Register For Our Mailing List

Register to receive our free weekly newsletter including editorials.

Home / 298

Briefly, on the role of government bonds

The recent article by Paul Chin advocated a role for government bonds in a diversified portfolio at all times.

I’m more in the ‘against’ camp than the ‘for’ camp. I disagree that government bonds should always play a role in a diversified portfolio. It’s too long a bow to draw for one of the lowest-yielding asset classes. In another article on government bonds, Jonathan Rochford makes a good point that the cost of gaining this diversification is too great if it has to be obtained by owning an asset class that delivers a low return over time.

The role of government bonds in some portfolios

I advocate holding government bonds if there’s a particular requirement for the security and liquidity and a specific investment need. For example:

  • Insurance companies need funds maturing at various dates in the future, with absolute certainty about the value of the asset that matures
  • Banks need high quality liquid assets to meet unexpected levels of withdrawals and as part of managing their capital adequacy
  • Central banks hold foreign exchange reserves on behalf of their government
  • Super funds that have a reasonable allocation to illiquid assets could hold government bonds to help them to meet redemptions quickly and easily

The sweeping arguments about government bonds don’t specify properly what segment of the market is being analysed. For example, the return quoted in Paul's article of 5.1% contrasted with the experience of some investors who achieved only 2% from the asset class in 2018.

It’s easy to guess how the return difference came about. These are the possibilities:

  • The return quoted in the article was from an ‘all maturities’ index. Investors in a fund that focuses on shorter term, lower duration bonds received a smaller return. For example, a fund limited to securities with maturity not longer than 10 years returned around 1% less than the 'all maturities' market. Shorter maturities were returned lesser. Further, deduct an active management fee and you could easily be as low as 2% for your return last year.

  • Another possibility is that some investors were in an actively-managed 'all maturities' fund in which the manager expected yields to rise during 2018 and so had positioned the fund in shorter term bonds. Such a strategy would miss a chunk of the capital gains on offer.

Owning ‘government bonds’ doesn’t, in itself, deliver the degree of diversification benefits claimed in Paul's essay. The portfolio needed a reasonable holding of longer-term bonds that enjoyed some capital gains. Short-term government bonds really only give downside protection. Of course, in a year in which domestic shares delivered a negative return, even +2% provided some ‘diversification’. But a corporate bond portfolio also did that with better returns over the medium to long term.

A couple of other comments on Paul’s article

Paul’s chart showed returns from global government bonds in 2018 of +13.7%. One comment correctly pointed out that this would have been from unhedged global bonds, therefore most of the return came from currency gains rather than from bonds as such. Currency is also a diversifier and may well be the better diversifier for Australian investors to rely on, than our own government bonds.

Another comment said Paul's argument only works when inflation is falling, claiming that this is why bond returns have been strong for 'the past 30 years'. I'll simply point out here that falling inflation led to lower bond yields which have reduced bond returns, not bolstered them. Lower yields deliver capital gains only in the short term, but ultimately bonds are all about income. The last 30-year period started with high yields and high returns, but that was because of high inflation in the 1970s, not because of falling inflation in the 1990s and since.

In any case, you don’t need to create stories about the macroenvironment to predict that Australian government bond returns will be low over the next several years at least. We know it from their yields. The 5- to 10-year Commonwealth bonds are now paying investors only around 2%. So, over the next 5-10 years, that will be their average annual return. If yields do rise, then those returns will gradually increase as well.

 

Warren Bird is Executive Director of Uniting Financial Services, a division of the Uniting Church (NSW & ACT). He has 30 years’ experience in fixed income investing. He also serves as an Independent Member of the GESB Investment Committee. These are Warren’s personal views and don’t necessarily reflect those of any organisation for which he works.

RELATED ARTICLES

One last hurrah for the 60/40 portfolio?

Are debt and its servicing cost serious worries?

