Where can I find information on corporate bonds (especially those rated as “junk”) ?
Bond information is much tougher to get.  Try to find access to a Bloomberg terminal.  Maybe you have a broker that can do the research for you, maybe your local university has one in their business school, maybe you know someone that works for a bank/financial institution or some other type of news outlet.   Part of the reason for the difference in ease of access to information is that bond markets are dominated by institutional investors.  A $100 million bond issues might be 90% owned by 10-20 investors (banks, insurance co's, mutual funds, etc.) that will hold the bonds to maturity and the bonds might trade a few times a month/year.  On the other hand a similar equity offering may have several hundred or thousand owners with daily trading, especially if it's included in an active stock index. That being said, you can get some information on Fidelity's website if you have an account, but I think their junk data is limited.  Good luck with the hunt.
As I'm sure you are reading in Hull's classic, the basic valuation of bonds depends on the chance of entity defaulting on those bonds.  Let's start with just looking at the US.  The United States has a big advantage over corporations in issuing debt as it also prints the same currency that the debt is denominated in.  This makes it much easier not to default on your debt as you can always print more money to pay it.  Printing too much currency would cause inflation lowering the value of debt, but this would also lower the value of US corporate debt as well.  So you can think of even the highest rated corporate bonds as having the same rate as government debt plus a little extra due to the additional default risk of the corporation. The situation with other AA rated governments is more complicated.  Most of those governments have debt denominated in their local currency as well so it may seem like they should all have similar rates.  However, some governments have higher and some actually have lower rates than the United States.  Now, as above, some of the difference is due to the possible need of printing too much currency to cover the debt in crisis and now that we have more than one country to invest in the extra risk of international money flowing out of the country's bonds. However, the bigger difference between AA governments rates depends more on money flow, central banks and regulation.  Bonds are still mostly freely traded instruments that respond to supply and demand, but this supply and demand is heavily influenced by governments.  Central banks buy up large portions of the debt raising demand and lowering rates.  Regulators force banks to hold a certain amount of treasuries perhaps inflating demand. Finally, to answer your question the United States has some interesting advantages partially just due to its long history of stability, controlled inflation and large economy making treasuries valuable as one of the lowest risk investments.  So its rates are generally on the low end, but government manipulation can still mean that it is not necessarily the lowest. Multiple overlapping indices exist covering various investment universes.  Almost all of the widely followed indices were originally created by Lehman Brothers and are now maintained by Barclays.  The broadest U.S. dollar based bond index is known as the Universal.  The Aggregate (often abbreviated Agg), which is historically the most popular index, more or less includes all bonds in the Universal rated investment grade.  The direct analog to the S&P 500 would be the U.S. Corporate Investment Grade index, which is tracked by the ETF LQD, and contains exactly what it sounds like. Citigroup (formerly Salomon Brothers) also has a competitor index to the Aggregate known as Broad Investment Grade (BIG), and Merrill Lynch (now Bank of America) has the Domestic Master. Multiple other indices also exist covering other bond markets, such as international (non-USD) bonds, tax-exempts (municipal bonds), securitized products, floating rate, etc. Short-term to intermediate-term corporate bond funds are available. The bond fund vehicle helps manage the credit risk, while the short terms help manage inflation and interest rate risk. Corporate bond funds will have fewer Treasuries bonds than a general-purpose short-term bond fund: it sounds like you're interested in things further out along the risk curve than a 0.48% return on a 5-year bond, and thus don't care for the Treasuries. Corporate bonds are generally safer than stocks because, in bankruptcy, all your bondholders have to be paid in full before any equity-holders get a penny. Stocks are much more volatile, since they're essentially worth the value of their profits after paying all their debt, taxes, and other expenses.  