How would bonds fare if interest rates rose?
"1. Interest rates What you should know is that the longer the ""term"" of a bond fund, the more it will be affected by interest rates. So a short-term bond fund will not be subject to large gains or losses due to rate changes, an intermediate-term bond fund will be subject to moderate gains or losses, and a long-term bond fund will be subject to the largest gains or losses. When a book or financial planner says to buy ""bonds"" with no other qualification, they almost always mean investment-grade intermediate-term bond funds (or for individual bonds, the equivalent would be a bond ladder averaging an intermediate term). If you want technical details, look at the ""average duration"" or ""average maturity"" of the bond fund; as a rough guide, if the duration is 10, then a 1% change in interest rates would be a 10% gain or loss on the fund. Another thing you can do is look at long-term (10 years or ideally longer) performance history on some short, intermediate, and long term bond index funds, and you can see how the long term funds bounced around more. Non-investment-grade bonds (aka junk bonds or high yield bonds) are more affected by factors other than interest rates, including some of the same factors (economic booms or recessions) that affect stocks. As a result, they aren't as good for diversifying a portfolio that otherwise consists of stocks. (Having stocks, investment grade bonds, and also a little bit in high-yield bonds can add diversification, though. Just don't replace your bond allocation with high-yield bonds.) A variety of ""complicated"" bonds exist (convertible bonds are an example) and these are tough to analyze. There are also ""floating rate"" bonds (bank loan funds), these have minimal interest rate sensitivity because the rate goes up to offset rate rises. These funds still have credit risks, in the credit crisis some of them lost a lot of money. 2. Diversification The purpose of diversification is risk control. Your non-bond funds will outperform in many years, but in other years (say the -37% S&P 500 drop in 2008) they may not. You will not know in advance which year you'll get. You get risk control in at least a few ways. There's also an academic Modern Portfolio Theory explanation for why you should diversify among risky assets (aka stocks), something like: for a given desired risk/return ratio, it's better to leverage up a diverse portfolio than to use a non-diverse portfolio, because risk that can be eliminated through diversification is not compensated by increased returns. The theory also goes that you should choose your diversification between risk assets and the risk-free asset according to your risk tolerance (i.e. select the highest return with tolerable risk). See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_portfolio_theory for excruciating detail. The translation of the MPT stuff to practical steps is typically, put as much in stock index funds as you can tolerate over your time horizon, and put the rest in (intermediate-term investment-grade) bond index funds. That's probably what your planner is asking you to do. My personal view, which is not the standard view, is that you should take as much risk as you need to take, not as much as you think you can tolerate: http://blog.ometer.com/2010/11/10/take-risks-in-life-for-savings-choose-a-balanced-fund/ But almost everyone else will say to do the 80/20 if you have decades to retirement and feel you can tolerate the risk, so my view that 60/40 is the max desirable allocation to stocks is not mainstream. Your planner's 80/20 advice is the standard advice. Before doing 100% stocks I'd give you at least a couple cautions: See also:" When interest rates rise, the price of bonds fall because bonds have a fixed coupon rate, and since the interest rate has risen, the bond's rate is now lower than what you can get on the market, so it's price falls because it's now less valuable. Bonds diversify your portfolio as they are considered safer than stocks and less volatile. However, they also provide less potential for gains. Although diversification is a good idea, for the individual investor it is far too complicated and incurs too much transaction costs, not to mention that rebalancing would have to be done on a regular basis. In your case where you have mutual funds already, it is probably a good idea to keep investing in mutual funds with a theme which you understand the industry's role in the economy today rather than investing in some special bonds which you cannot relate to. The benefit of having a mutual fund is to have a professional manage your money, and that includes diversification as well so that you don't have to do that.
