I am looking to build a municipal bond ladder with target date ETFs. I am wondering if there is any opinion on BulletShares versus Ibonds. The differences I notice are BulletShares has lower volume, lower assets, higher yields, higher durations, and higher expenses.
BulletShares: average volume about 1K-10K, expense ratio 0.18%
Ibonds: average volume 10K-60K, expense ratio 0.10%
For both, the longer maturity target dates tend to have lower volumes
I am not sure why, but the yields are consistently higher for BulletShares despite the same average credit quality. BulletShares s tends to have longer effective duration for the same target year. I think BulletShares might have more callable bonds (but their yield to worse still is higher than Ibonds yield to maturity)
BulletShares 2023: Effective duration 3.3 years. Yield to maturity 1.87%, yield to worst 0.84%
Ibonds 2023: effective duration 2.8 years, Yield to maturity 0.52%
BulletShares 2026: Effective duration 7.2 years, Yield to maturity 2.79%, yield to worst 1.79%
Ibonds 2026 effective duration 5.4 years Yield to maturity 0.9%
Part of me says take the better yield and since I plan to hold until the last year don’t worry about liquidity, but part of me says this is too good to be true and maybe Guggenheim’s bond pricing methodology is artificially boosting their yields, or they are taking excessive duration or call risks on callable bonds. Any input would be appreciated.

@FD100
you may have told us before but how do you avoid redemption fees on some of these funds?
Congratulations on establishing your system that seems to work almost all the time. How much work does it take to evaluate incoming data daily or hourly and trade so frequently? Sounds close to a real job to me

I do pay commissions sometimes but I try to buy Instit shares because I have an agreement to buy them at Schwab with fees waived. Selling is always free because Instit shares don't have short term fees. Several funds have their own short term fees and why I don't buy them. Even if I pay fees they are negligible when I make thousands.
It takes me just minutes every week for my portfolio because I have all the lists I need to see momentum and looking at my preferred pre-selected funds.
Example: if I want to buy HY Munis the 4 funds (NHMAX,ORNAX,OPTAX,GWMEX) are my top choices and what I have been using but I always take another look at other funds.
Investing has been my passion for years.
I do spend more if I post something that needs research, analysis and more.
===========
(link) "Stocks erased earlier losses and rose Monday, after the Federal Reserve said it would begin purchasing individual corporate bonds as part of its emerging lending program to inject liquidity into the virus-stricken economy.
Earlier in the session, the Dow was off as many as 762 points, or 3%, as investor jitters over rising coronavirus cases in key parts of the country stirred up an extension of last week’s pullback in equities."
============
My main investments are bond OEFs, will see in the next several days where markets are going

As I said several times before I don't follow any of these but my own rules which I started years ago preparing for retirement. Since 2018 I practiced stricter rules 1) 6+% average annually 2) SD under 3 3) never lose 3% from any last top 4) complete flexibility to do whatever I want/need. I exceeded these rules by a lot.
===============
Anyway, the thread is about bond funds so let's get back to it.
Last Thursday was another pivotal day for me. VIX jumped to almost 41, stocks crashed, the risk is elevated, rated are down sharply but BND wasn't up which is what you expect from a high rated bond index. VBTLX which is equal to BND but doesn't trade was up 0.08%. When rates decrease so much I expect bond fund like VBTLX to make more than 0.08%
All the above didn't make sense to me. Maybe it is just short term. I do the usual when the markets don't make sense to me I sell. It is unusual because in most cases I'm invested at 99+%. In the last 10 years, I was out of the market just 12 weeks (only in 5 weeks I was at 95+% in cash)
Last Thursday I was at about 50% cash and Friday at 95+% in cash. HY Munis which I had close to 60% of my portfolio were on a tear in the last month and even last week. It was time for me to sell.
YTD I'm way over my goals of 6%. I can take time out and can "miss" some performance.

+1. And I understand there are zero-coupon bonds, and bonds which pay monthly or quarterly. The div has to come from somewhere. I once owned a foreign "zero," denominated in USD, and when it paid, after 10 years, my money was nearly doubled. I recall the rate on it was about 5.68%.

Those interest payments are being spun at a cost.
Cash is cash. Principal and dividends are fungible. If I buy a bond at $103 and it pays $2 in interest (coupon) for three years until maturity, what have I really gotten? $6 in interest and a $3 loss of principal. It is any different from buying a bond at $100 that pays $1 in interest (coupon) for three years until maturity?
IMHO it's all the same, even if one feels "richer" with the $6 in interest.
Same idea with these funds. PTIAX cost $22.81 per share on Jan 2, and was worth $22.59 as of last close. It paid 32.5¢ in divs over that period of time. But like the bond, it declined in value. The net (total) return was less than one could have gotten in a bank. (But bank accounts have no upside potential.)
BTW, I love premium bonds.

