Why REIT prices are not going down while bonds are being hammered?
"There are five main drivers to real estate returns: Income (cash flow from rental payments); Depreciation (as an expense that can be used to reduce taxes); Equity (the gradual paydown of the mortgage the increases underlying equity in the property); Appreciation (any increase in the overall value of the property); Leverage (the impact of debt financing on the deal, increasing the effective ""cash-on-cash"" return). (Asset Rover has a detailed walk-through of the components, and a useful comparison to stocks) So interest rates are certainly a component (as they increase the expenses), but they are just one factor. Depending on a particular market's conditions, appreciation or rent increases could offset or (exceed) any increase in the interest expense. My own experience is mostly with non-listed REITs (including Reg A+ investments like the ones from Fundrise) and commercial syndicates, and for right now in both cases there's plenty of capital chasing yield to go around (and in fact competition among new funding sources like Reg D and Reg A+ platforms seems to be driving down borrowing rates as platforms compete both for borrowers and for investors). Personally I pay more attention to where each local market (and the broader national market) is along the ~18-year real estate cycle (spoiler: the last trough was 2008...). Dividend Capital puts out a quarterly report that's super useful." I don't like REITs because they are more closely correlated to the movement of the stock market. They don't really do the job of diversifying a portfolio because of that correlation.  When the stock market dropped in 2008, REITs were hammered as well because the housing bubble burst. Bonds went up, and if you rebalanced (sold the bonds to buy more stock) then you came out much further ahead when the stock market recovered. The point of adding bonds for diversification is that they move in the opposite direction of equities; blunting the major drops (and providing buying opportunities). REITs don't fit that bill. REITs are not undergoing a correction like bonds because the price of real estate is a function of housing supply and buyer demand. Rising interest rates only make it a little harder for buyers to buy, so the effect of rising interest rates on real estate prices is muted. The other effects on real estate prices (more wealth in the economy for buyers) pushes in the opposite direction of the rising interest rates.
Risk is reduced but isn't zero The default risk is still there, the issuer can go bankrupt, and you can still loose all or some of your money if restructuring happens. If the bond has a callable option, the issuer can retire them  if conditions are favourable for the issuer, you can still loose some of your investment. Callable schedule should be in the bond issuer's prospectus while issuing the bond. If the issuer is in a different country, that brings along a lot of headaches of recovering your money if something goes bad i.e. forex rates can go up and down. YTM, when the bond was bought was greater than risk free rate(govt deposit rates) Has to be greater than the risk free rate, because of the extra risk you are taking. Reinvestment risk is less because of the short term involved(I am assuming 2-3 years at max), but you should also look at the coupon rate of your bond, if it isn't a zero-coupon bond, and how you invest that. would it be ideal to hold the bond till maturity irrespective of price change It always depends on the current conditions. You cannot be sure that everything is fine, so it pays to be vigilant. Check the health of the issuer, any adverse circumstances, and the overall economy as a whole. As you intend to hold till maturity you should be more concerned about the serviceability of the bond by the issuer on maturity and till then. Well, the potential problem is that the FTSE 100 could go down, or just not up. Really, it's as simple as that. After all, why diversify if the FTSE 100 will only go up? So, the question is, why wait to diversify? Why not add in the Gilt ETF for a little government bond exposure? Why not a Corp. bond ETF? Maybe a little of that Global ex-UK for a little foreign stock exposure?  That said, saving is better than not saving, so if starting it off with just the FTSE 100 gets you saving, go for it. Without getting to hung-up on terminology here, the management of a company will often attempt to keep stock prices high because of a number of reasons: Ideally companies keep prices up through performance.  In some cases, you'll see companies do other things spending cash and/or issuing bonds to continue to pay dividends (e.g. IBM), or spending cash and/or issuing bonds to pay for stock buybacks (e.g. IBM).  These methods can work for a time but are not sustainable and will often be seen as acts of desperation.  Companies that have a solid plan for growth will typically not do much of anything to directly change stock prices. Bonds are a bit different because they have a fairly straight-forward valuation model based on the fact that they pay out a fixed amount per month.  The two main reason prices in bonds go down are: The key here is that bonds pay out the same thing per month regardless of their price or the price of other bonds available.  