Challenging ShinyThing assumptions.

Mecisteus

Great Supremacy Member
Joined
Jun 16, 2002
Messages
55,142
Reaction score
11,841
I'd agree with Ironmac, of you think stocks are right then you should go stocks all the way. If you think now is not a good time to buy stocks, you should stay fully away. Why go halfway neither here nor there?

Neither 100% nor 0% stocks is wise.
 

limster

Arch-Supremacy Member
Joined
Oct 31, 2000
Messages
12,945
Reaction score
3,912
Let's replace bonds with cash. Bonds these days are a huge bubble and can implode worse than stocks. So you must be stocks + cash.

You are willing to buy shares of a company but not its bonds?
 

revhappy

Arch-Supremacy Member
Joined
Mar 19, 2012
Messages
12,208
Reaction score
2,669

limster

Arch-Supremacy Member
Joined
Oct 31, 2000
Messages
12,945
Reaction score
3,912

Shiny Things

Supremacy Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2009
Messages
9,590
Reaction score
830
Is it possible to do a monte carlo scenario of someone only starting to buy right after a crash, holding it for 10 years, selling it and going 100% bonds until the next crash and the market has gone up 10%?

Do it yourself; that's why I put the code up there. Make sure you define "crash" carefully.
 

revhappy

Arch-Supremacy Member
Joined
Mar 19, 2012
Messages
12,208
Reaction score
2,669
you do know you are quoting a 2015 news article? :s13:

I thot you said they are a huge bubble these days. If 2015 was a bubble then now the bubble has deflated? So if yield is positive, are you saying that Nestle bond riskier than Nestle share?

When I said bonds are riskier than stocks it was a general statment. You asked me to give an example of company where I will buy stock but not bond, so I gave you example of nestle.

Bonds come in many varieties, long duration, short duration, high yeild, sovereign etc In general now with rates set to rise from extraordinarily low levels from crisis times, bonds are set to fall. But stocks may not fall as the initial rate hikes will be stimulatory for the economy and the companies earnings, especially banks. Let me know if I am wrong.
 

Shiny Things

Supremacy Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2009
Messages
9,590
Reaction score
830
Let's replace bonds with cash. Bonds these days are a huge bubble and can implode worse than stocks. So you must be stocks + cash.

Which bonds are a "bubble" exactly - dollar bonds, EM, govvies, corporates, high yield? What's going to be the driver for a significant backup in yields?

I'm not ripping on you specifically mate, I'm just trying to point out that generalisations like "bonds are a bubble" aren't useful.
 

Shiny Things

Supremacy Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2009
Messages
9,590
Reaction score
830
Bonds come in many varieties, long duration, short duration, high yeild, sovereign etc In general now with rates set to rise from extraordinarily low levels from crisis times, bonds are set to fall.

This is not necessarily true. To be fair, I thought the same way a few years back! I was convinced that once the Fed started to hike, the longer end of the curve (10s and 30s) would drift toward higher yields... but that's not what happened. Since the Fed started hiking in December 2015, US 10s have gone from 2.2% to 1.4% to... 2.2%.

What ended up happening was that the US curve flattened sharply; front-end yields drifted higher as the Fed hiked, but the back end stayed rangebound because bond traders were confident that the terminal rate (the rate when the Fed stops hiking) would be somewhere in the high-2s / low-3s.

If the US economy really starts to rally, and people move their expectations of the terminal rate higher, then we might see bond yields drop. But at the moment, I really don't think there's a lot of scope for (US) bond markets to collapse

(Japanese and European bonds are another matter.)
 

revhappy

Arch-Supremacy Member
Joined
Mar 19, 2012
Messages
12,208
Reaction score
2,669
This is not necessarily true. To be fair, I thought the same way a few years back! I was convinced that once the Fed started to hike, the longer end of the curve (10s and 30s) would drift toward higher yields... but that's not what happened. Since the Fed started hiking in December 2015, US 10s have gone from 2.2% to 1.4% to... 2.2%.

What ended up happening was that the US curve flattened sharply; front-end yields drifted higher as the Fed hiked, but the back end stayed rangebound because bond traders were confident that the terminal rate (the rate when the Fed stops hiking) would be somewhere in the high-2s / low-3s.

If the US economy really starts to rally, and people move their expectations of the terminal rate higher, then we might see bond yields drop. But at the moment, I really don't think there's a lot of scope for (US) bond markets to collapse

(Japanese and European bonds are another matter.)
Thanks, that makes sense.

Sent from Xiaomi REDMI NOTE 4 using GAGT
 
Important Forum Advisory Note
This forum is moderated by volunteer moderators who will react only to members' feedback on posts. Moderators are not employees or representatives of HWZ Forums. Forum members and moderators are responsible for their own posts. Please refer to our Community Guidelines and Standards and Terms and Conditions for more information.
Top