Some people like posting narratives. I prefer hard numbers.
Start with $1,000, withdraw $40 (4% real, i.e. inflation adjusted) annually over 30 years. Do this with declining equity portfolios (e.g. 100% down to 0%) and with rising equity portfolios (e.g. 0% to 100%). Backtest against historical data, using rolling 30 year periods starting with 1900-1929, ending with 1980-2009.
Then look at the failure rates (portfolios that didn't last 30 years), and how much you'd wind up with at the end of the 30 year period.

Equity %	
(Start->End)	100->0	0->100	90->10	10->90	80->20	20->80	70->30	30->70
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Failure Rate	 8.6%   21.0%    6.2%  	17.3% 	 4.9%    11.1%   4.9%	 8.6% 
Mean 		$1,388 	$851  	$1,336	$901   	$1,283	 $954	$1,230	$1,009 
Median		  $947	$171	  $873 	$293 	  $908 	 $424 	  $951    $527

Data from Exhibit 1 in Estrada,The Retirement Glidepath: An International Perspective, The Journal of Investing (Summer 2016).

Pfau and Kitces (2014) find support for RE strategies during retirement and justify their findings with the notion of sequence of returns risk. ... [I]f large negative returns occur at the beginning of the retirement period, the portfolio is far more likely to be depleted than if the same returns occurred by the end of such period...This is a plausible argument and perhaps applies to the simulations discussed in Pfau and Kitces (2014). ... However, the support for DE [declining equity] strategies found here (at least when compared to RE [rising equity] strategies) calls into question how relevant sequence of returns risk has been empirically... In other words, however plausible in theory, sequence of returns risk does not seem to have been a key determinant of portfolio failure in this broad sample.

Big advantage for rising equity? Plausible but not borne out. Nor as noted previously do Pfau's simulations bear this out under market conditions like today's.
Way too often people go with their gut, or their fears, rather than rational analysis and cold hard numbers. That's why only about 5% of people wait until age 70 to take SS, it's part of why there's an annuity puzzle.
For those who don't want to read Estrada's complete paper, there's Larry Swedroe's page about it. He concludes:

To summarize, while Estrada presents evidence favoring the use of a DE [declining equity] glide path over a rising one, and also shows that a static 60/40 allocation is preferable to an RE [rising equity] portfolio, the most prudent strategy of all is not to “set it and forget it” with any of these options.
The most prudent approach is to adapt a strategy to actual market returns and valuations.

Rising glidepath has a big advantage of not losing as much in the first critical years. So, even if all 3 (rising, declining, stagnant) glidepaths are similar I still prefer to start with a lower % in stocks.

Call it confirmation bias, but I generally agree with Clements. At least a couple of years ago I wondered (and posted) whether low rates coupled with interest rate risk rendered the value of bonds over cash dubious. I've written favorably about Buffett's propsed allocation, 10% short term (effectively cash), 90% equities. Though I disagreed with his singleminded focus on the S&P 500. This cash/equity approach is also essentially Evensky's 1985 two bucket strategy.
Figuring on a 4% withdrawal rate, the 10% cash could buffer a bear market taking 2.5 years to recover. Clements suggests 25% cash, or around a 6 year buffer. I might split the difference and put half of that 25% in cash, half in vanilla bonds, figuring that the bonds will do better even with modestly rising interest rates, if one waits 3 years or more.
As Clements noted, the expectation value of SS is greater if one delays taking benefits. This is especially true if one is focused on one's own lifetime and not on legacies. If one has a financial need for monthly checks before age 70, one can fill the gap with a temporary life annuity.
Which brings us to annuities. Dr. Wade Pfau says much the same thing as Clements - that the lower the current interest rates, the bigger the bargain annuities are, thanks to mortality credits. "Essentially, while the cost of funding retirement with an annuity increases as interest rates decline, the cost of funding retirement in other ways increases even faster than for the annuity. Therefore, the annuity becomes a better relative deal."
Speaking of Dr. Pfau, while he and Michael Kitces suggested seven years ago that a rising glidepath might provide a slightly higher probability of success (not running out of money over 30 years), subsequent research by Dr. David M. Blanchett showed that a traditional declining glidepath would work better in an environment with low interest rates and highly valued stocks. As it was in 2015 when he wrote his paper, and as it is now.
They had an ongoing exchange about this. Here's one part:

I re-ran the analysis that Michael and I did in our initial article, but I switched to the new capital market assumptions I use which allow for increasing bond yields over time while keeping a fixed average equity premium over bonds. ... It does indeed seem that retiring at times with particularly low bond yields, which can be expected to increase over time, may not favor rising equity glidepaths during retirement. It essentially causes the retiree to lock in low bond returns and even capital losses on a bond fund as bond yields gradually increase (on average) over time.
This is not to say that rising equity glidepaths are never a good idea. ... If interest rates were at a higher initial starting point, I’m guessing that rising glidepaths would look much better in his analysis.

