As part of its “Portfolio Basics” series, Morningstar has an educational article on taxable bonds, including corporate bonds, US government bonds, and foreign government bonds, along with their different credit grades and maturity lengths.

Over the last 20 years, things have played out pretty much as the traditional theory would have predicted. The higher the “risk”, the higher the return. High-yield “junk”-rated corporate bonds have had the highest return, but also the bumpiest ride due to their higher credit risk and higher interest rate risk (they are usually of longer maturity). Short-term US Treasury bills (“cash”) has had the lowest return but the lowest credit risk and lowest interest rate risk. Personally, I see this chart and am satisfied with my holdings of intermediate-term US Treasury bonds (green line) that keeps the highest credit risk but with effectively a ladder out to a longer average maturity.

But hey, those high-yield bonds still returned a lot more money over the last 20 years instead. Why not just hold those instead? First, don’t forget to step back and look at the bigger picture:

If you’re going to accept big swings, you might prefer one of the highest returning assets in the top-right corner. (I have no idea which one will be the absolute highest in the next 20 years, but I don’t think it’s an accident that all the stocks are grouped together in that top-right corner.) If you can hold on through the scary periods, the gap between stocks and bonds over the long run (~100 years below) is huge:

This is why many will advise you to own more stocks if you want an overall higher risk/potentially higher return profile, as opposed to riskier bonds. But before you get carried away, read this book excerpt Courage Required from William Bernstein. Bleak times will come again. Safe things have value beyond the rate of return.

Every asset class has its energetic supporters, from rental properties to altcoins to gold. Listening to each group, you may feel that you need to own every asset class in order to be “diversified”. However, sometimes less is more, and it can be useful to read about why many seasoned veterans consciously avoid certain corners of the investment world. I find it a refreshingly different perspective, even if I may or may not agree. Everyone’s needs are different, and I own several of the things below myself. Here are a few lists along with supporting arguments.

William Bernstein – MD, author and wealth manager. I compiled this list while listening to the linked interview.

• Commodities Futures
• Individual Stocks
• Corporate bonds
• Long-term bonds
• Fixed annuities

Jonathan Clements – financial author and long-time WSJ columnist

• Savings bonds.
• Long-term bonds.
• High-yield “junk” bonds.
• Municipal bonds.
• International bonds.
• Individual stocks.
• Immediate fixed annuities (but he does plan to buy some eventually).
• Deferred income annuities.
• Gold
• Commodities
• Real Estate Investment Trusts (REITs)
• Rental properties.
• Long-term-care insurance.
• Life insurance.
• Disability insurance.
• Flood insurance.

Amy Arnott – CFA, portfolio strategist for Morningstar Research

• Actively Managed Funds
• Real Estate Investment Trusts (REITs)
• Sector Funds
• Alternative Investments
• I Bonds
• High-Yield Bonds
• Gold

Let me know if you come across any other “What I Don’t Own” lists.

[Image credit: Amazon]

One of my regular bookmarks is the TIPS real yield page (along with the regular Treasury yields). I noticed that the real yield on the 30-year TIPS has nudged above the 2% mark:

At the same time, the 30-year regular Treasury is at 4.3%, making the break-even annual inflation rate about 2.3%. Over the next 30 years, I’d take the over on that, or at least take some insurance out on the possibility of high inflation.

In addition, as David Enna of Tipswatch points out, this is the first time in a long while that all the various maturities (5/10/30 year shown below) are all around 2%.

If you wanted to, you can again construct a ladder of TIPS that will provide you a guaranteed inflation-protected income over the next 30 years (including spending down your principal) of over 4% above inflation (~4.4% as of this writing, as rates are higher today that at the time of writing for that post).

That means if you put $1,000,000 into a 30-year TIPS ladder right now, you can create ~$44,000 income for year 1 and then another ~$44,000 adjusted for inflation (CPI-U) annually for the next 29 years. All fully backed by the US government. No stock market volatility. No chance of annuity insurance company failure. Check out TipsLadder.com and Eyebonds.info if you are ready to get deep into the details.

