Bond investments

gaijin

Moderator
Staff member
I have recently been looking at bonds to generate a regular, low-risk income on one platform. Two of my findings:
  1. On Degrio you cannot trade Swiss bonds. I find this a very strong limitation. On @Baptiste Wicht 's blog it says
    The choice for bonds is slightly more limited.
    I find this an understatement. You cannot buy individual bonds not bond ETFs (e.g.iShares Swiss Domestic Government Bond 3-7 ETF). Yes, I know, bonds are the boring stuff. But it can be really useful for low-risk investments. So I would tend to not recommend Degiro for any investor because of this limitation. You might not be interested in bonds at this very moment. But if you become interested in bond trading, you would have to find a new broker.
  2. Swiss bonds (corporate and government) have very low interests. Findings low-risk bonds with interest rates higher than a good savings account is hard. In general, you should therefore put your money into a savings account first. Only if there are no options for savings accounts (withdrawl restrictions or amounts of >100kCHF) bonds can be interesting.
My conclusions
  • Open a savings account at a bank that offers a good interest on savings account (Bank Eki, CEA or use Moneyland to search)
  • Keep browsing for highly rated bonds (>A) that offer a reasonable (>1.2%) interest. Use IB as the broker to trade such bonds.
  • If available and depending on the interest, consider paying into your second pillar.
 
Last edited:
My conclusions are the same. Generally, the savings accounts are the best choice. If you can get a good on a certificate of deposit at you bank, it may be worth it, but it's locking your money for a long time.

There are simply no great solutions for CHF, the rates are going to be low.

I find this an understatement
It's not clear whether we can buy Bond ETFs or not in your statement? (Did you mean not or nor)?

I will make this clearer in the article
 
It's not clear whether we can buy Bond ETFs or not in your statement? (Did you mean not or nor)?
Sorry, that wasn't clear. I meant to say that not being able to buy any kind of Swiss bond related products on Degiro is quite a significant minus and should be expressed with stronger words than 'slightly more limited' (maybe even listed as a CON in the conclusion).
 
I will update the article in the coming days, thanks. I can understand why they don't have Swiss bonds, but why would they not have Swiss Bonds ETFs? Have they no Swiss ETFs anymore? Are they filtering it? That's weird.
 
I got a message at the end of last year, telling me that my assets in the 2nd pillar will receive an interest of 3% for 2024. Finally. Still, before it was 1% as long as I was part of it. If there was consistently 3% interest on the 2nd pillar assets, I would be much more willing to add money.
 
Yeah ...the wildly different interest rates in the second pillar are a actualy a huge minus point for the swiss pension system ... If you happen to be in the Migros PK you will get 7% on your capital for 2024, others will get 1,25% (or even less if the PK is underfunded) ... And you cannot do nothing about it besides of changing your employer, which in most cases is not a realistic option. It's a lottery ...
 
It's a great point, this is what we are doing to increase our "bond allocation".
I have just added a bullet point to my conclusions: pay into 2nd pillar.
I think that 2nd pillar doesn't really substitute bonds (at least not to the full extent).

I can see a few situations when 2nd pillar will fail to substitute bonds (simply because one cannot touch 2nd pillar until retirement except a few cases):

1. In case of unforeseeable emergencies that incur high expenses one can get money by selling bonds (and thus avoid selling stocks). This is especially relevant during bear markets when selling stocks may be very costly.

2. During bear markets bonds allocation in portfolio may grow. By reallocating your portfolio during this time one cat buy more stocks at cheap price

Am I missing something? Why do people think that 2nd pillar substitutes bonds?

 
Last edited:
I think people (including me) substitute bonds for the second pillar because it only matters during the accumulation phase. You do not need your money during the accumulation phase, so you don't have to worry about selling for emergency. When you live from your portfolio, this is different and your second pillar will be less useful.

To some extent, you can sell bonds during bear market to buy stocks. But I do not think there are many valid cases for that. Because even bonds go down in a bear market.
 
I think people (including me) substitute bonds for the second pillar because it only matters during the accumulation phase. You do not need your money during the accumulation phase, so you don't have to worry about selling for emergency. When you live from your portfolio, this is different and your second pillar will be less useful.