@Catch22 and others have been mentioning this very thing, I recall. Makes sense. I had been operating on an "old school" basis. 36% stocks now, 58% bonds. Goal: up to 65% bonds. But I won't be putting in much effort to get there. Looking 5 years out and trying to estimate profit, particularly now, would be a wild guess. Nevertheless, my "go-to" page is still Morningstar. They're telling me via X-Ray that my particular mix of funds will get me a 5-year yield that's 44% better than the Index they're using. As for cap gains, measured by EPS growth over 5 years: 31% better than the S&P500. But maybe that's just wishful thinking, based on normal times, anyhow. Covid-19 changes everything. Anyhow, the dividends I get monthly are not nothing. If I need to start collecting them--- after we move in the Spring to a bigger place, maybe--- they will be a big help with utilities, for example. Lots of solar here, though. If we're fortunate, we'll grab one of those.

Hope not too non-topical. Just based on relative performance of some funds I hold and following various print / non-print media:
(1) Following the March meltdown, value stocks began to outperform many other sectors. That was a surprise after their decades old underperformance. Doesn't make up for the bad years, but is a refreshing change for value investors.
(2) A second surprise was a brief powerful surge in energy and other cyclicals (including materials) which began shortly after oil briefly fell into negative territory. Oil is nowhere back to its all-time high over $100, but compared to April's (negative) - $37.63 handle, +$37-$38 today is pretty impressive. No idea how you would even compute a % gain like that.
(3) Not so much a surprise as "long overdue", the dollar weakened substantially over the past 2 weeks. That's supposed to be good for EM curriencies - probably is longer term. But downdrafts in equities like this week's can also serve to weaken those currencies.
If you are well diversified among various sectors and added a bit of risk to your plate during the March pummeling, chances are you're not down too far this year - and in some cases positive. Ted used to say, "Investing isn't a sprint, it's a marathon".
(4) @bee's topic is so stimulating ... here's one more surprise. Have followed real estate funds since dumping one a year ago. Than, sector was up something like 35% for 1 year. Generally afraid of heights - so bailed. What's surprising is both the depth to which they fell early this year as well as the sharp rebound since March / April. Considered opening a spec position in TRREX month or two ago when it was off near 30-35% YTD. Waited too long. Confucius say: He who hesitates is lost.. :)

I listed the funds because they meet the performance and risk parameters I was describing. Some I'm more familiar with than others. Generally I try not to say what I own because each person's needs are different, but I'll go so far as to say that I do own at least one fund on the list.
Beyond that, I'll just comment on a couple of the funds. I don't own BCOIX, but I've written about it a few times. I don't own it but I do own a similar fund with very close performance both short and long term. So I've never found a reason to change or to use it for management diversification.
Nor do I own TRBUX. I haven't written about this fund, but I have written positively about RPHYX and its use as a place for intermediate term (1-2 year) cash. For much of its life, TRBUX has returned significantly less than RPHYX (see chart here). Further, it fell a little harder than RPHYX in March.
But over the past three years, the two have tracked closely. And it bested RPHYX by nearly 3% since the end of March. While I still need to look at why each of these funds did the way they did, the past three years suggest that TRBUX could serve as a fine "near cash" fund.

In response to your question. I'm thinking that it does along with the high frequency crowd. Look how the machines played the market this past Thursday with the S&P 500 Index moving from a Wednesday close of 3190 to a Thursday close of 3002 for a 5.9% down move. It use to be years back that one percent moves were the big ones and now that the machines are playing the market the five percent moves are becoming quite common. I remember recently reading that some believe that better than fifty percent of the daily volume now comes by way of program trading.
Below is a link to a Seeking Alpha article that states 80% of the volume is believed to come from algo trading programs.
https://seekingalpha.com/article/4230982-algo-trading-dominates-80-of-stock-market

