Does
an Investor Who is Younger than 40 Need Bonds?
Page
2
With less
risk in bonds, there are certain periods of time when investors
flock to bonds and reduce their stock investments. I am not saying
that this is what will happen, but based on history it could happen.
Therefore, why not position at least a portion of your portfolio
for this event?
Furthermore,
there is a widespread belief that stocks are overvalued. There are
many arguments that discuss a "New Economy" and why stocks really
aren't overvalued. I believe that at least some of this might be
true. Having said that, is there still a strong likelihood that
stocks will perform the way they have in recent years? A look at
history suggests that this is unlikely.
One look
at the graph below will show that as the Price to Earnings ratio
(a measure of how expensive the stock market is) increases, the
ensuing 10 years generate lower returns. When the stock market is
expensive and you buy at high prices you guarantee yourself lower
performance. When you buy at low prices, you're more likely to generate
a higher return.
Therefore,
with the stock market at a record P/E ratio, is there really a great
reward for completely ignoring bonds? Given their lower risk and
the fact that they have outperformed stocks during certain periods
of time, I think that bonds should become at least a part of your
portfolio.
Julia
Curbo manages Portfolios
101, a web site dedicated to portfolio management, personal
finance, and retirement planning.
06/22/00
<<Previous
Printer
Friendly Page