Does exposure to financials in corporate bond funds make sense?
One reason a lot of bond ETFs like Financials are because of how financial companies work.  They usually have amazing cash flows due to deposits and fees and therefore have little risk associated with paying their debts in the short term. The rest of VCSH contains companies with low default risk and good cash flow generation as well: This is of course the objective of VCSH: Banks themselves issue a lot of bonds to raise cash to lend for other purposes.  Banks are intermediary and help make funds liquid for investors and spenders.  Hope that helped answer your question.  If not comment below and I'll try to adjust the answer to be more complete.
"Like all financial investments, the value of a bond is the present value of expected future cash flows.  The Yield to Maturity is the annualized return you get on your initial investment, which is equivalent to the discount rate you'd use to discount future cash flows. So if you discount all future cashflows at 6% annually*, you can calculate the price of the bond: So the price of a $1,000 bond (which is how bond prices are typically quoted) would be $1,097.12. The current yield is just the current coupon payment divided by the current price, which is 70/1,097.12 or 6.38% Question 3 makes no sense, since the yield to maturity would be the same if you bought the bond at market price Question 4 talks about a ""sale"" date which makes me think that it assumes you sold the bond on the coupon date, but you'd have to know the sale price to calculate the rate of return." "One alternative to bogleheadism is the permanent portfolio concept (do NOT buy the mutual fund behind this idea as you can easily obtain access to a low cost money market fund, stock index fund, and bond fund and significantly reduce the overall cost).  It doesn't have the huge booms that stock plans do, but it also doesn't have the crushing blows either.  One thing some advisers mention is success is more about what you can stick to than what ""traditionally"" makes sense, as you may not be able to stick to what traditionally makes sense (all people differ). This is an excellent pro and con critique of the permanent portfolio (read the whole thing) that does highlight some of the concerns with it, especially the big one: how well will it do in a world of high interest rates?  Assuming we ever see a world of high interest rates, it may not provide a great return. The authors make the assumption that interest rates will be rising in the future, thus the permanent portfolio is riskier than a traditional 60/40.  As we're seeing in Europe, I think we're headed for a world of negative interest rates - something in the past most advisers have thought was very unlikely.  I don't know if we'll see interest rates above 6% in my lifetime and if I live as long as my father, that's a good 60+ years ahead. (I realize people will think this is crazy to write, but consider that people are willing to pay governments money to hold their cash - that's how crazy our world is and I don't see this changing.)" crank out expensive shares when markets are frothy Corporations go public (sell their shares for the first time) in market conditions that have a lot of liquidity (a lot of people buying shares) and when they have to make the fewest concessions to appease an investing public. When people are greedy and looking to make money without using too much due diligence. Think Netscape's IPO in 1995 or Snapchat's IPO in 2017. They also issue more shares after already being public in similar circumstances. Think Tesla's 1 billion dollar dilution in 2017. Dilution results in the 1 share owning less of the company. So in a less euphoric investing environment, share prices go down in response to dilution. See Viggle's stock for an example, if you can find a chart. issue debt Non-financial companies create bonds and sell bonds. Why is that surprising to you? Cash is cash. This is called corporate bonds or corporate debt. You can buy Apple bonds right now if you want from the same brokers that let you buy stocks. mutual fund investor Bernstein is making a cynical assessment of the markets which carries a lot of truth. Dumping shares on your mom's 401k is a running gag amongst some financial professionals. Basically mutual fund investors are typically the least well researched or most gullible market participants to sell to, influenced by brand name more than company fundamentals, who will balk at the concept of reading a prospectus. Financial professionals and CFOs have more information than their investors and can gain extended advantages because of this. Just take the emotions out of it and make objective assessments. Reversing your math, I am assuming you have $312K to work with.  In that case, I would simply shop around your local banks and/or credit unions and have them compete for your money and you might be quite surprised how much they are willing to pay. A couple of months ago, you would be able to get about 4.25% from Israel Bonds in Canada on 5 years term (the Jubilee product, with minimum investment of $25K).  It's a bit lower now, but you should still be able to get very good rates if you shop around tier-2 banks or credit unions (who are more hungry for capital than the well-funded tier-1 banks). Or you could look at preferred shares of a large corporation.  They are different from common shares in the sense they are priced according to the payout rate (i.e. people buy it for the dividend). A quick screen from your favorite stock exchange ought to find you a few options. Another option is commercial bonds.  You should be able to get that kind of return from investment grade (BBB- and higher) bonds on large corporations these days.  I just did a quick glance at MarketWatch's Bond section (http://cxa.marketwatch.com/finra/BondCenter/Default.aspx) and found AAA grade bonds that will yield > 5%.  You will need to investigate their underlying fundamentals, coupon rate and etc before investing (second thought, grab a introduction to bonds book from Chapters first). Hope these helps. Disclaimer: I don't work in the finance industry, and simply took a few classes in corporate finance and management during my undergrad.  It depends on what type of investing you're talking about. If you're talking about building a portfolio of securities, then CAPM is the basis for most valuation models. Generally, CAPM will have you discount based on your best available risk-free rate (usually t-bills or some other fixed income source with a reliable backer). Even after your valuation, the basic theory of risk management for an investment portfolio is still to maintain a diverse basket of poorly correlated products.  If you're talking about corporate finance where a firm is considering an investment such as a new project, then a determining a WACC and using it as a discount rate for your cash flow is a basic strategy.   This is a basic strategy, but there are better ones depending on the specifics of the investment. This is where evaluating exposures is important. To hedge counterparty risk, you might discount by the estimated probability of non-payment or buy trade insurance. To hedge currency risk, you might buy forwards, options, or look into a money market hedge. To hedge political risks like repatriation or changes in tax laws or regulation you might buy political risk insurance. To hedge exposure to a particular commodity price, you can trade futures. Adding international bonds to an individual investor's portfolio is a controversial subject.  On top of the standard risks of bonds you are adding country specific risk, currency risk and diversifying your individual company risk.  In theory many of these risks should be rewarded but the data are noisy at best and adding risk like developed currency risk may not be rewarded at all. Also, most of the risk and diversification mentioned above are already added by international stocks.  Depending on your home country adding international or emerging market stock etfs only add a few extra bps of fees while international bond etfs can add 30-100bps of fees over their domestic versions.  This is a fairly high bar for adding this type of diversification.  US bonds for foreign investors are a possible exception to the high fees though the government's bonds yield little. If your home currency (or currency union) does not have a deep bond market and/or bonds make up most of your portfolio it is probably worth diversifying a chunk of your bond exposure internationally.  Otherwise, you can get most of the diversification much more cheaply by just using international stocks. Yes this would be the same as when a corporation sells bonds. If it is the same as you describe. A product page would make it possible to give you a definitive answer. Also I strongly advice against taking out this type of loan if not for investment There is no single 'market interest rate'; there are myriad interest rates that vary by risk profile & term. Corporate bonds are (typically) riskier than bank deposits, and therefore pay a higher effective rate when the market for that bond is in equilibrium than a bank account does. If you are willing to accept a higher risk in order gain a higher return, you might choose bonds over bank deposits. If you want an even higher return and can accept even higher risk, you might turn to stocks over bonds. If you want still higher return and can bear the still higher risk, derivatives may be more appealing than stocks.