Hacker News Reader

Comment by scotch_drinker | Hacker News Reader

I'm not sure having 55% invested in bonds after one of the biggest runups in bonds in recent history is a good idea. What happens when the Fed eventually stops buying Treasury bonds? What happens when states and municipalities start going under (currently states can't declare bankruptcy but if you think the US Government is going to let California, Illinois, New Jersey et. al go under, you're crazy)? I think bond holders will be forced to take a hair cut.

The OP also seems to not fully understand why precious metals and commodities have had just a big run up, namely the possible end to our current fiat monetary system. As long as the Fed continues to try to increase liquidity through Treasury buying, precious metals are likely to see increased demand.

View on HN

Good point about bonds. I was thinking of splitting that 55%-60% between bonds and something even safer (money market?). I haven't found anything easy to invest in that currently gives returns above inflation. Any suggestions?

I do understand the risk to the monetary system. That's why I'm advocating diversifying into precious metals and commodities as well. That's something that seems rarely mentioned in investment advice, but ETFs make it relatively easy now.

If you're worried about interest rate risk, a short term bond fund will mitigate that risk. Also keep in mind that a 'market crash' for bonds is only a ~10-15% drop.

Wait a minute, you're worried that bonds have had a big run up in prices and are now overvalued, yet you want to get into precious metals?

I think the reasons for the bond run up and precious metals run up are different. At the risk of oversimplifying, the appreciation in bonds is due to a flight to safety and the US Fed instituting a pretty substantial bond buying program to keep interest rates down. Eventually those factors will correct and bonds will follow.

Precious metals have increased because investors no longer believe that paper currency is a reliable store of wealth along with a huge increase in the Fed balance sheet. Also, there is some evidence that large US banks have conspired to keep the metals market artificially constrained, especially the silver market. While precious metals have had a huge runup, the fundamentals are still strong for future appreciation (large Fed balance sheet for the foreseeable future, unstable monetary policies) and therefore, I don't see the risk to the downside in the metals.

> the appreciation in bonds is due to a flight to safety

> Precious metals have increased because investors no longer believe that paper currency is a reliable store of wealth

Isn't that also a flight to safety, then? Not an identical variety of safety, but both seem to be driven by the same move-your-wealth-somewhere-safe sentiment that the financial crisis induced; some people picked U.S. treasuries, other people picked gold or copper or whatever. It's possible that one of those flights will be longer-lasting, though, if that's what you're predicting.

Gold prices in particular are also very dependent on central bank policy, because a large portion of the current value of gold is dependent on large quantities being held out of the market by central banks. It's close to fiat money in that sense, in that its value is dependent on central-bank policy propping it up. I'd be willing to grant that the policy risk is lower, though: while Federal Reserve action could tank either treasury prices or gold prices, the likelihood of the Federal Reserve tanking treasury prices is probably higher. But if it decided to sell of any significant portion of its 9,000 tons of gold to raise revenue...

I've had a thought recently that bonds are quirky in that - unlike other investments - they behave like a utility. I've just seen that expressed in your comment.

You didn't say you were chasing a particular return, but that you were chasing safety. Bonds have a special property in that they combine being very flexible and are considered to be very safe. I think this creates a demand for them due to that combination, rather than due to their return on investment.

I don't see the evidence that they are that safe. Certainly, history shows many examples of governments which have spiraled into debt and inflated or defaulted.

But so long as there's a population that acts along this logic, it would seem that bonds will function as a nice, flexible store of value.

    > ETFs make it relatively easy now.

I suspect some of them are vulnerable to the same flaws as the financial system. For example, some ETFs don't keep physical holdings of the asset they represent, and have positions that are exposed to counterparty risk. For example, I read about an ETF that allowed people to borrow its stock for shorting.

If I was investing in that sort of ETF, I'd be concerned about upside. Holding commodities can be nice in a black swan event. But ETFs with counterparty risk may themselves fall over at such a time.

This brings us back to the original "point" of precious metals. They are small enough and valuable enough to hold physically. You don't need to buy a gold ETF, you can buy actual gold.

And this is not just in case of a "black swan" event, it is a counter to the very high rates of inflation we're seeing.

You're right that ETFs have counter party risk, holding physical gold or platinum has little risk. (You can hold it in a safe deposit box, or in a very small cardboard box well hidden in your house and have pretty good surety that no thief will ever find it. Even $100,000 in platinum is very compact.)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com