Bond prices move inversely to their yields.  So when you sell bonds and create a supply side deluge, bond prices will fall.  Since bond prices are falling, yields go up.  (The dollar amount that the bond pays out is the same.  It's simply that since the bond price has fallen, that dollar amount paid out expressed in percentage terms of the bond price has risen). "So after you've learned about bonds, you might find yourself learning about interest rates.  You might, in fact, discover that there's no such thing as a ""correct"" interest rate, or even a true ""market"" interest rate.    PS We already had the housing bubble.  It has come, and gone.  What *new* bubble are you referring to?" Long term gov't bonds fluctuate in price with a seemingly small interest rate fluctuation because many years of cash inflows are discounted at low rates.  This phenomenon is dulled in a high interest rate environment. For example, just the principal repayment is worth ~1/3, P * 1/(1+4%)^30, what it will be in 30 years at 4% while an overnight loan paying an unrealistic 4% is worth essentially the same as the principal, P * 1/(1+4%)^(1/365). This is more profound in low interest rate economies because, taking the countries undergoing the present misfortune, one can see that their overnight interest rates are double US long term rates while their long term rates are nearly 10x as large as US long term rates.  If there were much supply at the longer maturities which have been restrained by interest rates only manageable by the highly skilled or highly risky, a 4% increase on a 30% bond is only about a 20% decline in bond price while a 4% increase on a 4% bond is a 50% decrease. The easiest long term bond to manipulate quantitatively is the perpetuity where p is the price of the bond, i is the interest payment per some arbitrary period usually 1 year, and r is the interest rate paid per some arbitrary period usually 1 year.  Since they are expressly linked, a price can be implied for a given interest rate and vice versa if the interest payment is known or assumed. At a 4% interest rate, the price is At 4.04%, the price is , a 1% increase in interest rates and a 0.8% decrease in price . Longer term bonds such as a 30 year or 20 year bond will not see as extreme price movements. The constant maturity 30 year treasury has fluctuated between 5% and 2.5% to ~3.75% now from before the Great Recession til now, so prices will have more or less doubled and then reduced because bond prices are inversely proportional to interest rates as generally shown above. At shorter maturities, this phenomenon is negligible because future cash inflows are being discounted by such a low amount.  The one month bill rarely moves in price beyond the bid/ask spread during expansion but can be expected to collapse before a recession and rebound during. The short answer is if you own a representative index of global bonds (say AGG) and global stocks (say ACWI) the bonds will generally only suffer minimally in even the medium large market crashes you describe.  However, there are some caveats. Not all bonds will tend to react the same way.  Bonds that are considered higher-yield (say BBB rated and below) tend to drop significantly in stock market crashes though not as much as stock markets themselves.  Emerging market bonds can drop even more as weaker foreign currencies can drop in global crashes as well. Also, if a local market crash is caused by rampant inflation as in the US during the 70s-80s, bonds can crash at the same time as markets.  There hasn't been a global crash caused by inflation after countries left the gold standard, but that doesn't mean it can't happen. Still, I don't mean to scare you away from adding bond exposure to a stock portfolio as bonds tend to have low correlations with stocks and significant returns.  Just be aware that these correlations can change over time (sometimes quickly) and depend on which stocks/bonds you invest in. what will happen to the valuation of Tom's bond holdings after the equity crash? This is primarily opinion based. What will happen is generally hard to predict. Bond Price Bump due to Demand:  Is a possible outcome; this depends on the assumption that the bonds in the said country are still deemed safe. Recent Greece example, this may not be true. So if the investors don't believe that Bonds are safe, the money may move into Real Estate, into Bullion [Gold etc], or to other markets. In such a scenario; the price may not bump up. Bond Price Decline due to Rising Interest Rates:  On a rising interest rates, the long-term bonds may loose in value while the short term bonds may hold their value. Related question How would bonds fare if interest rates rose? "The interest rate offered by a bond is called the nominal interest rate.  The so-called real interest rate is the nominal interest rate minus the rate of inflation. If inflation is equal to or greater than the nominal rate at any given time, the REAL interest rate is zero or negative. We're talking about a ten year bond. It's possible for the real interest rate to be negative for one or two years of the bond's life, and positive for eight or nine.  On the other hand, if we have a period of rising inflation, as in the 1970s, the inflation rate will exceed the (original) interest rate in most years, meaning that the real interest rate on the ten year bond will be negative over its whole life. People lost ""serious"" money on bonds (and loans) in the 1970s. In such situations, the BORROWERS make out. That is, they borrow money at low rates, earn inflation (plus a little more) pay back inflated dollars, and pocket the difference. For them, the money is ""free.""" "The federal funds rate is one of the risk-free short-term rates in the economy. We often think of fixed income securities as paying this rate plus some premia associated with risk. For a treasury security, we can think this way: (interest rate) = (fed funds rate) + (term premium) The term premium is a bit extra the bond pays because if you hold a long term bond, you are exposed to interest rate risk, which is the risk that rates will generally rise after you buy, making your bond worth less.  The relation is more complex if people have expectations of future rate moves, but this is the general idea.  Anyway, generally speaking, longer term bonds are exposed to more interest rate risk, so they pay more, on average. For a corporate bond, we think this way: (interest rate) = (fed funds rate) + (term premium) + (default premium) where the default premium is some extra that the bond must pay to compensate the holder for default risk, which is the risk that the bond defaults or loses value as the company's prospects fall.  You can see that corporate and government bonds are affected the same way (approximately, this is all hand-waving) by changes in the fed funds rate. Now, that all refers to the rates on new bonds.  After a bond is issued, its value falls if rates rise because new bonds are relatively more attractive.  Its value rises if rates on new bonds falls.  So if there is an unexpected rise in the fed funds rate and you are holding a bond, you will be sad, especially if it is a long term bond (doesn't matter if it's corporate or government).  Ask yourself, though, whether an increase in fed funds will be unexpected at this point.  If the increase was expected, it will already be priced in.  Are you more of an expert than the folks on wall-street at predicting interest rate changes?  