While I am not looking into investing a lump sum into a TIPS ladder, I do own both regular US Treasuries and TIPS to provide the stable, guaranteed growth portion of my portfolio. (I’m roughly 70% stocks and 30% bonds.) If I’m getting guaranteed 5% growth from US Treasuries and guaranteed 2% + inflation from TIPS, I’m pretty happy with that for the safe part of my portfolio.

I am taking this opportunity rebalance my existing bond holdings and free cash to create an overall longer duration for my TIPS. I want to lock in that 2% real yield across longer maturities while it is available. Real yields might go even higher, but I’m more worried about it going lower than higher.

Eventually, you will be presented with the idea of writing covered calls on your portfolio and earning “easy income” from this strategy. I already know intuitively that there must be a cost to this “passive income” and that the net effect is worse performance than simply holding the same index fund or stock for the long term. However, the pushback is usually that you can get a more reliable cashflow in exchange for giving up some of your upside.

The article The Hidden Cost of Covered Call Writing (via Abnormal Returns) does a good job of explaining why there is unfortunately no “free lunch” with this strategy, even if your goal is to create steady income.

Many investors focus on the call premium as a source of portfolio “income” while still participating in a limited amount of appreciation of the stock. As long as the stock stays below the strike price and the call expires worthless, the strategy can generate positive portfolio income, making it ideal for flat or down markets. However, trying to time when stocks and markets will be flat or down is extremely difficult, particularly given the long-term upward bias of the equity markets. As such, there is a hidden cost of covered call writing, which is the potentially significant opportunity cost of having the stock go above the strike price causing lost portfolio appreciation.

Covered calls work great when they work out, since you get to keep your stock and the “free income”. Giving up your upside may seem like a good deal, but you must realize that much of the stock market’s return comes from lumpy periods where it shoots up without warning.

The chart below from the article compares the performance results between simply withdrawing 3% a year from your S&P 500 portfolio from 2013 to 2022, as opposed to writing covered calls with a 3% yield on your S&P 500 portfolio. The chart does add a 0.75% annual management fee for this approach, but even if you add that back in, the difference is still 11.3% vs. 9.2% annualized return.

Lower volatility is also commonly cited as a benefit of a covered call strategy. Well, yeah, if you limit your upside every time the strike price is exceeded, then you will have lower volatility.

In a rising market, covered calls may actually reduce upside portfolio volatility, which is the type of volatility that investors benefit from. As such, when evaluating covered call strategies that show lower volatility statistics than the broader market, investors should be mindful of where that volatility reduction may be coming from.

Am I willing to give up 2% in annual returns for a steady income? Nope. I mean, 2% is already roughly the entire dividend yield of the S&P 500. The problem is that most people who use this strategy aren’t properly tracking their performance and probably won’t know if they are lagging behind simple buy and hold. The call premium income comes in most of the time, so it’s easy not to realize the true cost of missing out on the gains.

There are certainly scenarios where if you think you have an information edge, knowing how to structure an option can help you make the right bet. But they aren’t magic! I am very skeptical of the idea of any options strategy that will somehow give you reliable income without a significant cost of hurting your total returns. That just gives me the same feeling of someone who claims to invent a machine that defies a basic law of physics.

The hard problem of retirement planning continues to be how to turn a pile of assets (like in a 401k plan) into the maximum reliable income stream for decades without running out of money. Historically, companies that pay a high-yet-reliable dividend have been referred to as “widow and orphan” stocks. The academic paper Why Dividends Matter by Paul Schultz explores the underpinnings of this practice, including the “implicit contract” between the company and shareholders that “you can consume at the level of the dividend for the foreseeable future without fear of running out of money.” The debate about investing based on dividends will not be resolved by this paper, but here are a few quotes:

It is not necessary to think that a practice of consuming only from dividends is a result of limited rationality, biases, or mental accounting. When firms establish a quarterly dividend, they implicitly tell investors that they can consume at the level of the dividend for the foreseeable future. So, investors who want to smooth consumption can do so by consuming dividends.

