Is there any real purpose in purchasing bonds?
"Here are my reasons as to why bonds are considered to be a reasonable investment. While it is true that, on average over a sufficiently long period of time, stocks do have a high expected return, it is important to realize that bonds are a different type of financial instrument that stocks, and have features that are attractive to certain types of investors. The purpose of buying bonds is to convert a lump sum of currency into a series of future cash flows. This is in and of itself valuable to the issuer because they would prefer to have the lump sum today, rather than at some point in the future. So we generally don't say that we've ""lost"" the money, we say that we are purchasing a series of future payments, and we would only do this if it were more valuable to us than having the money in hand. Unlike stocks, where you are compensated with dividends and equity to take on the risks and rewards of ownership, and unlike a savings account (which is much different that a bond), where you are only being paid interest for the time value of your money while the bank lends it out at their risk, when you buy a bond you are putting your money at risk in order to provide financing to the issuer. It is also important to realize that there is a much higher risk that stocks will lose value, and you have to compare the risk-adjusted return, and not the nominal return, for stocks to the risk-adjusted return for bonds, since with investment-grade bonds there is generally a very low risk of default. While the returns being offered may not seem attractive to you individually, it is not reasonable to say that the returns offered by the issuer are insufficient in general, because both when the bonds are issued and then subsequently traded on a secondary market (which is done fairly easily), they function as a market. That is to say that sellers always want a higher price (resulting in a lower return), and buyers always want to receive a higher return (requiring a lower price). So while some sellers and buyers will be able to agree on a mutually acceptable price (such that a transaction occurs), there will almost always be some buyers and sellers who also do not enter into transactions because they are demanding a lower/higher price. The fact that a market exists indicates that enough investors are willing to accept the returns that are being offered by sellers. Bonds can be helpful in that as a class of assets, they are less risky than stocks. Additionally, bonds are paid back to investors ahead of equity, so in the case of a failing company or public entity, bondholders may be paid even if stockholders lose all their money. As a result, bonds can be a preferred way to make money on a company or government entity that is able to pay its bills, but has trouble generating any profits.  Some investors have specific reasons why they may prefer a lower risk over time to maximizing their returns. For example, a government or pension fund or a university may be aware of financial payments that they will be required to make in a particular year in the future, and may purchase bonds that mature in that year. They may not be willing to take the risk that in that year, the stock market will fall, which could force them to reduce their principal to make the payments. Other individual investors may be close to a significant life event that can be predicted, such as college or retirement, and may not want to take on the risk of stocks. In the case of very large investors such as national governments, they are often looking for capital preservation to hedge against inflation and forex risk, rather than to ""make money"". Additionally, it is important to remember that until relatively recently in the developed world, and still to this day in many developing countries, people have been willing to pay banks and financial institutions to hold their money, and in the context of the global bond market, there are many people around the world who are willing to buy bonds and receive a very low rate of return on T-Bills, for example, because they are considered a very safe investment due to the creditworthiness of the USA, as well as the stability of the dollar, especially if inflation is very high in the investor's home country. For example, I once lived in an African country where inflation was 60-80% per year. This means if I had $100 today, I could buy $100 worth of goods, but by next year, I might need $160 to buy the same goods I could buy for $100 today. So you can see why simply being able to preserve the value of my money in a bond denominated in USA currency would be valuable in that case, because the alternative is so bad. So not all bondholders want to be owners or make as much money as possible, some just want a safe place to put their money. Also, it is true for both stocks and bonds that you are trading a lump sum of money today for payments over time, although for stocks this is a different kind of payment (dividends), and you only get paid if the company makes money. This is not specific to bonds. In most other cases when a stock price appreciates, this is to reflect new information not previously known, or earnings retained by the company rather than paid out as dividends. Most of the financial instruments where you can ""make"" money immediately are speculative, where two people are betting against each other, and one has to lose money for the other to make money. Again, it's not reasonable to say that any type of financial instrument is the ""worst"". They function differently, serve different purposes, and have different features that may or may not fit your needs and preferences. You seem to be saying that you simply don't