First off, to lump all fixed income investments together as "bonds" is asinine and reveals an oversimplified bias among the pundits who hold this view. There are a large number of professional investors and amateurs actively shorting the U.S. Treasury market which *may* bias their viewpoint...
Different kinds of bonds
Bonds are delineated based on their level of risk. The "risk free" rate is defined as short-term U.S. Treasury bills (30,60,90 day) which are deemed essentially the closest electronic equivalent to cash (i.e. paper currency). Out from there, you have various maturities of Federal Government bonds up to 30 years. These bonds are deemed equally safe from a default standpoint, however, these carry duration risk also known as purchasing power risk - the risk that inflation (prices) will increase, causing the value of the bond to be reduced and inducing a capital loss. The longer the term of the bond, the more volatile the price, so 30 year bonds are much more volatile than 2 year bonds.
Meanwhile "spread product" are fixed income investments that are deemed to carry default risk, hence they typically have yields that are above Treasury yields of a similar duration hence they have a risk premium aka. "spread" over Treasuries. Spread products include Corporate bonds (both investment grade and junk bonds), Municipal bonds and Mortgage Backed Securities (MBS). To the extent that these risk spreads have been narrowing substantially over the past year, one could argue that "spread products" are in fact overvalued relative to their historic spreads over Treasuries.
This is all very academic, so far. So here is my take on things:
1) Most/all risk bonds (Corporates, Munis, MBS) ARE overvalued although I would not call it a speculative bubble, since investors are hardly frothing at the mouth when envisioning yields of 4% on their bond portfolios i.e. there is no comparison here to the Nasdaq in 2000. The reason, I believe, that these types of bonds are overvalued is because investors are shunning risk after a decade of losses from stocks, housing, commodities and therefore seeking return of capital vs. return on capital. Meanwhile, exacerbating the situation is that the average investor does not fully understand the risk apparent to these types of investments and/or may not have access to Treasury-only investments. Many company 401k (retirement) plans have very limited investment options and offer some sort of "fixed income" option that usually includes a blend of Treasuries, Corporates, Munis and MBSs. Based on my own anecdotal experience at several companies, I doubt the average retirement plan investor has access to a pure Treasury-only bond fund.
Worse yet, many retirement funds offer an enticingly safe "Money market" fund, which we have all been led to believe are cash-like investments. Here again, however, these are short-term funds that typically include a blend of Corporate and Treasury short-term bills. Back in 2008 there was a great panic over the fact that several of these "money market" funds lost money ("broke the buck") wherein the Net Asset Value (NAV) of the fund fell below the benchmark $1/share. The Federal Government stepped in to insure money market funds, to avoid panic withdrawals, however this program had limited funding and has now since expired.
To the extent that these Spread/Risk bonds are overvalued, I still think that these investments are much safer than stocks and commodities; however, in the type of deflationary collapse that I am envisioning, losses on a typical blended "fixed income" fund could exceed 50% depending on the blend of bonds in the portfolio (Treasuries v.s. risk bonds).
Are Treasuries in a Bubble?
When pundits pose the question are bonds in a bubble, they are usually referring specifically to Treasuries, which as we know have been skyrocketing in price of late (yields falling). The answer to this question is again subjective, and depends on whether or not one believes we are heading for pervasive economic/price deflation. During Japan's deflation of the past 20 years, Japanese Government 10-year bonds yields have dipped below 1% several times. By comparison, the U.S. 10-year bond currently yields 2.65% so there is potentially still a lot of room to fall. What about the massive U.S. fiscal deficit and Quantitative Easing (QE)? Here again, it's a question of timing and sequence of events. If Japanese Government bonds can yield less than 1% despite the Japanese debt being ~ 200% of GDP, then surely U.S. Government bonds could hit the same level given that U.S. public debt is "only" ~100% of GDP (depending on whose figures you use...). Meanwhile inflation is quiescent and trending down, despite QE round 1. In addition, in a flight to quality scenario we should expect the dollar to strengthen (as it did in 2008 and has been recently) and institutional investors to invest those dollar inflows into Treasuries.