As a whole, the investors in this survey are far more concerned about the danger of depleting assets by selling stock, than by spending dividends. This is why investors like dividends. They allow to investors to smooth consumption by indicating how much they can consume without depleting assets.

Now that we have many ways to backtest historical stocks returns, the popular counter-argument is that we have other ways to decide how much is “safe” to withdraw, and that amount is often more that the current dividend yield available. We can simply some stock shares as needed if the dividend is not enough. Which is the better way to decide how much is safe to withdraw?

Historically, do dividend payouts keep up with inflation? This would seem to be important if investors are only spending the dividends every year. Otherwise, they would eventually need to sell shares of stock anyway. Table I of the paper “Changes in Dividends and Inflation” covers this using CRSP data for all US stocks. Hat tip to Klement on Investing, who converted Table I into a nice visual chart:

Over the past nearly 100 years, the dividend growth rate has mostly matched inflation. Dividend growth did fall behind inflation during the period of 1970s high inflation. In turn, dividends have grown much faster than (historically low) inflation in the last 20 years.

Here’s another chart from Hartford Funds which separates the portion of S&P 500 total market returns into share price appreciation and dividends.

I would note that these charts cover the broad US stock market, not just a subset of high-dividend stocks nor international stocks. I certainly don’t think we can get away with buying only the highest dividend-yielding stocks and calling it a day. However, I do believe that dividend payouts are is a useful data point to consider, amongst many others. I tend to pay attention to the dividend yield on the S&P 500 and also certain indexes like those tracked by the Vanguard Value Index Fund ETF. I also expect the dividends on both to grow more or less with inflation over the long run.

Even Vanguard’s founder Jack Bogle had the following to say (source):

But you ought to think about all sources of your retirement income. Having said that, when you own an equity portfolio, don’t get into it for market reasons, get into it for income reasons. Oversimplifying, what you want to do when you retire is walk out to the mailbox on Social Security day and on dividend payment day for the funds—assuming they’re the same day—and make sure you have two envelopes out there. One is your fund dividend and the other is your Social Security check. The Social Security will keep up with inflation year after year, and dividends are likely to increase year after year. They have been going up. Every once in a while there is an interruption, such as the Great Depression of the early 1930s. And many bank stocks eliminated their dividends in 2008, so there was obviously a drop. But it has long since recovered, and then some.

Bet on the dividends, and not on the market price. You’ve got those two envelopes and that’s your retirement. If you have a pension plan (one that is not likely to go bankrupt—and a lot of them are likely to) that is a third envelope. You want to be concerned about whether you have enough income to pay utility bills, pay for your food, pay your rent or your mortgage, whatever it might be, every month. You want income to help you pay those bills. And in the retirement stage, that’s what investing should be about—regular checks from dividends and/or from Social Security and/or from a pension account.

For the average person, the most valuable information may be knowing how to identify and avoid the most current financial scams. Nearly everyone I know has either been targeted or has become a victim of one of these scams, and I am betting many people who lost money are too embarrassed to admit it publicly. (Literally in the middle of writing this post, I received another scam call.)

One scam that you may not have heard of is the ACAT Transfer scam. A thief will obtain enough of your personal information to open a new E*Trade brokerage account, and then they will request an ACAT transfer of the entire contents of your existing brokerage account (ex. Fidelity) to that new fake E*Trade account which they control. At this point, they can quickly liquidate the account and send the money elsewhere. The key here is that they just need to be able to open an empty, new brokerage account in your name plus find your Fidelity account numbers from a statement. They don’t need your Fidelity username and password (or pass two-factor authentication).

Even more importantly, you won’t notice unless you log into your account. Opening a new E*Trade or other brokerage account will not trigger a credit alert or most identity protection services. Many brokers (see below) will process an outgoing ACAT transfer without confirming with you or even notifying you in any way. If you don’t look at your statements closely, it may be months or longer before you notice.

You can read about the experiences of multiple victims in this Reddit thread. Here’s a partial quote in case the thread is deleted.

