Register For Our Mailing List

Register to receive our free weekly newsletter including editorials.

Home / 84

Your bond questions answered

Warren Bird’s previous article, An idiot’s guide to bond funds, was written in response to a message from James, a Cuffelinks reader, who asked for an explanation of bonds in layman’s terms. This article wraps up the series, addressing the remainder of James’ questions.

Should one invest in bonds for income or capital gain?

Bond returns are income returns over time; you can speculate about short term market movements if you want, and try to time your entry to achieve capital gains, but the nature of bonds and bond funds is income returns.

Are there some bond funds that should be included in the growth section of a portfolio as opposed to the defensive?

Funds that invest in lower rated corporate bonds and high yield are more closely correlated with equity market returns and thus don't perform the same defensive role as a portfolio of Australian government bonds. But they still aren't 'growth funds' so they don't belong there. Some funds have a category for 'middle risk' or 'alternative defensive' assets that they put credit and high yield into.

Is a 70/30 split crazy when interest rates are at all time lows?

Not in my view. The concern seems to be that bonds will perform poorly when rates go up. However, just because rates are low doesn't mean they are going to go up significantly; even if they do, it means your expected future returns will ratchet up as rates go up. And equities are pretty fully valued so it's quite possible that they will fall sharply when bond rates go up.

What are the merits of passive vs active investing in bonds (it is my understanding that most bond funds have underperformed passive funds over the past ten years, much like active equities funds)?

It's not true that most bond funds have underperformed - in fact, most have outperformed passive funds. The issue for many super funds, etc is that the amount of outperformance from bonds is much less than in other asset classes, so they would rather allocate fees to seeking higher excess returns than bond managers can deliver. I think you should focus on after-fee returns and if you can get value add from any asset class you should be willing to pay for it.

Please explain these new-fangled ‘unconstrained bond funds’.

The gist is that they are funds that try to get value out of trading short term views of bond markets and sometimes equity markets, too. The specific strategies are unique to each fund and the skill set of the managers on their team.

Are they just a fad?

I gave a short response to this very question in the comments section of this piece, What’s that UBS bond benchmark in the annual statements?. I personally invest in them so I don't think they are a fad. They have a place in the risk-return spectrum.

Are they a genuine solution to the duration risk argument?

That's not the reason I would invest in them. Duration risk is worth taking - with positively sloped yield curves you get paid to take duration risk.

Have they been created in response to bond fund managers wondering where the next dollar will come from after a 30 year bull market?

No doubt that was the motivation for some of them, but since most of them were developed several years ago before talk of 'the end of the 30 year bull market' took hold, it's probably not true for the sector as a whole. A less pejorative view is that end-investor demand for more income-focussed products that weren't constrained to just bonds led to products being developed to meet that demand. I personally think that funds with duration have a place in many portfolios and I have some in my own SMSF.


Warren Bird was Co-Head of Global Fixed Interest and Credit at Colonial First State Global Asset Management. His roles now include consulting, serving as an External Member of the GESB Board Investment Committee and writing on fixed interest. His comments are general in nature and readers should seek their own professional advice before making any financial decisions.


Leave a Comment:



Busting the bond myth

Five lessons for bond investors from the Virgin collapse

How bonds may temper equity market disappointment


Most viewed in recent weeks

10 reasons wealthy homeowners shouldn't receive welfare

The RBA Governor says rising house prices are due to "the design of our taxation and social security systems". The OECD says "the prolonged boom in house prices has inflated the wealth of many pensioners without impacting their pension eligibility." What's your view?

House prices surge but falls are common and coming

We tend to forget that house prices often fall. Direct lending controls are more effective than rate rises because macroprudential limits affect the volume of money for housing leaving business rates untouched.

Survey responses on pension eligibility for wealthy homeowners

The survey drew a fantastic 2,000 responses with over 1,000 comments and polar opposite views on what is good policy. Do most people believe the home should be in the age pension asset test, and what do they say?

100 Aussies: five charts on who earns, pays and owns

Any policy decision needs to recognise who is affected by a change. It pays to check the data on who pays taxes, who owns assets and who earns the income to ensure an equitable and efficient outcome.

Three good comments from the pension asset test article

With articles on the pensions assets test read about 40,000 times, 3,500 survey responses and thousands of comments, there was a lot of great reader participation. A few comments added extra insights.

The sorry saga of housing affordability and ownership

It is hard to think of any area of widespread public concern where the same policies have been pursued for so long, in the face of such incontrovertible evidence that they have failed to achieve their objectives.

Latest Updates


The 'Contrast Principle' used by super fund test failures

Rather than compare results against APRA's benchmark, large super funds which failed the YFYS performance test are using another measure such as a CPI+ target, with more favourable results to show their members.


RBA switched rate priority on house prices versus jobs

RBA Governor, Philip Lowe, says that surging house prices are not as important as full employment, but a previous Governor, Glenn Stevens, had other priorities, putting the "elevated level of house prices" first.

Investment strategies

Disruptive innovation and the Tesla valuation debate

Two prominent fund managers with strongly opposing views and techniques. Cathie Wood thinks Tesla is going to US$3,000, Rob Arnott says it's already a bubble at US$750. They debate valuing growth and disruption.


4 key materials for batteries and 9 companies that will benefit

Four key materials are required for battery production as we head towards 30X the number of electric cars. It opens exciting opportunities for Australian companies as the country aims to become a regional hub.


Why valuation multiples fail in an exponential world

Estimating the value of a company based on a multiple of earnings is a common investment analysis technique, but it is often useless. Multiples do a poor job of valuing the best growth businesses, like Microsoft.


Five value chains driving the ‘transition winners’

The ability to adapt to change makes a company more likely to sustain today’s profitability. There are five value chains plus a focus on cashflow and asset growth that the 'transition winners' are adopting.


Halving super drawdowns helps wealthy retirees most

At the start of COVID, the Government allowed early access to super, but in a strange twist, others were permitted to leave money in tax-advantaged super for another year. It helped the wealthy and should not be repeated.



© 2021 Morningstar, Inc. All rights reserved.

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 ‘regulated financial advice’ under New Zealand law has been prepared by Morningstar Australasia Pty Ltd (ABN: 95 090 665 544, AFSL: 240892) and/or Morningstar Research Ltd, subsidiaries of Morningstar, Inc, without reference to your objectives, financial situation or needs. For more information refer to our Financial Services Guide (AU) and Financial Advice Provider Disclosure Statement (NZ). 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.