Are bonds really a recession proof investment?
No, they are not recession proof.   Assume several companies, that issued bonds in the fund, go bankrupt.  Those bonds could be worthless, they could miss principle payments, or they could be restructured.  All would mean a decline in value. When the economy shrinks (which is what a recession is) how does the Fed respond?  By lowering interest rates.  This makes current bonds more valuable as presumably they were issued at a higher rate, thus the recession proof prejudice.  However, there is nothing to stop a company (in good financial shape) from issuing more bonds to pay the par value on high-interest bonds, thus refinancing their debt.  Sort of like how the bank feels when one refinances the mortgage for a lower rate.   The thing that troubles me the most is that rates have been low for a long time.  What happens if we have a recession now?  How does the Fed fix it?  I am not sure exactly what the fallout would be, but it could be significant. If you are troubled, you should look for sectors that would be hurt and helped by a Trump-induced recession.  Move money away from those that will be hurt.  Typically aggressive growth companies are hurt (during recessions), so you may want to move money away from them.  Typically established blue chip companies fare okay in a recession so you may want to move money toward them.  Move some money to cash, and perhaps some towards bonds.   All that being said, I'd keep some money in things like aggressive growth in case you are wrong. Bonds by themselves aren't recession proof.  No investment is, and when a major crash (c.f. 2008) occurs, all investments will be to some extent at risk. However, bonds add a level of diversification to your investment portfolio that can make it much more stable even during downturns. Bonds do not move identically to the stock market, and so many times investing in bonds will be more profitable when the stock market is slumping.  Investing some of your investment funds in bonds is safer, because that diversification allows you to have some earnings from that portion of your investment when the market is going down. It also allows you to do something called rebalancing.  This is when you have target allocation proportions for your portfolio; say 60% stock 40% bond.  Then, periodically look at your actual portfolio proportions.  Say the market is way up - then your actual proportions might be 70% stock 30% bond.  You sell 10 percentage points of stocks, and buy 10 percentage points of bonds. This over time will be a successful strategy, because it tends to buy low and sell high. In addition to the value of diversification, some bonds will tend to be more stable (but earn less), in particular blue chip corporate bonds and government bonds from stable countries.  If you're willing to only earn a few percent annually on a portion of your portfolio, that part will likely not fall much during downturns - and in fact may grow as money flees to safer investments - which in turn is good for you. If you're particularly worried about your portfolio's value in the short term, such as if you're looking at retiring soon, a decent proportion should be in this kind of safer bond to ensure it doesn't lose too much value.   But of course this will slow your earnings, so if you're still far from retirement, you're better off leaving things in growth stocks and accepting the risk; odds are no matter who's in charge, there will be another crash or two of some size before you retire if you're in your 30s now. But when it's not crashing, the market earns you a pretty good return, and so it's worth the risk. Without providing direct investment advice, I can tell you that bond most assuredly are not recession-proof.  All investments have risk, and each recession will impact asset-classes slightly differently. Before getting started, BONDS are LOANS.  You are loaning money.  Don't ever think of them as anything but that. Bonds/Loans have two chief risks: default risk and inflation risk.   Default risk is the most obvious risk. This is when the person to whom you are loaning, does not pay back.  In a recession, this can easily happen if the debtor is a company, and the company goes bankrupt in the recessionary environment. Inflation risk is a more subtle risk, and occurs when the (fixed) interest rate on your loan yields less than the inflation rate.  This causes the 'real' value of your investment to depreciate over time.   The second risk is most pronounced when the bonds that you own are government bonds, and the recession causes the government to be unable to pay back its debts.  