The crazy(?) bond rally

Over the past four weeks or so, the bond rally has become truly epic. I have been truly stunned by the magnitude of it.

Here is the oft-mentioned TLT, which tracks the 20 and 30 year US Treasuries.

It's charted against SPY (the S&P 500 proxy) and EEM (the emerging markets proxy). To show that the bond rally has some breadth, let's look at municipal bonds as well. Now, the MUB is not just a long maturity municipal bond fund but rather a larger aggregate so its moves aren't as dramatic, but it tells a similar tale.

The same had also held with corporates, as represented by LQD, which tracks long term investment grade corporate debt.

Now, the question that many are asking is "Is this a bond market bubble?" Well, current interest rates do seem absurdly low. In terms of the stock market, it would be the equivalent of paying 40x earnings for a company's stock (the equivalent of a 2.5% earnings yield). However, with inflation also at historic lows, the bubble might not be as big as some are claiming. If you are of the view that inflation will soon accelerate to 4%+, then yes, bonds are dramatically overvalued. If you believe instead that inflation will be between 0% and 1.5%, the overvaluation of bonds ranges between not much and only marginally overvalued. I do happen to think that, when you look at comparative stock market measures, bonds are at least moderately overpriced. That holds true so long as corporations will be increasing their earnings even at a moderate pace over the next several years.

With the Fed possibly embarking on more quantitative easing (the direct purchase of treasuries to increase the money supply), one might wonder if interest rates will be capped at these low levels or even drop further. The last time the Fed did a similar action, interest rates rose anyway because market expectations of an economic recovery picked up. At this juncture, it's hard to say which way they will go, but I think that past performance might be a decent indication. Quantitative easing is a powerful stimulative tool and if the Fed is zealous in its application, it actually might actually have the net effect of increasing interest rates through market expectations of higher growth. All of this remains to be seen, however.

Threading Strategies Together

Several different strategies have been discussed here on Finance Monitor along with numerous individual investments and I thought I would provide some context on how to view the discussions in the context of your own investments. The fundamental goal of this post is to weave several different posts on different subjects together. I will try to provide links so that you can quickly look up the prior discussions.

I guess the proper way to start this conversation was with the prior post on risk reduction in portfolio construction. This is one way of looking at your macro strategy, though there are many potential variations on this broader strategy. Within the core portfolio, either use equity index funds or balanced funds and basically just try to keep your overall allocation right, unless you want to be a little more active here. Then, you can engage in what was discussed on the post on dynamic asset allocation.

To do this, use the SPY and TLT ETFs at a basic level. If you have less than $2,000, I strongly encourage you to only re-balance when interest rates suggest you make a large reallocation from stocks to bonds or bonds to stocks. If you re-balance with every twinge, you'll get eaten alive by commissions. For example, let's say the model changes each month and you re-balance with $7 commissions each time (on both purchase and sale) with a $2,000 balance. You will incur $14 a transaction 12 times for a total of $168 in commissions. That would be 8.4% of your portfolio or greater than your average annual gain. With $20,000, it's 0.84%, which is bad, but not ruinous. If you are so fortunate to get up to $100,000, the fees are very low indeed. The ETF fees for TLT and SPY are also very low. In the case of SPY they are 0.09% per year and 0.15% on TLT.

Event Risk: Thy Name is Korea

For those not familiar with the terminology, "event risk" is a fairly simple concept and I am almost ashamed to use the term because of its simplicity. It simply means that there is the risk that a major event outside of regular market forces will shake a specific company or even an entire market. For example, BP's event risk has been the ongoing oil spill. Simple enough concept.

With that out of the way, let's move on to South Korea and the escalating crisis with the North over the sinking by the North of a South Korean naval vessel. This is yet another instance of where one must pay attention to politics when making investment decisions. South Korea is an attractive market in a number of ways. The government is fiscally stable, the economy is clearly in a high growth mode, companies are becoming increasingly profitable, and China provides a great long term driver of export growth. There's an awful lot to like. However, they do have an absolutely berserk neighbor to the north.

However, as serious as this crisis seems, it is not clear that the Korean markets have taken the risk as seriously as one might think.

Against EEM, an overall emerging markets index ETF, EWY, the South Korean iShares ETF, has not done that much worse, certainly not so much worse as to indicate broad investor skittishness. Compared to the potential for ruin the South Korean economy should a war commence, this response seems modest. Of course, even when U.S. markets became aware of the Cuban Missile Crisis, stocks did not sell off particularly fiercely either. Maybe markets generally are fairly unimpressed by political (broadly defined) turmoil. Even in Thailand, ongoing political violence has barely dented the market lately.

So, why the post title indicating that South Korea is a poster child for event risk? I would say it is because if what South Korea is facing isn't event risk, I don't know what is. And if this is major event risk, why is the market not more concerned than it is? Am I reading the situation entirely incorrectly?

Also, if anyone has any special insights on the ongoing Korean tensions, I'd be happy to hear them. There might be some money to make here for those that fancy investing in Korea.

A Brief Note on Financial Crises and Safe Harbors

One of the great new contrarian pieces of "knowledge" has been that you can hide from a developed market financial crisis in emerging markets. This was said in 2007 and 2008 when we went into the soup and it was said again this time during the ongoing European financial crisis. Just to show how silly that idea is, here is a chart from June 1, 2008 through March 1, 2009:

The green candlestick line is the S&P 500, the olive line is the FXI from yesterday, the purple line is the iShares MSCI Emerging Markets Index Fund (EEM) and the light blue line is the iShares Brazilian Index Fund (EWZ). As you can see, over this period, the U.S. outperformed all of those markets for the duration of the worst of the crisis.

Similarly, in the current crisis the pattern has been continued:

The pattern is repeated, to varying degrees. So, what is the safe harbor? U.S. Treasuries have been, are, and will likely continue to be the last best hope for investors in the midst of a crisis. I could show the chart from 2008, but that's just beating a dead horse. Here's the most recent performance with the iShares Barclay's 20+ Year Treasury Bond Fund (TLT) represented by the.... I guess that's salmon colored line:

As you can see, long-duration U.S. Treasuries are a good safe harbor for assets in short term financial crises, regardless of whether they are here in the U.S. or if they are in Greece, China, Japan, or wherever else there might be a crisis. That being said, as a long term prospect, I am not thrilled with the outlook for Treasuries at the moment as I have indicated previously. As interest rates rise in the future, you will get slaughtered for a large position in them. In the short run they might be appealing, though even here I'm not sure how much more upside they have. I think we are probably within a couple weeks of the worst of the European crisis being behind us, though it will get ugly before it is over.

Someone may ask "What about gold?". In response I say, "Treasuries > gold" in a crisis. It was true in 2008. It is true now. Gold is only superior in a time of hyperinflation.

Anyway, those are my thoughts.