Ive had Prwcx for 20 years-Love it!! I wish other choices would do half as well

I have a fair amount of overlap with funds previously mentioned. Among those not mentioned . . .
YTD performance is per M* rather than any picture of my performance.
Neuberger Berman Genesis (NBGNX) has done just fine @ -5.44 YTD . I'm glad I held on when I was selling funds to simplify, and rebalance, back in December-January. Their thesis still made sense to me when push came to shove.
Value Line Mid-Cap (VLIFX) is -4.98. I bought some on march 18th. That has worked out pretty well.
Merk Hard Currency (MERKX) is at -2.7. I'm so far in the red on that one. I doubled down on that and USAGX (a gold fund) after Trump was elected. Maybe it would take off if we had Weimar-style inflation. I hope it never takes off. But I'll probably hold it until the end.
Fidelity Floating Rate (FFRHX) is holding up better than VWELX at only -4.71. I bought it as part of my inflation hedge. Compared to MERKX, I feel like the guy that stopped hitting himself in the head with a rock.
I'm not too happy with the DoubleLine bond funds I bought. Their infrastructure fund (BILDX) is only +.13. And their low duration is off -.86. I'll be looking for opportunities to get out ahead with both.
Fidelity Real Estate Income (FRIFX) has been a party-pooper. It's at -12.69 while TIAA Real Estate (TCREX) is only off -7.90. FRIFX was supposed to be the less volatile real estate option. Considering I bought them after selling Vanguard's realty index (VGSIX), I shouldn't kick too much. It's off 12.48.
Switching out of Vanguard's small cap index for Boston-Walden's small cap ESG (BOSOX) has not worked out yet. It's off -17.72 while the index is only off -13.51.
I still have high hopes for ESG moving forward. Not sure how long I'll have to wait. Parnassus, and Boston-Walden midcaps have been nothing to write home about compared to the mid-caps mentioned above.
TIAA-CREF's ESG bond fund TSBRX has worked out better so far at +3.59
Janus Henderson Small Cap Value has been a lamb led to slaughter. The less said of it, the better.
Speaking of the funds that got away during my rebalance. Nicholas (NICSX) is only off -4.15. But I was worried about the succession issues after going through tribulations with Homestead Small Cap (HSCSX). That started to wobble after Morris and Teach retired. And began to founder after Ashton retired. I got out some time ago.
I dumped Royce Special Equity (RYSEX). There are other funds that watch the balance sheets, and still manage to buy a winning stock every once in a while.
I dumped Mairs and Powers funds when I realized it was silly to own something because I went to college in St. Paul 45 years ago.

Over three months, this fund with an SEC yield of 0.15% is going to return around 4 basis points. With a duration of 1.9 years, a 2 basis point increase in rates (+0.02%) could wipe out the total three month return. (A small decrease in rates could likewise double the total return, but we're basically at ZIRP, so a rate decline seems less likely.)
I use three months because one can find brokered three month CDs with 0.20% APY. That's a higher yield than the ETF with no interest rate risk to principal. Credit risk is similar: FDIC insured vs. backed by full faith and credit of the treasury.
The downside of CDs is that liquidity is limited - one can only get cash out every three months. However, if one is looking to stash cash for under three months, then this ETF is going to give you even less than 4 basis points while exposing you to interest rate risk. A mattress would not be appreciably worse.
Brokered CDs can make sense for stashing cash in an IRA if one is focused on safety. That's because moving money from trustee to trustee, especially short term, is troublesome. But if one's cash is in a taxable account, one can just use an internet bank. No penalty CDs are still yielding over 1% and they put a floor under your return in case bank rates drop. Should rate rise, you can cash out and buy a higher yielding CD.

As for the economy, every one of these spikes will cause people to stay cautious, minimize spending, and continue to hunker down. That will cause the economy to continue in the dumps, in turn causing the crazies to call for more opening up, in turn causing the cautious to disengage more. Economic death spiral.

It is discouraging how US failed comparing to New Zealand, Australia, Taiwan, South Korea, Hong Kong, Japan and Singapore where their COVID19 situation have been stabilized. The fatality toll is now at 112,000 cases and counting. Only until yesterday, the stock market finally woke up as the health issue still remains. While business are opening up and new infection cases are increasing. This virus will stay with us for many years. Hopefully the new vaccines will keep it under control.