find bond returns high enough to be attractive to you. That may be true, since different people have different investment objectives, risk tolerance, and preference for having money now versus more money later. However, some of your statements don't seem to be supported by facts. For example, retail banks are not highly profitable as an industry, so they are not making thousands of times what they are paying you. They also need to pay all of their operating expenses, as well as account for default risk and inflation, out of the different between what they lend and what they pay to savings account holders. Also, it's not reasonable to say that bonds are worthless, as I've explained. The world disagrees with you. If they agreed with you, they would stop buying bonds, and the people who need financing would have to lower bond prices until people became interested again. That is part of how markets work. In fact, much of the reason that bond yields are so low right now is that there has been such high global demand for safe investments like bonds, especially from other nations, such that bond issues (especially the US government) have not needed to pay high yields in order to raise money." "You ask a question, ""Is there any real purpose in purchasing bonds?"" and then appear to go off on a rant. Before the question is closed by members here, let me offer this:  This chart reflects the 10 year bond rate. From 1960-2004 (give or take) the coupon rate was over 4%. Asset allocation suggests a mix of stocks and bonds seeking to avoid the risk of having ""all of one's eggs in one basket."" To that end, the simplest approach is a stock/bond mix. Over time, a 70/30 mix provides nearly 95% of the long tern return, but with a much lower volatility.  I'm not going to suggest that a 2% 10 year bond is an exciting investment, but bonds may have a place in one's portfolio. I'm not going to debate each and every point you attempted, but #5 is especially questionable. If you feel this is true, you should short bonds. Or you should at least 99% of the time. Do you have data to back up this statement?"
"You should only invest in individual stocks if you truly understand the company's business model and follow its financial reports closely.  Even then, individual stocks should represent only the tiniest, most ""adventurous"" part of your portfolio, as they are a huge risk. A basic investing principle is diversification.  If you invest in a variety of financial instruments, then: (a) when some components of your portfolio are doing poorly, others will be doing well.  Even in the case of significant economic downturns, when it seems like everything is doing poorly, there will be some investment sectors that are doing relatively better (such as bonds, physical real estate, precious metals). (b) over time, some components of your portfolio will gain more money than others, so every 6 or 12 months you can ""rebalance"" such that all components once again have the same % of money invested in them as when you began.  You can do this either by selling off some of your well-performing assets to purchase more of your poorly-performing assets or (if you don't want to incur a taxable event) by introducing additional money from outside your portfolio.  This essentially forces you to ""buy (relatively) low, sell (relatively) high"". Now, if you accept the above argument for diversification, then you should recognize that owning a handful (or even several handfuls) of individual stocks will not help you achieve diversification.  Even if you buy one stock in the energy sector, one in consumer discretionary, one in financials, etc., then you're still massively exposed to the day-to-day fates of those individual companies.  And if you invest solely in the US stock market, then when the US has a decline, your whole portfolio will decline.  And if you don't buy any bonds, then again when the world has a downturn, your portfolio will decline.  And so on ... That's why index mutual funds are so helpful.  Someone else has already gone to the trouble of grouping together all the stocks or bonds of a certain ""type"" (small-cap/large-cap, domestic/foreign, value/growth) so all you have to do is pick the types you want until you feel you have the diversity you need.  No more worrying about whether you've picked the ""right"" company to represent a particular sector.  The fewer knobs there are to turn in your portfolio, the less chance there is for mistakes!" Duration is the weighted average time until all the cash flows of a fixed income security are received. There are a few different measures of duration but generally, duration measures the sensitivity of the price of a fixed income asset to a change in the yield of that asset. If you're familiar with calculus, duration is the first derivative of price with respect to yield.  Convexity is the sensitivity of the duration of bond with respect to changes in yield, or the second derivative.   The first chart [here](http://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/convexity.asp#axzz1x4F075zM) will help. Convexity measures the curvature of the blue or pink line, the steeper the curve the higher the convexity.   The more cash flows there are in a bond (higher or more frequent coupon) the lower the duration, because you are receiving more of your investment earlier as opposed to later (think time value of money). If a bond has one cash flow, meaning you get paid back only at maturity (zero coupon) then any changes in interest rates will have a greater impact on the price of the bond since you are discounting only one cash flow in the future. Think of buying a bond with no coupons and a 5% yield that matures in 5 years, or a bond with similar yield and maturity buy pays a coupon. If interest rates rise, the zero coupon bond's price will fall more than the bond with coupons. Why? Because if you own the zero coupon bond you have to wait 5 years to get your money back and reinvest it at the higher rate, while if you have the bond that pays coupons you can reinvest those incremental cash flows at the higher rate, even though at purchase they had the same yield and maturity.  