As far as stocks are concerned, they're not very good for the short term at all. One of the stabler stock funds would be something like the Vanguard Equity Income Fund, and it cautions: This fund is designed to provide investors with an above-average level   of current income while offering exposure to the stock market. Since   the fund typically invests in companies that are dedicated to   consistently paying dividends, it may have a higher yield than other   Vanguard stock mutual funds. The fund’s emphasis on slower-growing,   higher-yielding companies can also mean that its total return may not   be as strong in a significant bull market. This income-focused fund   may be appropriate for investors who have a long-term investment goal   and a tolerance for stock market volatility. Even the large-cap stable companies can have their value fall dramatically in the short term. Look at its price chart; 2008 was brutal. Avoid stocks if you need to spend your money within a couple of years. Whatever you choose, read the prospectus to understand the risks. "A junk bond is, broadly, a bond with a non-negligible risk of default.  (""Bond"" ought to be defined elsewhere, but broadly it's a financial instrument you buy from a company or government, where they promise to pay you back the principal and some interest over time, on a particular schedule.) The name ""junk"" is a bit exaggerated: many of them are issued by respectable and reasonably stable businesses. junk bonds were required to do large leveraged buyouts.  This means: the company issued fairly risky, fairly high-yield debt, to buy out equity holders.  They have to pay a high rate on the debt because the company's now fairly highly geared (ie has a lot of debt relative to its value) and it may have to pay out a large fraction of its earnings as interest. What is a junk bond and how does it differ from a regular bond?  It's only a matter of degree and nomenclature.  A bond that has a credit rating below a particular level (eg S&P BBB-) is called junk, or more politely ""non-investment grade"" or ""speculative"".  It's possible for an existing bond to be reclassified from one side to another, or for a single issuer to have different series some of which are more risky than others.  The higher the perceived risk, the more interest the bond must pay offer in order to attract lenders. Why is there higher risk/chance of default? Well, why would a company be considered at higher risk of failing to repay its debt?  Basically it comes down to doubt about the company's future earnings being sufficient to repay its debt, which could be for example:" If an accounting firm had constant errors and was wrong over 50% of the time about the books how would that go about?  As a former bond trader, I would rarely look at the ratings.... CDS was most useful when applicable, and if not spread to the closest benchmark/sectoral average. "This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-05-25/investors-say-it-s-time-to-price-climate-into-cities-bond-risks) reduced by 95%. (I'm a bot) ***** &gt; Municipal defaults are rare: Moody&amp;#039;s reports fewer than 100 defaults by municipal borrowers it rated between 1970 and 2014.  &gt; Kurt Forsgren, a managing director at S&amp;P, said its municipal ratings remain &amp;quot;Largely driven by financial performance.&amp;quot; He said the company was looking for ways to account for climate change in ratings, including through a city&amp;#039;s ability to access insurance.  &gt; Laskey, of Fitch, was skeptical that rating companies could or should account for climate risk in municipal ratings.   ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/6ejcgp/rising_seas_may_wipe_out_these_jersey_towns_but/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ ""Version 1.65, ~133538 tl;drs so far."") | [Theory](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31bfht/theory_autotldr_concept/) | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr ""PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome."") | *Top* *keywords*: **rated**^#1 **climate**^#2 **risk**^#3 **bond**^#4 **change**^#5" Here is one the links for Goldmansachs. Not to state the obvious, but most of their research is only available to their clients. http://www.goldmansachs.com/research/equity_ratings.html The informational goal about the ratings is an objective opinion about the companies ability to repay the money owed.  Debt rating agencies even provide tables where grades correspond to a range of default probabilities.  The argument I am making is they do not go about their business of giving accurate probabilities of default. Well keep in mind until the 2007ish housing crash Fannie and Freddie MADE money, they received no help from the federal gov't. The whole idea of the secondary mortgage market was to keep money flowing to home buyers and everyone who bought a home benefited (via rates a few points lower than if banks had to keep all the capital on hand to back all the loans)  Both these institutions worked well for about 40 years, the criminality here was that ratings agency rated these bonds as AAA, when in fact they were junk, that's who failed in their due diligence and really should be held accountable. (as if they were rated junk, the banks would have no one to buy them except at junk bond interest rates, meaning they wouldn't have made these loans to people who couldn't really afford houses.) The rating agencies were *supposed* to be neutral evaluators of the debt, and instead they essentially took what amounts to bribes from the banks to rate them highly. "Quote from the article: ""The banks achieved this gigantic rip-off by secretly colluding to rig the public bids on municipal bonds, a business worth $3.7 trillion.""  