Lost around 150k worth of stock from my fidelity brokerage account to an online scam (ACATS Transfer)

My husband has a fidelity brokerage account and last month all his shares were transferred out of his account. Upon calling the customer care, we were told that his stocks were transferred by him to an account with eTrade.

We communicated that we don’t have any e-trade account and the transfer was not initiated by us. We were shocked that no notification/intimation was sent to us before completing the transfer and no authorization was required!!

It looks like a fake account was created in his name with eTrade which initiated an account transfer. He did not receive any request/emails/text from Fidelity that the stocks are being moved. The etrade account has been frozen but the stocks are already sold and proceeds are transferred to another account.

The good news is that the original poster was eventually able to get back their funds, although it must have been a very stressful two months. It is not clear if Fidelity reimbursed them out of their own pockets or were able to reverse the transactions.

We were able to recover the stocks after waiting and following up for 2 months. Fidelity reps were able able to help us.

The discussion pointed out the potential usefulness of a relatively unique Fidelity feature called Money Transfer Lockdown (Fidelity login required). Here is a summary of the features and how to activate it per Fidelity:

Money Transfer Lockdown, an additional security measure Fidelity provides to its customers, may affect or disallow certain types of transactions. In order to transfer between two of your Fidelity accounts (In your example brokerage and CMA) when Money Transfer Lockdown is enabled, you will need to temporarily disable the feature prior to making the transaction. Once you have successfully made the transfer, you can enable the lockdown again by logging in into your Fidelity.com account anytime and visit “Security Center” from your “Profile” page.

Protected Transactions:

• Outbound money transfers
• Transfers between Fidelity accounts
• Transfer of shares and assets to other institutions
• Individual withdrawals (previously scheduled EFT transfers from an account might still be processed)

Unaffected Transactions:

• Deposits or transfers into a Fidelity account
• Checkwriting and direct debits
• Debit/ATM transactions
• Trading
• Scheduled Required Minimum Distribution (RMD) or Personal Automatic Withdrawal plan
• BillPay

A member of the Bogleheads forum helpfully tested out this service by attempting various transfers out of their “locked” Fidelity account. The Money Transfer Lockdown service did successfully block a legitimate ACAT transfer request from another brokerage. However, ACH pulls went through for those accounts that have routing and account numbers like a traditional bank account. Here are their brief conclusions:

Fidelity’s account lockdown blocks fraudulent ACATS pulls. It is an excellent, differential feature that Schwab and Vanguard don’t have. However, it has some limitations and vulnerabilities. It provides no extra security against fraudulent push of assets and doesn’t block fraudulent ACH pulls. To deal with ACH limitations, using CMA as an intermediary account from brokerage to the external world may be prudent.

As a result, I have taken to using the Money Transfer Lockdown service on all available account types (doesn’t work on 401k accounts, for example). It’s a little extra hassle, but definitely worth the added peace of mind. I hope that Vanguard and other brokers will add a similar feature to make it harder to perform an ACAT transfer without notice. I also believe that Fidelity would do a much better job of working to restore my assets than any other broker, especially the smaller brokers.

Now, if someone gains full access to your Fidelity account (username + password + 2FA), they can simply turn off the Lockdown feature. However, every time I do that I get both a text and an e-mail, so hopefully that will provide early enough notice to block any fraudulent transfers, or at least make the clawback faster. In addition, I feel that most people need to make sure they have a difficult PIN number on their phone, as login security is quickly coming down to having your phone as a type of physical “key”.

The quiet nature of ACAT transfer is what makes this scam possible! They are taking advantage of standard industry practice that is a weak point in financial security. The scammers all know this. We need to change this process to increase security. First, I’ve never had a brokerage account opening trigger any credit alert or identity theft monitoring service. Second, I recently transferred a significant amount of assets to Fidelity from Public using ACAT, and Public did not send me a single email, text, or phone call. My Public account was simply zero one day. I did legitimately request this transfer, but what if I didn’t?!?