Some (EWI and others) argue that it's better to invest in short-term Treasuries v.s. long-term due to price volatility inherent in the latter. I personally think a mix is appropriate, because similar to 2008, yields on short-term Treasuries are now approaching 0% and therefore those seeking refuge in the short end of the curve will soon have the distinct pleasure of paying the Government to borrow your money - i.e. rollover risk. This EWI notion that prices (inflation) will crater, the dollar will soar, but long-term Treasury yields will rise is totally speculative and ignores the direct causal connection between dollar inflows and Treasury prices. Contrary to some belief, taking $400 cash increments from an ATM machine is not an institutional option i.e. there is no other "low risk"/highly liquid option for someone moving billions of dollars around.
In addition, institutional investors who are paid based on performance tend not to invest in non-yielding/negative yielding investments...go figure.
Ultimately, whether or not one deems Treasuries to be a "safe haven" depends on your inflationary/deflationary outlook and also the risk of the U.S. Government outright defaulting on its debt in the near-term (2-3 year) time period. I think given the proven propensity for the Federal Reserve to outright buy Treasury debt (Quanititative Easing), then the chance of default is de minimis, as all of the debt is denominated in dollars and the Fed owns the printing press. More to the point, what is the alternative? Gold perhaps is an alternative, if you believe gold prices will hold up through extreme price deflation i.e. for gold to hold its value against dollars it would actually be gaining in value relative to other commodities/assets, since in deflation by definition, the dollar would be gaining in value. I am not betting on it, but that could happen, so some amount of gold is always advisable. Another option may be Swiss Francs, however that country's banks have huge exposure to loans made to Eastern European countries.
The vast majority of ALL other types of financial assets regardless of which country, pose EXTREME LEVELS of counter-party default risk in a deflationary depression.
The other day, Jeremy Siegel, Professor of Finance at Wharton was on CNBC debating this "Are Bonds in a Bubble" issue with Tony Crescenzi of Pimco. At one point, Siegel said the dumbest and most astounding thing I have heard anyone say in the longest time, let alone a Professor of Finance. He said that investors who buy bond funds (v.s. individual bonds) in a rising interest rate environment lock in their losses permanently, because the bond fund is constantly rolling over its maturing investments i.e. the reason you buy a bond fund in the first place. Uh, repeat that please? Professor of what? The sins of stupidity here are many: First off, he didn't bother to mention that the bond fund would be rolling over at ever-higher rates of return which is what you would presumably want to do with your money as interest rates rise. Secondly, he never mentioned that ALL financial assets tend to do poorly in a high inflation environment (to wit stocks in the 1970s). Thirdly, as Tony Crescenzi all too meakly pointed out, these are mark to market investments that trade every day i.e. no one is forcing you to hold these investments forever. If you believe that interest rates are rising, then SELL NOW (i.e. reduce your duration)! His greatest failure however, especially as a Professor of Finance, was to not factor in purchasing power and opportunity cost risk, because while it's technically true that an investor who holds individual bonds (as an alternative to a bond fund) through maturity never has to realize a capital loss, so what? Garnering a 2% return for 30 years straight implies huge loss of purchasing power when the market return is 20% and inflation is running at 18%.
For those who want to protect their assets via Treasuries, the easiest way is to buy a Treasury bond mutual fund or buy the Treasury ETFs in a brokerage account. If your 401k retirement account does not offer a Treasury bond fund, then you may be able to use a "self-directed" account to buy the Treasury ETFs below. If none of these options is available, then you are still better off parked in a Money Market fund and pray Uncle Sam reinstates the insurance plan from 2008, when the shit hits the fan.
The Treasury ETFs:
SHY: 1-3 year maturities
IEI: 3-7 year (probably the best compromise between long and short-term)
IEF: 7-10 year
TLT: 20+ year (most volatile/speculative, but most upside if yields fall)
IEI: 3-7 year (probably the best compromise between long and short-term)
IEF: 7-10 year
TLT: 20+ year (most volatile/speculative, but most upside if yields fall)