For the honest side of life. I retract the EXIT of the original subject line. I wrote previous, in a reply: "The sell fits our mix, and is not a recommendation for anyone else."
Paul Simon lyric.....modified by me:
I met my old lover (investing)
On the street last night
She seemed so glad to see me
I just smiled
And we talked about some old times
And we drank ourselves some beers
Still crazy after all these years
Oh Still crazy after all these years
So, sold about 28% of the portfolio equity in mid-February and bought ZROZ (AAA zero coupon bonds). Good call.....well, yes; to a point. Watched the profit become +15% due to COVID shutdown and then the equity market melt. I let this run too long and kept +5% profit. An, oh well.
'Course we're aware of the Fed backstop of "everything". Then the equity turn around.....my, what a CRAZY run!!!
My topic line here about an exit of AAA bonds found my concern with how many Treasury bonds were going to be issued and who the hell was going to buy........ AAA bond pricing was also fading away.
Here we are again, back into ZROZ............and yes; folks are buying most types of Fed. backed bonds........why not, eh???
Don't know about the equity sell down today (June 11). Perhaps a short lived rotation into whatever by the large players.
Excerpt from below link: The Fed also said it would maintain bond purchases at "the
current pace" of around $80 billion per month in Treasuries and
$40 billion per month in agency and mortgage backed securities.
Fed. Treasury purchases, etc.
NOTE: those holding managed, quality bond funds should discover decent returns, as of late.
Some day in the, future I/we will have to stop playing with the money this way.
I do believe I'm low on coffee intake.
Take care,
Catch

GLFOX is more like owning the railroads, electric company, and waterworks from Monopoly. All the infrastructure is already built. And half of that is utilities.
YTD performance is in the same league as Vanguard's utility index (VUIAX), but pays a 5.2 yield vs. 2.52. I have been a happy owner for five years in the IRA. And I added it to the taxable during the recent excitement.
While reviewing their portfolio I noticed they are nearly 18% cash.

@Baseball_Fan, Thanks for the shout-out. David mentioned Rondure Funds in his February, 2019
Commentary. Just a bit here: “Rondure Global Advisors is newer investment adviser which is Grandeur Peak’s partner. Rondure, like Grandeur Peak, was launched by an alumna of the Wasatch Funds,” https://www.mutualfundobserver.com/2019/02/as-the-world-turns-rondure-global-gains/
Global equity funds are pretty far outside my normal investment zone. But I am now beginning to shade a bit more in that direction, since funds holding fixed income (like traditional balanced funds) are at a real disadvantage in this low rate environment. Also, I’ve been trying to get out of the U.S. (figuratively and literally) as I think we’re headed for a lot of chaos as November approaches - markets might not like it. U.S. appears “bubbly” as well.
My first foray into any pure equity fund in many years was into Price’s developed foreign markets index fund, PIEQX, which I picked up in March and have already reduced by 30 or 40%. While it hasn’t leaped very far, all my other stuff has, and this one is the easiest to cut back on as its a spec position and not part of my normal allocation. It’s not a high octane fund by any measure. But the ER of .40 is appealing and TRP - much as I like them - have never excelled in the international arena. Past experience leads me to believe that, as international funds go, this one is relatively docile.
You mention ROSOX. Let’s take a look. ER 1.10% isn’t bad for an actively managed international fund. Probably about average. Holdings: 60% Europe, 30% Asia - almost all of that in Japan. (Looks quite a bit like the index fund I own.) ROSOX is only 3 years old. That would normally chase me away - but it appears from David’s commentary that the managers are well experienced. Close call. I’d feel better with a fund that had been around at least 10 years. Better chance of having a stable investor base. The fund has already jumped about 10% from its March low. Not as cheap as it was than. (Woulda, coulda, shoulda.) Lipper gives it a 5 in “preservation.” That’s a coveted rating, as international funds tend to be more volatile than their domestic brethren. Not a bad choice. I’d perhaps look around a bit more before deciding.
Now, will folks more familiar with international equity funds and / or Rondure please chime in?

https://business.financialpost.com/pmn/business-pmn/stocks-soar-by-most-in-eight-years-on-signs-of-growth-em-review
EM Review: Stocks Soared by Most in 8 Years on Signs of Growth
Bloomberg News Lilian Karunungan, Netty Ismail and Justin Villamil
June 5, 2020 4:28 PM EDT
Last Updated June 8, 2020 1:36 AM EDT
/(Bloomberg) — Emerging-market stocks posted their biggest gains in more than eight years last week as investors looked past U.S.-China tensions and protests in America to focus on the rolling back of economic lockdowns. Better-than-expected U.S. jobs data on Friday helped solidify the new-found optimism over economic growth. Developing-nation currencies posted their biggest weekly advance since March 2016./
What are your favorite em funds or etf
We have adding/Dca continously to Vwo and Vt past few weeks.