In these circumstances, the government may print more money to pay back its creditors, generating inflation. You're mixing up two different concepts: low-risk and recession-proof. I'll assume I don't need to explain risk: there is always risk, regardless what form you keep your assets in. With bonds, the interest rate is supposed to reflect the risk. If a company offers bonds with too low an interest rate for the risk level, few people will buy them. While if a company offers bonds with too high an interest rate for the level of risk, they are gypping themselves. So a bond is a slightly more transparent investment from a risk assessment perspective, but that doesn't mean the risk is necessarily low: if you buy a bond with a 20% effective annual yield, that means there is quite a high risk that the underlying company will fold (unless inflation is in the double-digit range as well, in which case a 20% yield is not that much). Whereas with a stock, no parameter directly tells you anything about the risk. Recession-proof is not the same thing as low-risk. Recession-proof refers to investing in (or holding debt for) industries that perform better in a recession. http://www.investopedia.com/articles/stocks/08/industries-thrive-on-recession.asp. "That depends on how you're investing in them. Trading bonds is (arguably) riskier than trading stocks (because it has a lot of the same risks associated with stocks plus interest rate and inflation risk). That's true whether it's a recession or not. Holding bonds to maturity may or may not be recession-proof (or, perhaps more accurately, ""low risk"" as argued by @DepressedDaniel), depending on what kind of bonds they are. If you own bonds in stable governments (e.g. U.S. or German bonds or bonds in certain states or municipalities) or highly stable corporations, there's a very low risk of default even in a recession. (You didn't see companies like Microsoft, Google, or Apple going under during the 2008 crash). That's absolutely not the case for all kinds of bonds, though, especially if you're concerned about systemic risk. Just because a bond looks risk-free doesn't mean that it actually is - look how many AAA-rated securities went under during the 2008 recession. And many companies (CIT, Lehman Brothers) went bankrupt outright. To assess your exposure to risk, you have to look at a lot of factors, such as the credit-worthiness of the business, how ""recession-proof"" their product is, what kind of security or insurance you're being offered, etc. You can't even assume that bond insurance is an absolute guarantee against systemic risk - that's what got AIG into trouble, in fact. They were writing Credit Default Swaps (CDS), which are analogous to insurance on loans - basically, the seller of the CDS ""insures"" the debt (promises some kind of payment if a particular borrower defaults). When the entire credit market seized up, people naturally started asking AIG to make good on their agreement and compensate them for the loans that went bad; unfortunately, AIG didn't have the money and couldn't borrow it themselves (hence the government bailout). To address the whole issue of a company going bankrupt: it's not necessarily the case that your bonds would be completely worthless (so I disagree with the people who implied that this would be the case). They'd probably be worth a lot less than you paid for them originally, though (possibly as bad as pennies on the dollar depending on how much under water the company was). Also, depending on how long it takes to work out a deal that everyone could agree to, my understanding is that it could take a long time before you see any of your money. I think it's also possible that you'll get some of the money as equity (rather than cash) - in fact, that's how the U.S. government ended up owning a lot of Chrysler (they were Chrysler's largest lender when they went bankrupt, so the government ended up getting a lot of equity in the business as part of the settlement). Incidentally, there is a market for securities in bankrupt companies for people that don't have time to wait for the bankruptcy settlement. Naturally, people who buy securities that are in that much trouble generally expect a steep discount. To summarize:" During the hyperinflation of the Wiermer republic, corporate stocks and convertible bonds were thought second only to the species (gold, silver etc) as the only secure currencies.  As Milton Friedman proved, inflation is caused solely by the monetary token supply increasing faster than productivity.  In the past, days of species of currency, it was caused by governments debasing the currency e.g. streatching the same amount of silver in 50 coins to 100 coins. Sudden increases in the supply of precious metals can also trigger it. The various gold rushes in 19th century and later, improvements in extraction methods caused bouts of inflation. Most famously, the huge amounts of silver the Spanish extracted from the New World mines, devastated the European economy with high inflation. Governments use inflation as a form of stealth flat tax. Money functions as an Abstract Universal Trade Good and it obeys all the rules of supply and demand. If the supply of money goes up suddenly, then its value drops in relation to real goods and service. But that drop in value doesn't occur instantly, the increased quality of tokens has to percolate through the market before the value changes.  