An interest rate hike has been widely anticipated for some
time. According to an October survey of 50 top economists conducted by the Wall Street Journal, the yield on the
10-year Treasury was forecasted to rise nearly one percentage point to 3.47% by
the end of 2014. What impact would such a rise have on your investment
portfolio?
First, Christopher Philips, a senior analyst in Vanguard’s
Investment Strategy Group, points out the historical inaccuracy of such
forecasts. For instance, a similar survey conducted in 2010 had economists
predicting a 4.24% 10-year Treasury yield by the end of the year, an increase
from 3.61% at the time of the forecast. In actuality, rates declines to 3.30%
at year-end. The inaccuracy of these forecasts is well documented. In fact, as
Allen Roth mentioned in the December issue of Financial Planning Magazine, a 2005 study by the University of
North Carolina titled “Professional Forecasts of Interest Rates and Exchange
Rates” found economists predict future rates far less accurately than a random
coin flip would fare as a predictor.
Clearly, we can’t be confident what interest rates will do
in 2014, but what if economists are finally correct and rates rise? How
damaging would an interest rate increase be for bonds? If interest rates rise
one percentage point next year, the intermediate aggregate bond index is
expected to lose -2.8% -- far from catastrophic. Of course, such potential risk
is notably minimal when compared to the downside of owning stocks (remember the
-36.93% loss endured by the S&P 500 in 2008?).
It is also interesting to study how bonds have historically
performed in periods of rising interest rates. Craig Israelsen, a BYU
professor, recently documented how bonds performed during the two most recent
periods of rate increases. Israelsen points out that although the federal
discount rate rose from 5.46% to 13.42% from 1977 through 1981, the
intermediate government/credit index had a 5.63% annualized return during that
period. The next period of rising interest rates was from 2002 through 2006,
when the federal discount rate had a fivefold increase: from 1.17% to 5.96%.
During this period, the intermediate government/credit index obtained a 4.53%
annual return. Clearly, even in an environment of rising interest rates, bond
performance was surprisingly strong.
Most importantly, investors should never forget the value bonds
add to a portfolio as a diversifier to stocks. Frequently, the performance of
stocks and bonds are inversely related. For instance, when the stock market
suffered during the tech bubble crash of 2000-2002, the Barclays Long-Term
Government Bond Index rose 20.28%, 4.34%, and 16.99% in those years,
respectively. More recently, when the S&P 500 lost -36.93% in 2008, the
Long-Term Government Bond Index rose 22.69% during the year. This
diversification benefit may prove useful when stocks ultimately cool off from
the extended hot streak they have experienced since 2009.
In 2013, the Aggregate Bond Index decreased in value by
-1.98%. Given the occasional negative correlation in performance between stocks
and bonds, is it really surprising that bonds didn’t produce a positive return
given the incredible year stocks had (S&P 500 up over 32%)? Additionally,
held within a diversified portfolio, isn’t the -1.98% return produced by bonds
during the recent equity surge a small price to pay for the additional security
they are likely to provide when markets reverse?
2 comments:
Determine amongst the a variety of banking institutions out there. Consider the features they give to clients. Goodyear Credit Card
You people have actually provided the best blogs that are easy to understand for the folks. How much do financial advisors make
Post a Comment