These are both tough concepts that took me a fair amount of time to really understand. If you're investing in bonds or any fixed income asset, these topics are crucial to understanding interest rate risk. "Interesting question.   How is social security funded? The social security system works by using current payroll taxes as funding to pay benefits to retirees.  Historically there was always more money coming in then what was being paid out in benefits.  This changed at the beginning of March, 2010 when social security started paying out more than it was taking in (this article estimates the exact date to be around March 3 or March 4 - the chart below has the approximate date highlighted with the red circle).  Due to the baby boomer generation it is estimated that social security will now be perpetually in the red unless changes are made.  The recent reduction in payroll taxes will not help social security solvency.  What was done with all the extra money social security collected over the last three decades? The Social Security Trust Fund (SSTF) was required to purchase special-issue US government bonds with the excess funds.  The SSTF was essentially purchasing US government debt with the excess funds.  This allowed congress to spend the excess funds.  The special-issue funds are different then normal US treasuries in that the SSTF can redeem special-issue bonds at face value at any time (even before maturity).  The SSTF is currently holding $2.5 Trillion of these special-issue bonds as assets.  What next? Hell if I know.  The SSTF was a major purchaser of US debt over the last few decades (to the tune of $2.5 trillion).  That changed in 2010.  The SSTF is no longer purchasing US debt at the same time the US government is issuing record amounts of debt.  The SSTF could begin redeeming its bonds to meet payment obligations.  When it redeems the bonds the US treasury must cough up the funds.  Where is it the US government going to get the money especially when it is currently borrowing money at record levels? I read many articles that say that we don't have to count SSTF bond holdings as debt since we owe it to ourselves.  That always makes me chuckle.  The US government owes the SSTF $2.5 Trillion.  I'm not the US government so don't count me in the ""we"" part of ""we owe it to ourselves"".  I'm also fairly certain I will never see a dime of social security so don't count me in the ""ourselves"" portion either. Charts were obtained from here." You would have to compare your backtesting to what you will be doing in real trading, and try to have the backtesting as close to your real trading as possible. Note: you may never get the backtesting to match your real trading exactly but you need to get as close as possible. The whole purpose of backtesting is to check if your trading strategies - your signals, entries and exits, and your stops - are profitable over various market conditions. As you would be using actual closes to do your real trading you should be using this to also do your backtesting. Rather than using adjusted data to get an idea of your total return from your backtesting, you can always add the value of the dividends and other corporate actions to the results from using the actual data. You may even find a way to add any dividends and other corporate action to your results automatically, i.e. any dividend amount added to your total return if the stock is held during the ex-dividend date. If you are using adjusted data in your backtesting this may affect any stops you have placed, i.e. it may cause your stop to be triggered earlier or later than in real trading. So you will need to determine how you will treat your stops in real trading.  Will you adjust them when there is corporate action such as dividends?  Or will you leave them constant until actual prices have gone up? If you will be leaving your stops constant then you should definitely be using actual data in your backtesting to better match your real trading. "This is an excellent question, one that I've pondered before as well. Here's how I've reconciled it in my mind. Why should we agree that a stock is worth anything? After all, if I purchase a share of said company, I own some small percentage of all of its assets, like land, capital equipment, accounts receivable, cash and securities holdings, etc., as others have pointed out. Notionally, that seems like it should be ""worth"" something.  