ON AIR NOW

LISTEN NOW

Weather

cloudy-day
68°
Mostly Cloudy
H 83° L 64°
  • cloudy-day
    68°
    Current Conditions
    Mostly Cloudy. H 83° L 64°
  • cloudy-day
    82°
    Afternoon
    Mostly Cloudy. H 83° L 64°
  • clear-night
    75°
    Evening
    Mostly Clear. H 83° L 64°
LISTEN
PAUSE
ERROR

The latest newscast

00:00 | 00:00

LISTEN
PAUSE
ERROR

The latest traffic report

00:00 | 00:00

LISTEN
PAUSE
ERROR

The latest forecast

00:00 | 00:00

Business
Even 'safe' bond investments falter as markets tumble
Close

Even 'safe' bond investments falter as markets tumble

Even 'safe' bond investments falter as markets tumble
Photo Credit: AP Photo/Richard Drew
Specialist Jay Woods works at his post on the floor of the New York Stock Exchange, Friday, Feb. 9, 2018, as the chart behind him shows the day's Dow Jones industrial average volatility. (AP Photo/Richard Drew)

Even 'safe' bond investments falter as markets tumble

The stock market isn't the only thing dropping. Bonds, which are supposed to be the safe part of every investor's portfolio, have faltered, too.

In what's been a rude awakening for some investors, bond funds have lost ground these past couple of weeks, unlike in past downturns for stocks. What's different this time is that the same things undercutting stocks are hurting bond prices: worries about inflation and the possibility of much higher interest rates.

Bond losses have been more modest than the setback for stocks, but more may be on the way. And swings in bond prices are likely to become more common than in recent years, when returns were unusually smooth, experts say.

Nevertheless, experts are sticking with the mantra that bonds will be safer than stocks and that investors can continue to count on them as a stabilizing force for their portfolios.

Ken Mahoney, president of Mahoney Asset Management, said he has been hearing from clients this week who were surprised by the struggles for bonds.

"They kind of say, 'I thought when stock prices go down, bonds go up?'" he said.

Instead, while stocks were dropping 10 percent from their record high, set on Jan. 26, the largest bond mutual fund lost 0.8 percent through Thursday.

The spark that sent markets tumbling was a report last week that showed wages in the U.S. are rising faster than expected. That raised concerns that inflation may be on the way up, which could force the Federal Reserve to increase interest rates more quickly than expected.

When the Fed raises rates, bonds typically begin paying more in interest. That's good for investors who buy those more lucrative, newly issued bonds. But the old bonds sitting in bond funds' portfolios see their prices drop, because they suddenly look less attractive than the new ones.

Inflation, meanwhile, is one of the worst enemies for bond investors, because it dilutes the value of the fixed payments that bonds make.

Even before the inflation worries flared, bond fund investors were jittery because the Fed has been slowly winding down the measures it took to stimulate the economy during the Great Recession. The Fed is raising short-term interest rates and reducing its large holdings of bonds.

Because of that, investors need to recalibrate their expectations for how steady bond funds can be, particularly after the unusually calm stretch that investors have enjoyed.

The index that many traditional bond funds measure themselves against, the Bloomberg Barclays U.S. Aggregate, has had one loss in the last eight quarters. Going back to 1980, the index has had a loss about 20 percent of the time, or one in five quarters.

"People have become quite trained on seeing only positive returns from their bond funds," said Mike Dowdall, investment strategist at BMO Global Asset Management. But he said negative returns are to be expected every now and then.

And "that's OK," he said. Bonds and bond funds are "still going to provide income, and it still makes sense to have that diversification."

Even if rates rise, experts say it's very unlikely that a bond fund would have losses as sharp as stocks are capable of. Bonds make regular interest payments, which helps steady their returns. And if a company goes bankrupt, bondholders are ahead of stock investors in the line to get their money back. U.S. government bonds, meanwhile, are considered virtually free of risk of default.

That's why bonds rallied in 2011, when stock markets around the world tumbled on worries that Europe's debt crisis would tear apart the European Union, in 2008, when the financial crisis hit its depths, and in 2000, when the dot-com bubble was bursting.

If the upcoming rise in rates is a smooth one, the increased payouts that bonds will make could help offset the drops in price that bond funds suffer and smooth out returns, said Chris Brown, a portfolio manager at T. Rowe Price.

That's why he suggests investors muddle through the volatile patches, such as the last couple of weeks where both bond and stock prices went south.

"On any given day, you might see the relationship flip on its head, where bonds go down and stocks go down," he said. "This week has been pretty topsy-turvy, but on the worst days (for stocks), you saw bonds do exactly what you thought they would do: They rallied."

The next big test for the bond and stock markets could be on Valentine's Day, when the government releases its next monthly update on inflation.

Read More
VIEW COMMENTS

There are no comments yet. Be the first to post your thoughts. or Register.