If not, it might not make sense to make decisions based on your belief about where rates are going.  Just saying. Brick points out that treasuries are tax advantaged.  That is, you don't have to pay state income tax on them (but you do pay federal). If you live in a state where this is true, this may matter to you a little bit. They also pay unnaturally little because they are convenient for use as a cash substitute in transactions and margining (""convenience yield"").  In general, treasuries just don't pay much.  Young folk like you tend to buy corporate bonds instead, so they can make money on the default and term premia." "What could happen to bonds such as these because of Detroit filing for   bankruptcy? Depending on how the courts process Detroit's situation, there could be that some bonds become worthless since they are so low and the city can't pay anything on those low priority debts.  Others may get pennies on the dollar.  There could also be the case that some bailout comes along that makes the bonds good though I'd say that is a long shot at this point. Are these bonds done for, or will bondholders receive interest   payments and eventual payment? I wouldn't suspect that they are done for in the sense of being completely worthless though at the same time, I'd be very careful about buying any of them given that they are likely to be changed a great deal. Could these bonds tend to rise over time after the bankruptcy?  Yes, it is possible.  If there was some kind of federal or state bailout that is done, the bonds could rise.  However, that is one heck of an ""if"" as you'd need to have someone come to guarantee the bonds in a sense. What similar situations from the past might support this idea? Not that many as this is the biggest municipal bankruptcy ever, but here are a few links that may be useful as a starting point, though keep in mind Detroit's scale is part of the story as it is such a big amount being defaulted:" Keep in mind there are a couple of points to ponder here: Rates are really low. With rates being so low, unless there is deflation, it is pretty easy to see even moderate inflation of 1-2% being enough to eat the yield completely which would be why the returns are negative. Inflation is still relatively contained. With inflation low, there is no reason for the central banks to raise rates which would give new bonds a better rate. Thus, this changes in CPI are still in the range where central banks want to be stimulative with their policy which means rates are low which if lower than inflation rates would give a negative real return which would be seen as a way to trigger more spending since putting the money into treasury debt will lose money to inflation in terms of purchasing power. A good question to ponder is has this happened before in the history of the world and what could we learn from that point in time. The idea for investors would be to find alternative holdings for their cash and bonds if they want to beat inflation though there are some inflation-indexed bonds that aren't likely appearing in the chart that could also be something to add to the picture here. Is your question academic curiosity or are you thinking of buying bonds?  Be aware that bond interest rates are near all-time lows, and if interest rates were to rise, the prices of bonds could fall.  Those buying bonds today are taking unusually large risk of capital loss. Yes, bond funds are marked to market, so they will decline as the composition of their holdings will. Households actually have unimpressive relative levels of credit to equity holdings.  The reason why is because there is little return on credit, making it irrational to hold any amount greater than to fund future liquidity needs, risk adjusted and time discounted. The vast majority of credit is held by insurance companies.  Pension funds have large stakes as well.  Banks hold even fewer bonds since they try to sell them as soon as they've made them. Insurance companies are forced to hold a large percentage of their floats in credit then preferred equity.  While this dulls their returns, it's not a large problem for them because they typically hold bonds until maturity.  Only the ones who misprice the risk of insurance will have to sell at unfavorable prices. Being able to predict interest rates thus bond prices accurately would make one the best bond manager in the world.  While it does look like inflation will rise again soon just as it has during every other US expansion, can it be assured when commodity prices are high in real terms and look like they may be in a collapse?  The banking industry would have to produce credit at a much higher rate to counter the deflation of all physical goods. Households typically shun assets at low prices to pursue others at high prices, so their holdings of bonds ETFs should be expected to decline during a bond collapse.  If insurance companies find it less costly to hold ETFs then they will contribute to an increase in bond ETF supply. "Beyond the yield/price relationship, a good intuitive way to understand it is just this: these people control a substantial amount of money that could be essentially loaned to governments.   If they feel a particular policy is likely to lead to inflation or default, they may decide not to loan that country any more money.  All else being equal, with a smaller supply of possible borrowers, the country will have to pay higher interest to fund a particular amount of debt. Furthermore they may loudly publicly announce that they will no longer lend to that country, in which case other participants may be persuaded that they too should no longer lend at the going rate.  What's more, this is somewhat self-fulfilling: as rates go up, the country will spend more money servicing its debt, and will in fact become a worse risk.   So I think the thing that gives them their ""vigilante"" nature is that governments worry they will round up a posse and things will run away.  As far as actual incentives, I would welcome more information but I think the main bond vigilante case is that they are basically long on the country but want it to tighten up its policy so their existing holdings don't decline." "Yes. Bonds perform very well in a recession. In fact the safer the bond, the better it would do in a recession. Think of markets having four seasons: High growth and low inflation - ""growing economy"" High growth and high inflation - ""overheating economy"" Low growth and high inflation - ""stagflation"" Low growth and low inflation - ""recession"" Bonds are the best investment in a recession. qplum's flagship strategy had a very high allocation to bonds in the financial crisis. That's why in backtest it shows much better returns." I would also like to have this discussed, alongside the issue that the US has gone into some type of [recession](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c0/US_Treasuries_to_Federal_Funds_Rate.png) roughly every ten year. So with the prospect of a possible recession with a close to 0% cash rate looming, what tools will the FED employ to keep Banks borrowing while maintaining inflation rates? Possibly but not necessarily, though that can happen if one looks at the US interest rates in the late 1970s which did end with really high rates in the early 1980s. Generally interest rates are raised when inflation picks up as a way to bring down inflation.