Please explain to me how you read that and why you think it is correct. Does it read as the banks made 3.7T? Are the values of the banks 3.7T? Did they steal 3.7T? Did the bonds return 3.7T? Or is it just that the total value of the bonds over many, many more years than this entire fraud took place total to 3.7, including the value that really was owned by bond holders and had nothing to do with the profits or theft?  (Hint #1: 3.7 trillion is not the worth of *any* of those businesses, not even the sum of all their market caps probably reaches that value. Hint #2: Matt Taibbi is smart enough to know this, yet writes it that way anyways because sloppy thinkers will buy his crap, find that the value of an entire class of assets is 3.7T, even though it is not the value of any business. It's like saying Citibank is worth the sum of all the deposits it holds, when that is nonsense)." "This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](http://voxeu.org/article/credit-growth-and-global-crisis-new-narrative) reduced by 96%. (I'm a bot) ***** &gt; In a new paper, we also examine the evolution of mortgage debt and defaults during the credit boom and throughout the financial crisis and its aftermath, using individual-level data from the Federal Reserve Bank of New York Consumer Credit Panel.  &gt; While borrowers with low credit scores typically had higher default rates than those with higher credit scores, default rates for borrowers with higher credit scores rose substantially during the financial crisis.  &gt; The investor share of new delinquencies was close to 15% for all credit score quartiles throughout the credit boom and increases to 25%, 35% and 40% between 2006 and 2009 for credit score quartiles 2-4, respectively.   ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/74jwyc/credit_growth_and_the_global_crisis_a_new/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ ""Version 1.65, ~222899 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*: **credit**^#1 **score**^#2 **borrower**^#3 **quartile**^#4 **Mortgage**^#5" "For real. AAA treasury bonds are used a safe investment vehicle for the reason of ""its the US government, its safe"", which is pretty similar to the ""dude, who doesnt pay their mortgage?!"" line of thinking.      You got people dumping money into these derivatives and suddenly someone goes ""oh yeah you just bought a bunch of bad debt that should be rated 'junk'. Oops.""" "You ask a question, ""Is there any real purpose in purchasing bonds?"" and then appear to go off on a rant. Before the question is closed by members here, let me offer this:  This chart reflects the 10 year bond rate. From 1960-2004 (give or take) the coupon rate was over 4%. Asset allocation suggests a mix of stocks and bonds seeking to avoid the risk of having ""all of one's eggs in one basket."" To that end, the simplest approach is a stock/bond mix. Over time, a 70/30 mix provides nearly 95% of the long tern return, but with a much lower volatility.  I'm not going to suggest that a 2% 10 year bond is an exciting investment, but bonds may have a place in one's portfolio. I'm not going to debate each and every point you attempted, but #5 is especially questionable. If you feel this is true, you should short bonds. Or you should at least 99% of the time. Do you have data to back up this statement?" "Google Finance and Yahoo! Finance would be a couple of sites you could use to look at rather broad market information.  This would include the major US stock markets like the Dow, Nasdaq, S & P 500 though also bond yields, gold and oil can also be useful as depending on which area one works the specifics of what are important could vary.  If you were working at a well-known bond firm, I'd suspect that various bond benchmarks are likely to be known and watched rather than stock indices. Something else to consider here is what constitutes a ""finance practitioner"" as I'd imagine several accountants and actuaries may not watch the market yet there could be several software developers working at hedge funds that do so that it isn't just a case of what kind of work but also what does the company do." "Thanks!  I came across many books on credit risk in my google searches - what I'm really looking for is which one is the ""industry standard"" reading (does that make sense?). For example, in derivatives, everybody recommends John C. Hull's Options... book. Why of all the CRM books, do you recommend those three in particular?"