Are AAA private-sector corporate bonds safer than government bonds?
"If you are afraid of your government defaulting, then you also have reason to fear that your country's so-called ""AAA"" corporate bonds might not be a safe investment.  When governments default, they often do things like: In these scenarios, it is not predictable whether government bonds will suffer more or less than any particular corporate bonds. You might want to diversify into precious metals, foreign currencies, and/or foreign securities.  For the most security, you might want to choose investment vehicles that your government would have a hard time confiscating.  Of course, you will face currency fluctuation risks if you do so." Haven't there been examples of governments defaulting, delaying payment and imposing haircuts on investors? Greece and Argentina come to mind. Quite a few Govt have defaulted in the past or were very of default or crisis. Most 3rd world countries or developing countries have under gone stress at some point. Greece was amongst the first example of Developed country going bankrupt. am I not better off if the fund invests solely in AAA corporate bonds, avoiding government bonds? Well that depends. Corporate bonds are not safer than Government Bonds. There have been instances of Corporate bonds not giving the required returns.
It's all about risk. These guidelines were all developed based on the risk characteristics of the various asset categories. Bonds are ultra-low-risk, large caps are low-risk (you don't see most big stocks like Coca-Cola going anywhere soon), foreign stocks are medium-risk (subject to additional political risk and currency risk, especially so in developing markets) and small-caps are higher risk (more to gain, but more likely to go out of business).  Moreover, the risks of different asset classes tend to balance each other out some. When stocks fall, bonds typically rise (the recent credit crunch being a notable but temporary exception) as people flock to safety or as the Fed adjusts interest rates. When stocks soar, bonds don't look as attractive, and interest rates may rise (a bummer when you already own the bonds). Is the US economy stumbling with the dollar in the dumps, while the rest of the world passes us by? Your foreign holdings will be worth more in dollar terms. If you'd like to work alternative asset classes (real estate, gold and other commodities, etc) into your mix, consider their risk characteristics, and what will make them go up and down. A good asset allocation should limit the amount of 'down' that can happen all at once; the more conservative the allocation needs to be, the less 'down' is possible (at the expense of the 'up'). .... As for what risks you are willing to take, that will depend on your position in life, and what risks you are presently are exposed to (including: your job, how stable your company is and whether it could fold or do layoffs in a recession like this one, whether you're married, whether you have kids, where you live). For instance, if you're a realtor by trade, you should probably avoid investing too much in real estate or it'll be a double-whammy if the market crashes. A good financial advisor can discuss these matters with you in detail. A stock is an ownership interest in a company.  There can be multiple classes of shares, but to simplify, assuming only one class of shares, a company issues some number of shares, let's say 1,000,000 shares and you can buy shares of the company. If you own 1,000 shares in this example, you would own one one-thousandth of the company.  Public companies have their shares traded on the open market and the price varies as demand for the stock comes and goes relative to people willing to sell their shares. You typically buy stock in a company because you believe the company is going to prosper into the future and thus the value of its stock should rise in the open market. A bond is an indebted interest in a company.  A company issues bonds to borrow money at an interest rate specified in the bond issuance and makes periodic payments of principal and interest.  You buy bonds in a company to lend the company money at an interest rate specified in the bond because you believe the company will be able to repay the debt per the terms of the bond.  The value of a bond as traded on the open exchange varies as the prevailing interest rates vary.  If you buy a bond for $1,000 yielding 5% interest and interest rates go up to 10%, the value of your bond in the open market goes down so that the payment terms of 5% on $1,000 matches hypothetical terms of 10% on a lesser principal amount.  Whatever lesser principal amount at the new rate would lead to the same payment terms determines the new market value.   Alternatively, if interest rates go down, the current value of your bond increases on the open market to make it appear as if it is yielding a lower rate. Regardless of the market value, the company continues to pay interest on the original debt per its terms, so you can always hold onto a bond and get the original promised interest as long as the company does not go bankrupt. So in summary, bonds tend to be a safer investment that offers less potential return.  However, this is not always the case, since if interest rates skyrocket, your bond's value will plummet, although you could just hold onto them and get the low rate originally promised. Googling vanguard target asset allocation led me to this page on the Bogleheads wiki which has detailed breakdowns of the Target Retirement funds; that page in turn has a link to this Vanguard PDF which goes into a good level of detail on the construction of these funds' portfolios. I excerpt: (To the question of why so much weight in equities:) In our view, two important considerations justify an expectation of an   equity risk premium. The first is the historical record: In the past,   and in many countries, stock market investors have been rewarded with   such a premium.  ... Historically, bond returns have lagged equity returns by about 5–6   percentage points, annualized—amounting to an enormous return   differential in most circumstances over longer time periods.   