM [Total Bond Market]
MBS is probably the smallest problem with TBM.
Never understood the obsession with it.
Never understood the obsession with it.
-
- Posts: 15363
- Joined: Fri Apr 10, 2015 12:29 am
Re: Book Explicitly Recommends Against TBM [Total Bond Market]
The benefit of TBM is broad diversification in a single fund at very low cost. It also avoids behavioral errors that can happen when individuals try to overthink their fixed income portfolio.
- willthrill81
- Posts: 32250
- Joined: Thu Jan 26, 2017 2:17 pm
- Location: USA
- Contact:
Re: Book Explicitly Recommends Against TBM [Total Bond Market]
I think that the bigger argument against TBM is the simple fact that its average effective maturity is only 8.7 years. Most investors have a much longer investment horizon than that. As such, the more logical choice for such investors would be something with a much longer maturity.
The Sensible Steward
-
- Posts: 15363
- Joined: Fri Apr 10, 2015 12:29 am
Re: Book Explicitly Recommends Against TBM [Total Bond Market]
Prepayments from refis will mean that they will not get the boost from falling rates that treasuries get, but as long as the MBS have no credit risk, they won't see credit spreads blowout like corporate credit when the falling rates are due to a recession.JBTX wrote: ↑Thu Oct 28, 2021 8:07 pm I would think MBS would be less desirable in a falling rate environment, because when rates fall homeowners refinance to lower rates, thus missing out some of the gains that falling rates bring to bonds. If rates are rising there is much less likelihood that they will refinance, and the MBS is likely getting a higher yield than a comparable treasury.
VBILX is an intermediate-term bond index without MBS, just treasuries and corporate bonds. TBM offered slightly more protection from the 2008/2009 equity downturn.
https://www.portfoliovisualizer.com/bac ... ion3_3=100
Re: Book Explicitly Recommends Against TBM [Total Bond Market]
I disagree (but I could be wrong!).willthrill81 wrote: ↑Thu Oct 28, 2021 11:18 pm I think that the bigger argument against TBM is the simple fact that its average effective maturity is only 8.7 years. Most investors have a much longer investment horizon than that. As such, the more logical choice for such investors would be something with a much longer maturity.
I like shorter duration bond funds, so they get turned over faster, and the bond fund auto-corrects for any interest rate changes.
In fact, I don't like that 8.7 years number... I thought the average duration of TBM was like 6 years.
So, I check and BOTH of us are right... What's the difference between duration and maturity? Duration is 6.8 years, and maturity is 8.7 years.
I don't like that duration is inching up. Maybe the bond managers are reaching for yield with longer duration bonds?
"The best tools available to us are shovels, not scalpels. Don't get carried away." - vanBogle59
-
- Posts: 15363
- Joined: Fri Apr 10, 2015 12:29 am
Re: Book Explicitly Recommends Against TBM [Total Bond Market]
The duration of TBM fluctuates for two reasons: duration changes in response to interest rate changes, and changes to the index duration based on what bonds are issued and what are in the free float. I think bonds bought by the Fed in aggregate are shorter than the duration of TBM, and bonds bought by the Fed are not in the index free float, so this would contribute to an increase in duration.
I think TBM is a fine way to allocate to nominal bonds, but I do prefer establishing a fixed income portfolio using bond funds that each implement a single bond subclass.
I think TBM is a fine way to allocate to nominal bonds, but I do prefer establishing a fixed income portfolio using bond funds that each implement a single bond subclass.
Re: Book Explicitly Recommends Against TBM [Total Bond Market]
I adore Larry’s books, however it’s important to realize he’s being technically correct and optimal, but overly complex for most investors IMO. As such, I don’t follow his wisdom on this front.
I’m willing to be slightly less optimal, and maybe take slightly more risk (in an already very safe asset class) in the interests of simplicity and scaling. It’s as simple as that. Complexity has its own inefficiencies which folks like Larry don’t capture well: people inevitably screw things up.
I’m willing to be slightly less optimal, and maybe take slightly more risk (in an already very safe asset class) in the interests of simplicity and scaling. It’s as simple as that. Complexity has its own inefficiencies which folks like Larry don’t capture well: people inevitably screw things up.
Re: Book Explicitly Recommends Against TBM [Total Bond Market]
Great post. Total Bond Market Index is plenty well good enough. Shoot, I have owned Fidelity GNMA fund since 1999 and it sailed through the 2008-2009 financial crisis. Also, keep in mind that both Vanguard and Fidelity GNMA funds now have average maturities at about 2-3 years. The fund managers are well aware of the risks that Larry brings up hence the short maturities and duration.mrspock wrote: ↑Fri Oct 29, 2021 3:18 am I adore Larry’s books, however it’s important to realize he’s being technically correct and optimal, but overly complex for most investors IMO. As such, I don’t follow his wisdom on this front.
I’m willing to be slightly less optimal, and maybe take slightly more risk (in an already very safe asset class) in the interests of simplicity and scaling. It’s as simple as that. Complexity has its own inefficiencies which folks like Larry don’t capture well: people inevitably screw things up.
A fool and his money are good for business.
-
- Posts: 12277
- Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2017 7:05 pm
Re: Book Explicitly Recommends Against TBM [Total Bond Market]
I am not a huge fan of either corporate bonds or GNMA. I still hold quite a bit of total bond market along with Treasuries and I Bonds. For many people total bond market is the only low cost option in their 401k which is generally the most tax efficient account for holding bonds. If that is the case I wouldn't hesitate to use it.
-
- Posts: 605
- Joined: Wed May 28, 2014 11:53 am
Re: Book Explicitly Recommends Against TBM [Total Bond Market]
The current short average effective maturities of GNMA funds are evidence of the risk Larry is talking about. Effective maturities of mortgage-backed bonds represent an estimate of when the bonds will pay back, taking anticipated prepayments into account. Low interest rates are causing re-financing of mortgages. The GNMA fund managers are receiving principal payments early and are forced to re-invest in new, lower-yielding bonds. When rates go up, re-financing will slow down, average effective maturities will go up and the funds will be locked in at lower rates for a longer time. Think of it this way, when people are re-financing mortgages they are receiving a cash flow windfall of sorts. Who's paying for that? The investors who hold the debt. This is the risk of mortgage-backed bonds. Investors need to evaluate whether the rate premium they receive compensates adequately for the risk.