Are Bonds Safe? That Depends on What ‘Safe’ Means

At least once a year, regardless of market conditions, some investment bank or another announces that it is “redefining” investing. I remember attending a presentation way back in 2019 at which a senior banker argued that, after nearly a decade of low bond yields, the standard 60/40 portfolio (60% stocks, 40% bonds) needed to be rethought. After a long song and dance, his “redefinition” amounted to putting some riskier assets in the bond portfolio to goose returns.

Now the US is in a higher-interest-rate environment, and once again there is a lot of redefining going on. One change is that it’s finally good to be a saver again. The catch is that saving isn’t quite as safe as it used to be.

Don’t get me wrong — if you were in the stock market the last 30 years, that was pretty great too, except for the financial crisis and the pandemic, and a few corrections here and there. But you could get great returns if you took on that risk. A safe portfolio, meanwhile, paid nothing — near zero interest on a bank account, money market funds, even Treasuries. It was less than nothing after you accounted for inflation. In that environment, savers had no choice: Either take on risk or lose money.

safety has a cost

A 60/40 portfolio is supposed to be a split of risky and non-risky assets. It’s a hedge that balances risk and reward. Safety costs money, in terms of forgone returns, and during the 2010s those costs were high. So if savers simply wanted to preserve their spending power, they had to take more risk. That banker from 2019 can call it whatever he wants, but all he was doing was changing the 60/40 portfolio to the 75/25 portfolio.

See more: Has the Bond Market Already Done the Fed's Job?