Why investors buy bonds at negative yields

banner

Most viewed in recent weeks

Five ways the Retirement Review points to new policies

The Retirement Income Review goes much further than an innocent-sounding 'fact base', and is sure to guide policies in the run up to the next election. It will change how we think about retirement incomes.

Graeme Shaw on why investing is at a pivotal moment

Company profits have not improved for many years but higher valuations have been driven by falling rates and excess liquidity. Conditions do not suit a value and contrarian manager but here are some opportunities.

Retirement Review gives strong views on hoarding of super

The Review includes some profound findings, most notable that retirement income should include drawing down far more capital. Expect post-retirement products to proliferate under a Retirement Income Covenant.

11 key findings on retirement dreams during the pandemic

A mid-pandemic survey of over 1,000 people near or in retirement found three in four are not confident how long their money will last. Only 18% felt their money was safe during a strong economic downturn.

Bank scorecard 2020: when will the mojo return?

Banks severely cut dividends in 2020 but are expected to improve payments in 2021. History provides clues to when the banks will return to their 2019 levels of profitability, but who is positioned the best?

Generational wealth transfers will affect all investors

It's not only that 60 is the new 40, but 80 is the new 60. Many Baby Boomers spend up in retirement and are less inclined to leave a nest egg to their children. The ways wealth transfers will affect all investors.

Latest Updates

Shares

Hamish Douglass on big tech and life after COVID

On the sidelines of the Morningstar Conference, the Magellan co-founder reflects on the pandemic and which sectors are set to gain and lose. He says we were lucky the pandemic hit when it did (videos and transcripts).

Superannuation

Cost of running an SMSF receives updated judgement

Administration costs can rise for complexity, especially owning property in an SMSF, but fees are highly competitive from a wide range of service providers. The break-even cost is less than previously reported.

SMSF strategies

Three areas SMSFs should consider outsourcing

SMSF trustees often cite ‘control of my investments’ as the number one motivation for setting up their own fund. But it still makes sense to outsource some parts of a well-diversified portfolio.

Retirement

Apparently, retirees should learn to SKI

The Retirement Income Review demonstrated limited understanding of the risks faced by self-funded retirees implementing rational human behaviour. Spending to qualify for the age pension is not a solution.

Retirement

7-point checklist for managing the uncertain timing of death

Average life expectancies are a weak predictor of individual outcomes, and it's better to consider a range of probable lifespans. A plan that lasts to the average will disappoint every second retiree.

Exchange traded products

'Quality' ETFs under the microscope

Interest in 'quality' factor ETFs has increased this year, helped by very attractive returns. However, not all ETFs are created alike and there are divergences in portfolio traits which investors can identify.

Shares

Is growth of zombie companies real or fiction?

Much has been written about the rise of 'zombie firms' which should have gone bankrupt, but new research should be comforting to economists and investors alike, with focus on a particular segment.

Sponsors

Alliances

© 2020 Morningstar, Inc. All rights reserved.

Disclaimer
The data, research and opinions provided here are for information purposes; are not an offer to buy or sell a security; and are not warranted to be correct, complete or accurate. Morningstar, its affiliates, and third party content providers are not responsible for any investment decisions, damages or losses resulting from, or related to, the data and analyses or their use.
Any general advice or class service prepared by Morningstar Australasia Pty Ltd (ABN: 95 090 665 544, AFSL: 240892) and/or Morningstar Research Ltd, subsidiaries of Morningstar, Inc, has been prepared by without reference to your objectives, financial situation or needs. Refer to our Financial Services Guide (FSG) for more information. You should consider the advice in light of these matters and if applicable, the relevant Product Disclosure Statement before making any decision to invest. Past performance does not necessarily indicate a financial product’s future performance. To obtain advice tailored to your situation, contact a professional financial adviser. Articles are current as at date of publication.
This website contains information and opinions provided by third parties. Inclusion of this information does not necessarily represent Morningstar’s positions, strategies or opinions and should not be considered an endorsement by Morningstar.

Website Development by Master Publisher.