Why the dollar amount of bonds in your investment portfolio matters
Asset allocation in investment planning goes beyond simple diversification or “spreading risk.” Determining an amount to invest in both stocks and bonds can form the foundation of any investment portfolio because they are “uncorrelated.” Simply put, the up or down direction of one does not determine the up or down direction of the other. This is especially important for retirees taking income from their investment portfolio.
The allocation of stocks and bonds can help reduce risk to an appropriate target.* Stocks represent ownership of a company and like a business owner, a stockholder takes on the higher risk and potentially higher reward. Bondholders, however, are lending money to the bond issuing entity (government or corporation), and therefore are due an interest payment plus a known payback amount at maturity. Lenders (bondholders) are due to be paid back before the business owners (stockholders) if things go downhill for the company. Due to this increased risk, stockholders are generally rewarded greater growth than bondholders. Bonds provide stability while stocks provide growth opportunity. It’s common to develop an investment plan based on a percentage allocation of stocks vs. bonds as this can target a preferred degree of risk. A retiree, for instance, may commonly be comfortable with a 60% stock, 40% bond allocation.
Here’s why retirees or pre-retirees may consider going beyond the percentages and evaluating the dollar amount in each of these asset classes, particularly in bonds:
Let’s say Joe is retired with $1,000,000 in investments with the aforementioned 60/40 allocation, from which he will take $40,000 each year in income. In a year that stocks are appreciating or at least neutral, Joe can easily take his income from both stocks and bonds and keep his investment plan closely aligned with his preferred 60/40 allocation. If stocks are appreciating more than bonds in that given year, which is the objective, he would actually be drawing more from stocks to keep the portfolio in balance. In that scenario, all is well. But another scenario can play out. What happens if (when) stocks decline significantly? The last thing Joe wants to do is sell stocks that are significantly depressed in value and lock in those losses. Rather, if he understands that fluctuations in stocks are merely the birth pangs of a long-term higher reward, he wants to wait out the decline and allow values to recover.
Longer timeframes reduce probabilities of negative returns. The U.S. stock market (measured here by the S&P 500 index) had negative returns 26.1% of the time (going back to 1926), but over 10-year rolling periods (January 1926 through October 2018), negative returns only occurred 5.3% of the time. Time allows for recovery. Further, diversifying stocks globally can help spread risk.
But, Joe’s immediate need is income even if he believes stocks will recover at some point. He cannot afford to take a pay decrease because stocks are down 20 to 50%. This is why the dollar amount he has in bonds is important. How many years can he sustain his income from bonds to allow stocks to recover?
This is an important question to answer when developing the investment plan, prior to the chaos of a severe market decline when emotions are high. In Joe’s case, $400,000 of bonds (and we can include cash or other conservative investments in this pool) can provide about 10 years’ worth of $40,000 per year income simply assuming bond returns keep up with the cost of living. (I prefer to look at it this way with clients because it’s simple and does the job.) If, however, we want to get more detailed, assuming a scenario of zero return on bonds and the need for a 3% per year cost of living adjustments for income, the bond allocation may last around 8 1/2 years. Either way, we can ask, “Is 10 years of income stability comfortable enough?” If more time is preferred, we can then increase the bond allocation.
Does viewing the bond allocation in dollar terms all come back to a set percentage? Yes. But, an investor, particularly a retiree, is less concerned with a risk target (i.e. 60% stock market risk) than how it affects his or her income — now and in the future.
Considering how bonds translate to income helps the investor to remember that …
Stocks are for growth
Stocks are to help outpace inflation long term
Stocks are to create long-term income sustainability
This long-term journey will indeed be filled with ups and downs for which the investor is prepared to withstand because income has been addressed.
This line of thinking creates a more informed investor. We have a portfolio that gives us choices from where to take income, and we are prepared for market downturns knowing they will happen. We’ve assigned purpose to the stocks and bonds and the critical role each play. Like any investment plan, the actual implementation (i.e. discipline) is more difficult in reality, but preparation provides a better opportunity to succeed.
*Diversification does not eliminate risk. Bonds can decrease in value.
Anthony Saffer, CFP of One Degree Advisors, Inc. helps people who are committed to connecting plans for their finances, family, and future. Learn more at: onedegreeadvisors.com.
Advisory services offered through One Degree Advisors, Inc. Securities offered through Securities America, Inc., Member FINRA/SIPC. One Degree Advisors and Securities America are separate companies.
