Critics on Andy Carter's Theory

One of the major disadvantages of investing in bonds is that they seem to underperform equities over the long term. This conventional wisdom is strongly expressed by Wharton finance professor Jeremy Siegel, who argues for the vast superiority of the equity markets as an investment vehicle. Siegel calculates that a dollar invested in a representative group of US stocks in 1802 would have grown to $559,000 in 1997 after adjustment for inflation (which reduced the value of the dollar to seven cents over that period). In contrast, a dollar invested in long-term government bonds, short-term bills or gold would have grown after inflation to $803, $275 and $0.84 respectively.

So while bonds are usually thought to be less risky than equities, in terms of inflation-adjusted returns, they have actually been more risky for most of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. Siegel estimates that the real return on equities over almost two hundred years was 7% a year compounded, compared to 3.5% for bonds and 2.9% for bills. What is more, the superiority of stocks grows and their riskiness falls the longer they are held: they outperform bonds and bills 60% of the time over a single year, 70% over five years, 80% over ten years and 90% over twenty years.

The credit risk of bonds is a further downside, particularly during bull markets as investors become more willing to accept risk, which tends to reduce the spread or risk premium that poorer risks pay. When the market is jolted by bad news, the spread invariably widens again dramatically, causing the poorer risks to fail. Notorious recent examples include the aftermaths of the December 1994 Mexican devaluation and the August 1998 Russian default and devaluation. The latter led to the flight to quality and widening of spreads that was such a problem for LTCM.

The old argument in favor of investing in bonds is that they provide current income and some degree of stability of capital. It is generally agreed that the shorter your investment horizon and the lower your risk tolerance, the higher the percentage of bonds you should have in your portfolio. But should the bond portion of a portfolio really be actively managed? Research suggests that professional forecasters find it difficult to beat a simple approach that always predicts that future interest rates are equal to current rates, and that after accounting for management fees, bond funds tend to underperform simple passive investment strategies.

Is the whole of active fixed-income management a fraud perpetuated by managers to increase fee income more than the gains, even if achieved, that could result? Certainly, bond markets are thought to be very efficient and fees should be examined carefully and, ideally, avoided entirely if possible. For example, it is hard to see how management can increase returns when the yield spread between thirty-year corporate bonds and thirty-year Treasuries is under 1%.

Then again, for individual investors, trading in the bond markets can be difficult since in many cases, the markets are not very transparent. While the bid-ask spread on US Treasuries is small because of the very liquid market, the spreads on corporate and foreign bonds can be as high as 56%. This is because bonds are usually traded over the counter with no real marketplace. Investors must rely on brokers who have a big incentive to give the bond seller and buyer the worst possible price in both directions as they make the difference.