The Latest Headlines You Need To Know

  • New York University has issued a public apology and fired their director of food service after students complained that  watermelon water and cornbread the school was serving during Black History Month was racially insensitive. Student Nia Harris told CNN she noticed a sign for a Black History Month special menu in the university dining room and was stunned when saw what was actually on the menu. Ribs, collard greens, cornbread, mac and cheese, yams, and two beverages, watermelon-flavored water and red Kool-Aid.  Harris said 'I talked to the cook who told me 'black people put this menu together' and assured me that it was not racially insensitive,'  She emailed the dean of the school and NYU’s President Andrew Hamilton of the insensitive and “stereotypical” meal. She also posted the letter on her facebook page.  President Hamilton issued a statement saying in part, “We were shocked to learn of the drink and food choices that our food service provider - Aramark - offered at the Weinstein dining hall as part of Black History Month. It was inexcusably insensitive.”
  • Florida executed a man for the 1993 rape and murder of a Florida college student Thursday. Authorities say Eric Scott Branch, 47, screamed Murders, murders repeatedly as he was being put to death Thursday.  Branch was pronounced dead at 7:05 p.m. Thursday evening after a lethal injection at Florida State Prison in Starke. He was convicted in the 1993 rape and fatal beating of 21-year-old college student Susan Morris, whose body was found buried in a shallow grave. Morris was a University of  West Florida student at the time of her death.  Branch also was convicted of sexually assaulting a 14-year-old girl in Indiana,  and another sexual assault in Panama City.
  • The school resource officer at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School has resigned, according to Broward County Sheriff Scott Israel. [View the story 'Stoneman Douglas resource officer resigns after investigation' on Storify] >> Read more trending news  Follow along with our live updates as we learn more
  • Officials with the National Rifle Association on Wednesday voiced opposition to any legislation aimed at raising the minimum age needed to buy certain rifles amid a renewed gun debate following last week’s deadly school shooting in Florida. >> Read more trending news In a statement obtained by The Hill, NRA spokeswoman Jennifer Baker said the focus should be on keeping guns out of the hands of “violent criminals and the dangerously mentally ill.” “Passing a law that makes it illegal for a 20-year-old to purchase a shotgun for hunting or adult single mother from purchasing the most effective self-defense rifle on the market punishes law-abiding citizens for the evil acts of criminals,” she said. The group argued that raising the minimum age would deprive people between the ages of 18 and 20 of “their constitutional right to self-protection.” Authorities said Nikolas Cruz, the 19-year-old identified by police as the gunman in last week’s shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, legally bought the AR-15 rifle he used to gun down 14 students and three teachers. He has been charged with 17 counts of premeditated murder. >> Related: Florida school shooting: How difficult is it to purchase a gun in Florida? The current federal minimum age for buying or possessing handguns is 21, but the limit is 18 for rifles, including assault-type weapons such as the AR-15. Officials with the NRA did not address the possibility of raising the minimum age Thursday while speaking at the Conservative Political Action Conference. However, President Donald Trump endorsed the idea during a school safety discussion Thursday with state and local leaders from across the nation, The Associated Press reported. >> Related: Who is NRA head Wayne LaPierre and what did he say at the CPAC meeting? 'We're going to work on getting the age up to 21 instead of 18,' Trump said. 'The NRA will back it and so will Congress.” Sen. Jeff Flake, R-Arizona, said in a tweet Wednesday that he was working with Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-California, on a bipartisan bill to raise the minimum gun purchase age for most Americans to 21 years old. “A kid too young (to) buy a handgun should be too young to buy an #AR15,” he wrote. The Associated Press contributed to this report.
  • America’s net neutrality rules are set to end in April after the Federal Communications Commission voted to repeal them late last year, according to an order filed Thursday with the Federal Register. >> Read more trending news The repeal is set to take effect April 23, according to the order. The Republican-led FCC voted in December to repeal net neutrality rules, which aimed to stop broadband companies from exercising more control over what people watch and see on the internet. >> Related: Net neutrality vote: FCC OKs repeal of Obama-era rules The broadband industry promised that the internet experience wouldn’t change, but critics argued that the Obama-era rules were needed to prevent broadband providers like Comcast, Verizon and AT&T from having the power to censor content on the internet.  FCC Chairman Ajit Pai, who put forth the planned repeal and voted in its favor, dismissed the concerns last year. “The sky is not falling,” he said. “Consumers will remain protected and the internet will continue to thrive. … Quite simply, we are restoring the light-touch framework that has governed the internet for most of its existence.” >> Related: 5 things to know about the FCC’s net neutrality repeal Still, Thursday’s filing was expected to open the door to challengers of the decision, The Hill reported. “Now that the new rules have officially been published, net neutrality supporters are able to mount a legal challenge against them,” according to the news site. “Democratic attorneys general, public interest groups and internet companies have all promised to file lawsuits to preserve the 2015 protections.” The attorneys general of 20 states and tech companies filed suits last month to halt the repeal, according to CNN. >> Related: State attorneys general ask FCC to delay net neutrality vote Denelle Dixon, chief business and legal officer at Mozilla, wrote in a post on the tech company's blog that Mozilla refiled a challenge to the repeal 'immediately after the order was published.' 'We won't waste a minute in our fight to protect net neutrality because it's our mission to ensure the internet is a global public resource, open and accessible to all,' she wrote. 'An internet that truly puts people first, where individuals can shape their own experience and are empowered, safe and independent.' Votes fell along party lines in December, with the FCC board’s Republicans favoring the repeal and the two Democrats on the board voting against it. >> Related: New York AG investigating fraudulent net neutrality comments to FCC FCC Commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel, who voted against the repeal, said in a statement released Thursday that the FCC has “failed the American public.” “It turned a blind eye to all kinds of corruption in our public record – from Russian intervention to fake comments to stolen identities in our files,” she said. Before December’s vote, the attorneys general of nearly 20 states asked the FCC to delay its decision based on evidence that impersonators posted hundreds of thousands of fake comments on the commissions’ notice of the proposed rule change. Despite the appeal, the vote went on as scheduled. “As a result of the mess the agency created, broadband providers will now have the power to block websites, throttle services and censor online content,” Rosenworcel said. “This is not right. The FCC is on the wrong side of history and the wrong side of the law and it deserves to have its handiwork revisited, reexamined and ultimately reversed.”