So, the first institution to spend the infalted/debased currency can get the full current value from trade. The second gets slightly less, the third even less and so on. In 2008, the Federal reserve began printing money and loaning at 0% to insolvent backs who then used that money to buy T-Bill. This had the duel effect of giving the banks an (arbitrary) A1 rated asset for their fractional reserve while the Federal government got full pre-inflation value of the money paid for the T-bills. As the government spent that money, the number of tokens increased fast than the economy.  In times of inflation, the value of money per unit drops as its supply increases and increases The best hedges against inflation are real assets e.g. land, equipment, stocks (ownership of real assets) and convertible bonds which are convertible to stock.  It's important to remember that money is, of itself, worthless. It's just a technology that abstracts and smilies trading which at the base, is still a barter system. During inflation the barter value of money plunges owing to increased supply. But the direct barter value between any two real assets remain the same because their supplies have not changed.  The value of stocks and convertible bonds is maintained by the economic activity of the company whose ownership they represent. Dividends, stock prices and bond equity, as measured in the inflated currency continue to rise in sync with inflation. Thus they preserve the original value of the money paid for them. Not sure why you expect more inflation. The only institution that can create inflation in the US is the Federal Reserve which Trump has no direct control off. Deregulation of banks won't cause inflation in and of itself as the private banks cannot alter the money supply. If banks fail, owing to deregulation, unlikely I think given the dismal nearly century long record of regulation to date, then the Federal Reserve might fix the problem with another inflation tax, but otherwise not. "Yes. Bonds perform very well in a recession. In fact the safer the bond, the better it would do in a recession. Think of markets having four seasons: High growth and low inflation - ""growing economy"" High growth and high inflation - ""overheating economy"" Low growth and high inflation - ""stagflation"" Low growth and low inflation - ""recession"" Bonds are the best investment in a recession. qplum's flagship strategy had a very high allocation to bonds in the financial crisis. That's why in backtest it shows much better returns."
Collapsed? BWhahahahahahahahah! No junior mommy and daddy (Republicans and Democrats) are having a spat over the family finances. Sure it looks bad, and some bills are behind, but it would take a whole hell of a lot more than this to collapse Illinois.   We got something like 39 billion dollars in expense and are only collecting 36 billion in revenue. If we raise revenue, i.e. increase taxes a bit and hold the line on spending then this mess will eventually work itself out.  One thing that most don't get and don't report on is there is really no more fat in the Illinois budget to cut. The cuts Republicans want are to school funding, hospitals, infrastructure, etc... We have all ready cut almost everything else out of the budget.   The reason Rauner can't get his budget passed is no politician is going back to their school district and telling them they are taking another 20% cut on top of everything else. No Democrat is going to allow him to destroy unions and he won't compromise.  This is a pissing match between him and Maidigan and if you have not been paying attention it looks like Rauner is going to lose. He may have vetoed the budget and tax increases, but it looks like a veto proof majority can be created, as the fiscally conservatives won't let Illinois bonds go to junk status. The simple answer is technically bonds don't have earnings, hence no P/E. What I think the OP is really asking how do I compare stock and bond ETFs. Some mature stocks exhibit very similar characteristics to bonds, so at the margin if you are considering investing between 2 such investments that provide stable income in the form of dividends, you might want to use the dividend/price ratio (D/P) of the stock and compare it to the dividend yield of the bond. If you go down to the basics, both the bond and the stock can be considered  the present value of all future expected cashflows. The cash that accrues to the owner of the stock is future dividends and for the bond is the coupon payments. If a company were to pay out 100% of its earnings, then the dividend yield D/P would be conveniently E/P. For a company with P/E of 20 that paid out it's entire earnings, one would expect D/P = 1/20 = 5% This serves as a decent yard stick in the short term ~ 1 year to compare mature stock etfs with stable prospects vs bond funds since the former will have very little