However, that doesn't give me the right to lay claim to them at will, as I'm just a (very small) minority shareholder. The old adage says that ""something is only worth what someone is willing to pay you for it."" That share of stock doesn't actually give me any liquid control over the company's assets, so why should someone else be willing to pay me something for it? As you noted, one reason why a stock might be attractive to someone else is as a (potentially tax-advantaged) revenue stream via dividends. Especially in this low-interest-rate environment, this might well exceed that which I might obtain in the bond market. The payment of income to the investor is one way that a  stock might have some ""inherent value"" that is attractive to investors. As you asked, though, what if the stock doesn't pay dividends? As a small shareholder, what's in it for me? Without any dividend payments, there's no regular method of receiving my invested capital back, so why should I, or anyone else, be willing to purchase the stock to begin with? I can think of a couple reasons: Expectation of a future dividend. You may believe that at some point in the future, the company will begin to pay a dividend to investors. Dividends are paid as a percentage of a company's total profits, so it may make sense to purchase the stock now, while there is no dividend, banking on growth during the no-dividend period that will result in even higher capital returns later. This kind of skirts your question: a non-dividend-paying stock might be worth something because it might turn into a dividend-paying stock in the future. Expectation of a future acquisition. This addresses the original premise of my argument above. If I can't, as a small shareholder, directly access the assets of the company, why should I attribute any value to that small piece of ownership? Because some other entity might be willing to pay me for it in the future. In the event of an acquisition, I will receive either cash or another company's shares in compensation, which often results in a capital gain for me as a shareholder.  If I obtain a capital gain via cash as part of the deal, then this proves my point: the original, non-dividend-paying stock was worth something because some other entity decided to acquire the company, paying me more cash than I paid for my shares. They are willing to pay this price for the company because they can then reap its profits in the future. If I obtain a capital gain via stock in as part of the deal, then the process restarts in some sense. Maybe the new stock pays dividends. Otherwise, perhaps the new company will do something to make its stock worth more in the future, based on the same future expectations. The fact that ownership in a stock can hold such positive future expectations makes them ""worth something"" at any given time; if you purchase a stock and then want to sell it later, someone else is willing to purchase it from you so they can obtain the right to experience a positive capital return in the future. While stock valuation schemes will vary, both dividends and acquisition prices are related to a company's profits: This provides a connection between a company's profitability, expectations of future growth, and its stock price today, whether it currently pays dividends or not." "The answer is yes. And the reason is if today's interest rates are lower than the interest rate (coupon) at which the bond was issued. The bond's ""lifetime value"" is 100 cents on the dollar. That's the principal repayment that the investor will get on the maturity date. But suppose the bond's coupon rate is 4% while today's interest rate is 3%. Then, people who bought the bond at 100 would get 4% on their money, while everyone else was getting 3%. To compensate, a three year bond would have to rise to almost 103 so that the so-called yield to maturity"" would be 3%. Then there would be a ""capital loss"" (from almost 103 to 100) that would exactly offset the extra interest, that is 1% ""more"" for three years. If today's interest rates are negative (as they were from time to time in the 1930s, and in the present decade), the ""negative"" interest rates will prevent the buyer from getting the ""lifetime value"" (as defined by the OP) of principal plus interest over the original life of the bond. This happens in a ""flight to quality"" situation, where people are willing to take a (small) capital loss on Treasuries in order to prevent a large possible loss from bank failures like those that took place in 2008." "The short of it is that bonds are valued based on a fundamental concept of finance called the ""time value of money"". Stated simply, $100 one year from now is not the same as $100 now. If you had $100 now, you could use it to make more money and have more than $100 in a year. Conversely, if you didn't invest it, the $100 would not buy as much in a year as it would now, and so it would lose real value. Therefore, for these two benefits to be worth the same, the money received a year from now must be more than $100, in the amount of what you could make with $100 if you had it now, or at least the rate of inflation. Or, the amount received now could be less than the amount recieved a year from now, such that if you invested this lesser amount you'd expect to have $100 in a year. The simplest bonds simply pay their face value at maturity, and are sold for less than their face value, the difference being the cost to borrow the cash; ""interest"". These are called ""zero-coupon bonds"" and they're around, if maybe uncommon. The price people will pay for these bonds is their ""present value"", and the difference between the present value and face value determines a ""yield""; a rate of return, similar to the interest rate on a CD. Now, zero-coupon bonds are uncommon because they cost a lot. If I buy a zero-coupon bond, I'm basically tying up my money until maturity; I see nothing until the full bond is paid. As such, I would expect the bond issuer to sell me the bond at a rate that makes it worth my while to keep the money tied up. So basically, the bond issuer is paying me compound interest on the loan. The future value of an investment now at a given rate is given by FV = PV(1+r)t. To gain $1 million in new cash today, and pay a 5% yield over 10 years, a company or municipality would have to issue $1.629 million in bonds. You see the effects of the compounding there; the company is paying 5% a year on the principal each year, plus 5% of each 5% already accrued, adding up to an additional 12% of the principal owed as interest. Instead, bond