Consequently, retirement savers investing only in “safe” assets must   dramatically increase their savings rates to compensate for the lower   expected returns those investments offer. ... The second strategic principle underlying our glidepath   construction—that younger investors are better able to withstand   risk—recognizes that an individual’s total net worth consists of both   their current financial holdings and their future work earnings. For   younger individuals, the majority of their ultimate retirement wealth   is in the form of what they will earn in the future, or their “human   capital.” Therefore, a large commitment to stocks in a younger   person’s portfolio may be appropriate to balance and diversify risk   exposure to work-related earnings (To the question of how the exact allocations were decided:) As part of the process of evaluating and identifying an appropriate   glide path given this theoretical framework, we ran various   financial simulations using the Vanguard Capital Markets Model. We   examined different risk-reward scenarios and the potential   implications of different glide paths and TDF approaches. The PDF is highly readable, I would say, and includes references to quant articles, for those that like that sort of thing. "A (very) simplified bond-pricing equation goes thus: Fair_Price: {Face_Value * (1 + Interest - Expected_Market_Return) ^ (Years_To_Maturity)} * P(Company_Will_Default_Before_Maturity) To reiterate, that is a very simplified model. But it allows us to demonstrate the 3 key factors that drive ""Fair"" Value: The interest relative to the current market rate. If your AAA bond yields 1%, but an equally-good AAA bond currently sells at 3% in the market, then the ""Equivalent"" value is the face value minus 2% (1% - 3%) for every year to maturity.  Years to maturity. Because 1) is multiplied for every year to maturity, longer-dated bonds are more sensitive to changes in market rates. If your bond yields 2% less than market but matures in a year, then it's worth $98, but if it matures in 56 years, then it's only worth 0.98^56 = $32. Conversely, if your bond yields more than the market rate, then its' price will be greater than face value. The company might default on the debt. If a Bond has a ""Fair"" Value of $100, but you think there's a 50% chance that the company will default, then it's only worth $50. In fact, it can be worth even less because getting paid on a defaulted bond can often take time and/or money and/or lawyers. In your case, because your bond matures in 56 years but yields ~5% (well above the current market rate), for it to be below Face value implies a strong probability of default, or a strong belief that market returns will be above 5% over the next 56 years." "In one personal finance book I read that if a company is located in a country with credit rating X it can't have credit rating better (lower - i.e. further from AAA level) than X. This is simply wrong. Real world evidence proves it wrong. Automatic Data Processing (ADP), Exxon Mobile (XOM), Johnson & Johnson (JNJ), and Microsoft (MSFT) all have a triple-A rating today, even though the United States doesn't. Toyota (TM) remained triple-A for many years even after Japanese debt was downgraded. The explanation was the following: country has rating X because risk of doing business with it is X and so risk of doing business with any company located in that country automatically can't be better than X. When reading financial literature, you should always be critical. Let's evaluate this statement. First off, a credit rating is not the ""risk of doing business."" That is way too generic. Specifically, a credit rating attempts to define an individual or company's ability to repay it's obligations. Buying treasuries constitutes as doing business with the gov't, but you can argue that buying stamps at USPS is also doing business with the gov't, and a credit rating won't affect the latter too much.  So a credit rating reflects the ability of an entity to repay it's obligations. What does the ability of a government to repay have to do with the ability of companies in that country to repay? Not much. Certainly, if a company keeps it's surplus cash all in treasuries, then downgrading the government will affect the company, but in general, the credit rating of a company determines the company's ability to pay." The 1-yr bond has a higher interest rate, but it's only guaranteed for a year. This means it is subject to reinvestment risk.  Suppose you're investing in 1981. Which sounds better? I've not looked up the precise interest rates but I'm guessing the former option leaves you with more money in 1991. It should be no surprise that investors were willing to pay more for it++, even if they couldn't have been totally sure in advance. :) (++ Remember, a bond is like a coupon for a certain percentage off of future-money. If the coupon offers you fewer percent off, you're paying more present-money for each dollar of future-money you buy.) Depending on the specific bond, here is the official info. http://www.wilmingtontrust.com/gmbondholders/index.html Bottom line, it won't be determined for a while yet, as the filing with the Bankruptcy Court still has lots of blanks. "This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-08-08/california-once-compared-to-greece-now-trading-better-than-aaa) reduced by 65%. (I'm a bot) ***** &gt; Seven years ago, California was &amp;quot;The next Greece.&amp;quot; Today, the state&amp;#039;s bonds are trading better than AAA. As the Golden State benefits from record-breaking stock prices, Silicon Valley&amp;#039;s boom and a resurgent real estate market, demand for tax-exempt debt in the state with the highest top income tax rate in the U.S. is &amp;quot;Insatiable,&amp;quot; said Nicholos Venditti, a portfolio manager for Thornburg Investment Management.  &gt; An investor Tuesday bought about $1.1 million of state general obligation bonds maturing in six years at a yield of 1.33 percent, or 4.3 basis points below AAA rated bonds with the same maturity.  &gt; If the market turns and spreads widen, investors holding California bonds may be &amp;quot;Hit disproportionately hard,&amp;quot; Venditti said.   ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/6swqdv/california_once_compared_to_greece_is_now_trading/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ ""Version 1.65, ~188113 tl;drs so far."") | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr ""PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome."") | *Top* *keywords*: **bond**^#1 **California**^#2 **Venditti**^#3 **State**^#4 **investor**^#5" Corporate bonds have gotten very complicated in the last 20 years to the point where individual investors are at significant disadvantages when lending money. Subordinated debentures, covenants, long maturities with short call features, opaque credit analysis, etc. Interest rates are so low now that investors (individual & professionals) are forced further out the risk & maturity spectrum for yield. It's a very crowded and busy street.....stay out of the traffic. Really you are better off owning a low cost bond fund that emulates the Barclays Corp/Gov index, or similar. That said, junk bonds may be useful to you if you can tolerate losing money when companies default....you've got to look in the mirror. Choose a fund that is diverse, Treasuries, agencies, corps both high and low.....and don't go for the highest yield. Perhaps something else comes with the bond so it is a convertible security. Buffett's Negative-Interest Issues Sell Well from 2002 would be an example from more than a decade ago: Warren E. Buffett's new negative-interest bonds sold rapidly   yesterday, even after the size of the offering was increased to $400   million from $250 million, with a possible offering of another $100   million to cover overallotments. The new Berkshire Hathaway securities, which were underwritten by   Goldman, Sachs at the suggestion of Mr. Buffett, Berkshire's chairman   and chief executive, pay 3 percent annual interest. But they are   coupled with five-year warrants to buy Berkshire stock at $89,585, a   15 percent premium to Berkshire's stock price Tuesday of $77,900. To   maintain the warrant, an investor is required to pay 3.75 percent each   year. That provides a net negative rate of 0.75 percent. Gundlach shared a chart that showed how investors in European “junk” bonds are willing to accept the same no-default return as they are for U.S. Treasury bonds. In other words, the yield on European “junk” bonds is about the same—between 2 percent and 3 percent—as the yield on U.S. Treasuries, even though the risk profile of the two could not be more different.  Sounds like a strong indicator to me. How might this play out in the US? There are PABs (Private Activity Bonds) for the smaller market issues, but you basically need a local government to act as the conduit issuer. There are a whole host of other requirements but it is a way to potentially get tax-exempt rates or get access to the taxables market. "In some respects the analysis for this question is similar to comparing a ""safe"" return on a government bond vs. holding the stock market. Typically, the stock market's expected return will be higher -- i.e., there's a positive equity risk premium -- vs. a government bond (assuming it's held to maturity). There's no guarantee that the stock market will outperform, although the probability of outperformance rises (some analysts argue) the longer the holding period for equities beyond, say, 10 years. That's why there's generally a positive equity risk premium, otherwise no one (or relatively few investors) would hold equities." "That depends on how you're investing in them. Trading bonds is (arguably) riskier than trading stocks (because it has a lot of the same risks associated with stocks plus interest rate and inflation risk). That's true whether it's a recession or not. Holding bonds to maturity may or may not be recession-proof (or, perhaps more accurately, ""low risk"" as argued by @DepressedDaniel), depending on what kind of bonds they are. If you own bonds in stable governments (e.g. U.S. or German bonds or bonds in certain states or municipalities) or highly stable corporations, there's a very low risk of default even in a recession. (You didn't see companies like Microsoft, Google, or Apple going under during the 2008 crash). That's absolutely not the case for all kinds of bonds, though, especially if you're concerned about systemic risk. Just because a bond looks risk-free doesn't mean that it actually is - look how many AAA-rated securities went under during the 2008 recession. And many companies (CIT, Lehman Brothers) went bankrupt outright. To assess your exposure to risk, you have to look at a lot of factors, such as the credit-worthiness of the business, how ""recession-proof"" their product is, what kind of security or insurance you're being offered, etc. You can't even assume that bond insurance is an absolute guarantee against systemic risk - that's what got AIG into trouble, in fact. They were writing Credit Default Swaps (CDS), which are analogous to insurance on loans - basically, the seller of the CDS ""insures"" the debt (promises some kind of payment if a particular borrower defaults). When the entire credit market seized up, people naturally started asking AIG to make good on their agreement and compensate them for the loans that went bad; unfortunately, AIG didn't have the money and couldn't borrow it themselves (hence the government bailout). To address the whole issue of a company going bankrupt: it's not necessarily the case that your bonds would be completely worthless (so I disagree with the people who implied that this would be the case). They'd probably be worth a lot less than you paid for them originally, though (possibly as bad as pennies on the dollar depending on how much under water the company was). Also, depending on how long it takes to work out a deal that everyone could agree to, my understanding is that it could take a long time before you see any of your money. I think it's also possible that you'll get some of the money as equity (rather than cash) - in fact, that's how the U.S. government ended up owning a lot of Chrysler (they were Chrysler's largest lender when they went bankrupt, so the government ended up getting a lot of equity in the business as part of the settlement). Incidentally, there is a market for securities in bankrupt companies for people that don't have time to wait for the bankruptcy settlement. Naturally, people who buy securities that are in that much trouble generally expect a steep discount. To summarize:" The only issue I have is with 4).  *Caveat emptor* always applies, and even if you accept the notion that S&amp;P was *criminally* misrepresenting bond quality, Fannie/Freddie still must do their own due diligence, and so I don't think they are off the hook here.  At worst, the execs running Fannie/Freddie are also guilty of criminal collusion; at best, they are guilty of massive incompetence.