expected price growth (think utilities), hence they both compete on the cashflows they throw off to the investor. This comparison stops being useful for stock ETFs with higher growth prospects since expected future cashflows are much more volatile. This comparison is also not valid in the long term since bond ETFs are highly sensitive to the yield curve (interest rate risk) and they can move substantially from where they are now. "The question is: how do you quantify investment risk? As Michael S says, one approach is to treat investment returns as a random variable. Bill Goetzmann (Yale finance professor) told me that if you accept that markets are efficient or that the price of an asset reflects it's underlying value, then changes in price represent changes in value, so standard deviation naturally becomes the appropriate measure for riskiness of an asset. Essentially, the more volatile an asset, the riskier it is. There is another school of thought that comes from Ben Graham and Warren Buffett, which says that volatility is not inherently risky. Rather, risk should be defined as the permanent loss of capital, so the riskiness of an asset is the probability of a permanent loss of capital invested.  This is easy to do in casino games, based on basic probability such as   roulette or slots. But what has been done with the various kinds of   investment risks? My point is saying that certain bonds are ""low risk""   isn't good enough; I'd like some numbers--or at least a range of   numbers--and therefore one could calculate expected payoff (in the   statistics sense). Or can it not be done--and if not, why not? Investing is more art than science. In theory, a Triple-A bond rating means the asset is riskless or nearly riskless, but we saw that this was obviously wrong since several of the AAA mortgage backed securities (MBS) went under prior to the recent US recession. More recently, the current threat of default suggests that bond ratings are not entirely accurate, since US Treasuries are considered riskless assets.  Investors often use bond ratings to evaluate investments - a bond is considered investment grade if it's BBB- or higher. To adequately price bonds and evaluate risk, there are too many factors to simply refer to a chart because things like the issuer, credit quality, liquidity risk, systematic risk, and unsystematic risk all play a factor.  Another factor you have to consider is the overall portfolio. Markowitz showed that adding a riskier asset can actually lower the overall risk of a portfolio because of diversification. This is all under the assumption that risk = variance, which I think is bunk.  I'm aware that Wall Street is nothing like roulette, but then again   there must be some math and heavy economics behind calculating risk   for individual investors. This is, after all, what ""quants"" are paid   to do, in part. Is it all voodoo? I suspect some of it is, but not all   of it. Quants are often involved in high frequency trading as well, but that's another note. There are complicated risk management products, such as the Aladdin system by BlackRock, which incorporate modern portfolio theory (Markowitz, Fama, Sharpe, Samuelson, etc) and financial formulas to manage risk.  Crouhy's Risk Management covers some of the concepts applied.  I also tend to think that when people point to the last x number of   years of stock market performance, that is of less value than they   expect. Even going back to 1900 provides ""only"" 110 years of data, and   in my view, complex systems need more data than those 40,500 data   points. 10,000 years' worth of data, ok, but not 110. Any books or articles that address these issues, or your own informed   views, would be helfpul. I fully agree with you here. A lot of work is done in the Santa Fe Institute to study ""complex adaptive systems,"" and we don't have any big, clear theory as of yet. Conventional risk management is based on the ideas of modern portfolio theory, but a lot of that is seen to be wrong. Behavioral finance is introducing new ideas on how investors behave and why the old models are wrong, which is why I cannot suggest you study risk management and risk models because I and many skilled investors consider them to be largely wrong. There are many good books on investing, the best of which is Benjamin Graham's The Intelligent Investor. Although not a book on risk solely, it provides a different viewpoint on how to invest and covers how to protect investments via a ""Margin of Safety."" Lastly, I'd recommend Against the Gods by Peter Bernstein, which covers the history of risk and risk analysis. It's not solely a finance book but rather a fascinating historical view of risk, and it helps but many things in context. Hope it helps!" "I experimented with Lending Club, lending a small amount of money in early 2008. (Nice timing right - the recession was December 2007 to June 2009.) I have a few loans still outstanding, but most have prepaid or defaulted by