issuers can offer a ""coupon bond"". A coupon bond has a coupon rate, which is a percentage of the face value of the bond that is paid periodically (often annually, sometimes semi-annually or even quarterly). A coupon rate helps a company in two ways. First, the calculation is very straightforward; if you need a million dollars and are willing to pay 5% over 10 years, then that's exactly how you issue the bonds; $1million worth with a 5% coupon rate and a maturity date 10 years out. A $100 5% coupon bond with a 10-year maturity, if sold at face value, would cost only $150 over its lifetime, making the total cost of capital only 50% of the principal instead of 62%. Now, that sounds like a bad deal; if the company's paying less, then you're getting less, right? Well yes, but you also get money sooner. Remember the fundamental principle here; money now is worth more than money later, because of what you can do with money between now and later. You do realize a lower overall yield from this investment, but you get returns from it quickly which you can turn around and reinvest to make more money. As such, you're usually willing to tolerate a lower rate of return, because of the faster turnaround and thus the higher present value. The ""Income Yield %"" from your table is also referred to as the ""Flat Yield"". It is a very crude measure, a simple function of the coupon rate, the current quote price and the face value (R/P * V). For the first bond in your list, the flat yield is (.04/114.63 * 100) = 3.4895%. This is a very simple measure that is roughly analogous to what you would expect to make on the bond if you held it for one year, collected the coupon payment, and then sold the bond for the same price; you'd earn one coupon payment at the end of that year and then recoup the principal. The actual present value calculation for a period of 1 year is PV = FV/(1+r), which rearranges to r = FV/PV - 1; plug in the values (present value 114.63, future value 118.63) and you get exactly the same result. This is crude and inaccurate because in one year, the bond will be a year closer to maturity and will return one less coupon payment; therefore at the same rate of return the present value of the remaining payout of the bond will only be $110.99 (which makes a lot of sense if you think about it; the bond will only pay out $112 if you bought it a year from now, so why would you pay $114 for it?). Another measure, not seen in the list, is the ""simple APY"". Quite simply, it is the yield that will be realized from all cash flows from the bond (all coupon payments plus the face value of the bond), as if all those cash flows happened at maturity. This is calculated using the future value formula: FV = PV (1+r/n)nt, where FV is the future value (the sum of the face value and all coupon payments to be made before maturity), PV is present value (the current purchase price), r is the annual rate (which we're solving for), n is the number of times interest accrues and/or is paid (for an annual coupon that's 1), and t is the number of years to maturity. For the first bond in the list, the simple APY is 0.2974%. This is the effective compound interest rate you would realize if you bought the bond and then took all the returns and stuffed them in a mattress until maturity. Since nobody does this with investment returns, it's not very useful, but it can be used to compare the yield on a zero-coupon bond to the yield on a coupon bond if you treated both the same way, or to compare a coupon bond to a CD or other compound-interest-bearing account that you planned to buy into and not touch for its lifetime. The Yield to Maturity, which IS seen, is the true yield percentage of the bond in time-valued terms, assuming you buy the bond now, hold it to maturity and all coupon payments are made on time and reinvested at a similar yield. This calculation is based on the simple APY, but takes into account the fact that most of the coupon payments will be made prior to maturity; the present value of these will be higher because they happen sooner. The YTM is calculated by summing the present values of all payments based on when they'll occur; so, you'll get one $4 payment a year from now, then another $4 in two years, then $4 in 3 years, and $104 at maturity. The present value of each of those payments is calculated by flipping around the future value formula: PV = FV/(1+r)t. The present value of the entire bond (its current price) is the sum of the present value of each payment: 114.63 = 4/(1+r) + 4/(1+r)2 + 4/(1+r)3 + 104/(1+r)4. You now have to solve for r, which is difficult to isolate; the easiest way to find the rate with a computer is to ""goal seek"" (intelligently guess and check).  Based on the formula above, I calculated a YTM of .314% for the first bond if you bought on Sept 7, 2012 (and thus missed the upcoming coupon payment). Buying today, you'd also be entitled to about 5 weeks' worth of the coupon payment that is due on Sept 07 2012, which is close enough to the present day that the discounted value is a rounding error, putting the YTM of the bond right at .40%. This is the rate of return you'll get off of your investment if you are able to take all the returns from it, when you receive them, and reinvest them at a similar rate (similar to having a savings account at that rate, or being able to buy fractional shares of a mutual fund giving you that rate)." The people who bought when interest rates were higher, do they get anything out of it? The present value just went up of their Bonds just went up, but it probably evened out to the 3% they were going to get right? Do they make more money selling the bond now, or holding on to it till maturity in PV terms?