Most stocks do not pay any dividend and for much of those that do, the main factor as to whether you make or lose money on them is the stock price. The price of bonds does matter to governments, however.  Let's say a country successfully issued some 10 year bonds last year at the price of 1000.  They pay 1% per month (to keep the math simple.)  Every month, they pay out $10 per bond.  Then some (stupid) politicians start threatening to default on bond payments.  The bond market freaks and people start trying to unload these bonds as fast as they can.  The going price drops to $500.  Next month, the payments are the same.  The coupon rate on the bonds has not changed at all.  I'm oversimplifying here but this is the core of how bond prices work. You might be tempted to think that doesn't matter to the country but it does.  Now, this same country wants to issue some more bonds.  It wants to get that 1% rate again but it can't.  Why would anyone pay $1000 for a 1% (per month) bond when they can get the exact same bond with (basically) the same risks for $500?  Instead they have to offer a 2% (per month) rate in order to match the market price. A government (or company) could in fact put money into the bond market to bolster the price of it's bonds (i.e. keep the rates down.)  The problem is that if you are issuing bonds, it's generally (caveats apply) because you need cash that you don't have so what money are you going to use to buy these bonds?  Or in other words, it doesn't make sense to issue bonds and then simply plow the cash gained from that issuance back into the same bonds you are issuing.  The options here are a bit more limited.  I have to mention though that the US government (via a quasi-governmental entity) did actually buy it's own bonds.  This policy of Quantitative Easing (QE) was done for more complicated reasons than simply keeping the price of bonds up. "A Credit Default Swap (CDS) is a contract between two parties. A useful analogy is insurance (but by no means exact).  I pay a quarterly premium in order to insure myself against another event.  In this case, it might be that I own some IBM Bonds.  I am happy to own those bonds, and like the ""coupon"" that they pay me.  But I am a little worried about IBM going bankrupt.  So I can find someone willing to sell me a CDS.  So long as I keep up my ""premium"" payments, if IBM goes into default on their bonds, I get a payout. This analogy does break down at a couple of levels.  Firstly there is no requirement that I have to own the IBM bond in the first place.  I can in effect then ""take a view"" on IBM going into default by purchasing a CDS without owning the underlying asset. Also in the real insurance world, there are various capital requirements that the companies have to adhere to, while CDS market, being essentially unregulated has none. So to summarize, and while The Pedia has a pretty good article, they are good both to hedge your bet (i.e. protect your actual owned asset) or as a speculative tool to take a ""view"" on the likelihood of a company to go bankrupt." I believe that it's largely irrational, fueled largely by foreign investors that are afraid to invest anywhere else. There are a few people out there right now who are writing about this: http://www.marketwatch.com/story/us-treasuries-largest-bubble-in-world-history-says-nia-2011-08-30 http://articles.businessinsider.com/2010-08-25/markets/30080511_1_fed-first-yields-mbs As to why would you invest in long-dated versus short? Probably to chase yield. The 30 year yields 30x more than the 1 year. It's also easier to buy on the long end if you believe that the economy will remain slow for another decade or two and therefore the central banks will keep rates low for a very long time. Of course, at the moment, long-dated treasury prices are artificially high because of operation twist. Investopedia has a good explanation of the term shorting which is what this is. In the simplest of terms, someone is borrowing the bond and selling it with the intent to replace the security and any dividends or coupons in the end. The idea is that if a bond is overvalued, one may be able to buy it back later for a cheaper price and pocket the difference. There are various rules about this including margin requirements to maintain since there is the risk of the security going up in price enough that someone may be forced into a buy to cover in the form of a margin call. If one can sell the bond at $960 now and then buy it back later for $952.38 then one could pocket the difference. Part of what you aren't seeing is what are other bonds doing in terms of their prices over time here. The key point here is that brokers may lend out securities and accrue interest on loaned securities for another point here. The ex-dividend date, prevents this, but people are still able to do this and this is an investment strategy. There are some illiquid and immature markets where prices don't adjust.  In the options market people are able to find mispriced deep in the money calls to take advantage of the ex-dividend date. It is called dividend capture using covered calls. "Not a bond holder, but when we get dividends we usually just buy up a benchmark index tracking ETF unless/until we're ready to rebalance our portfolio. Most of the trades in the day are earmarked with the reason ""spending cash"". I'd assume it's similar for bond holders and coupons."