now. I did not reinvest as payments came in. Based on my experience, one ""catch"" is lack of liquidity. It's like buying individual bonds rather than a mutual fund. Your money is NOT just tied up for the 3-year loan term, because to get good returns you have to keep reinvesting as people pay off their loans. So you always have some just-reinvested money with the full 3 year term left, and that's how long it would take to get all your money back out. You can't just cash out when you feel like it. They have a trading platform (which I did not try out) if you want your money sooner, but I would guess the spreads are wide and you have to take a hit when you sell loans. Again though I did not try the trading platform. On the upside, the yields did seem fine. I got 19 eventual defaults from 81 loans, but many of the borrowers made a number of payments before defaulting so only part of the money was lost. The lower credit ratings default more often obviously, only one of 19 defaults had the top credit score. (I tried investing across a range of credit ratings.) The interest rates appear to cover the risk of default, at least on average. You can of course have varying luck.  I made only a slight profit over the 3 years, but I did not reinvest after the first couple months, and it was during a recession. So the claimed yields look plausible to me if you reinvest. They do get people's credit scores, report nonpayment on people's credit reports, and even send people to collections. Seems like borrowers have a reason to pay the bill. In 2008 I think this was a difference compared to the other peer lending sites, but I don't know if that's still true. Anyway, for what it's worth the site seemed to work fine and ""as advertised"" for me. I probably will not invest more money there for a couple reasons: However as best I could tell from my experiment, it is a perfectly reasonable place to put a portion of your portfolio you might otherwise invest in something like high-yield bonds or some other sub-investment-grade fixed income. Update: here's a useful NY Times article: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/05/your-money/05money.html" I'm assuming you are buying bond mutual funds or bond etfs here, not the actual bonds directly. There are a significant variety of different types of bond funds, reflecting the sort of bonds they invest in. For example, you can invest in risky, non-commercial grade bonds, also known as junk bonds. Or you can invest in short-term bonds, which are much safer but return much less. There's no such thing as the 'average bond'. So, let's go for somewhere in the middle. Let's go for 3% return, after fees. Now, it's fairly simple math. You want $3,000 a month, or $36,000 a year. To generate that sort of return, you'd need to invest $1,200,000. If we are more optimistic, we could go for a 4% return, after fees. That reduces your investment to $900,000. Note that it would almost certainly not make sense to invest all that money in bonds. Instead, you'd want to invest in a mix of stocks and bonds. This could likely reduce your risk while increasing your expected return. I just wish people who hate on keynesian policies (which while not perfect, are not as terrible as people point them out to be) would at least acknowledge that Keynes advocated maintaining budget surpluses when the economy is doing fine/alright.   For me the major catalysts for the recession were:  * Low interest rates despite rising real estate prices which encouraged risky investments. * Two expensive wars   Anything else was salt on the wounds really. Perhaps something else comes with the bond so it is a convertible security. Buffett's Negative-Interest Issues Sell Well from 2002 would be an example from more than a decade ago: Warren E. Buffett's new negative-interest bonds sold rapidly   yesterday, even after the size of the offering was increased to $400   million from $250 million, with a possible offering of another $100   million to cover overallotments. The new Berkshire Hathaway securities, which were underwritten by   Goldman, Sachs at the suggestion of Mr. Buffett, Berkshire's chairman   and chief executive, pay 3 percent annual interest. But they are   coupled with five-year warrants to buy Berkshire stock at $89,585, a   15 percent premium to Berkshire's stock price Tuesday of $77,900. To   maintain the warrant, an investor is required to pay 3.75 percent each   year. That provides a net negative rate of 0.75 percent. I always find this funny. How can government bonds be in attractive and currency be attractive?  With monetary policy America guarantees that it can't default on debt. The only thing that can happen which breaks this is if the government prints itself out of debt. In which case not only will you bonds be worthless but so will your cash.  So to all the investors with boats of cash, you are trading one problem for the same problem. The only difference is you can hold the second problem in your hands.  Fools.