To some extent, you can sell bonds during bear market to buy stocks. But I do not think there are many valid cases for that. Because even bonds go down in a bear market.

Thanks for your reply!

I don't think it answers my 1st point though. Let me try to make it clearer.

What if any accident happens and you suddenly need a lump sum at once? I am not sure that emergency fund can / shall also cover that. 3-X months expense may not cover the sum and then you can use bonds but cannot use 2nd Pillar.
 
What if any accident happens and you suddenly need a lump sum at once? I am not sure that emergency fund can / shall also cover that. 3-X months expense may not cover the sum and then you can use bonds but cannot use 2nd Pillar.
Correct, you cannot use your second pillar for that.

But I would argue that your emergency fund, if you have one, should not be invested at all. You want your emergency to very liquid. For me, this excludes bonds, stocks and the second pillar.
 
Correct, you cannot use your second pillar for that.

But I would argue that your emergency fund, if you have one, should not be invested at all. You want your emergency to very liquid. For me, this excludes bonds, stocks and the second pillar.

Do you mean that very-liquid emergency fund should be "so" big, that it can cover unexpected lump sums (e.g. 100-200k CHF or even bigger)?
 
Do you mean that very-liquid emergency fund should be "so" big, that it can cover unexpected lump sums (e.g. 100-200k CHF or even bigger)?
No. I mean that events where you need 100k-200k at once are so rare you should not change your asset allocation for it. If this ever happens, just sell stocks.

What kind of events do you have in mind that would require you to get 100k CHF at once?
 
No. I mean that events where you need 100k-200k at once are so rare you should not change your asset allocation for it. If this ever happens, just sell stocks.

What kind of events do you have in mind that would require you to get 100k CHF at once?

I was probably more trying to convey my original point that bonds != 2nd pillar. And this was the detail that was making a clear difference between the two, although not sure if this is one of the reasons why people invest in bonds.

Example could be medical expenses for family members living abroad. This comes to my mind first.
 
Coming back to this topic with a general question: are there easy to follow simple steps for beginning bond investors?

In contrast to stock investment, I feel that bond investment is presented as a much more complex topic. The VT-and-chill (or VT-and-CHSPI-and-chill) approach is a very nice starting point enabling beginners to start investing in stocks without too much artificial hurdles. However, no such low barrier of entry seems to exist for bonds. On the poorswiss blog I don't find any recommendations for specific bond products. Of course I'm aware that the long-term return of a bond investment is lower than the long-term return on stocks. But is that the only reason that there does not seem to be an easy entry to bond investments?

Let's assume that a typical VT-and-chill investor would like to have 30% of her/his investment in bonds to reduce overall volatility. She/he is willing to accept a lower long-term return. Still, the same principles as for VT + CHSPI should apply where reasonably possible (tax efficient, low fees, buy and forget). Again, I'm aware that bonds might have an overall lower efficiency than stocks. That's ok, they only need be optimized within the bond universe.

Are there any bond investment recommendations that would be as easy to follow as VT + CHSPI?
 
Coming back to this topic with a general question: are there easy to follow simple steps for beginning bond investors?
I find bonds more complex to understand. I'll try to explain what I know; naturally, if I make any mistakes, please correct me:

There are various types of bonds and different ways to approach them. Each system serves a completely different purpose. For us in Switzerland, since Confederation bonds are not accessible to us common mortals, there are iShares ETFs, as far as I know: 0-3, 3-7, and 7-15 years.

Swiss bonds generally have the lowest yields, making them quite tax-efficient. However, tax efficiency is secondary; first, you need the right instrument.

0-3
Very short maturities act like money market funds (theoretically, money markets are under one year). This can be a way to park liquidity when interest rates are high. In practice, it should maintain value, though with some volatility since it includes bonds up to 3 years... Unfortunately, I don't think there are true CHF money market ETFs available.

3-7 / 7-15
The other two categories (3-7 and 7-15) are used to reduce portfolio volatility. Essentially, the more years remaining until maturity, the higher the premium you get (above the risk-free rate), but also the higher the volatility. Being safe-haven assets, and given that central banks tend to lower interest rates during crises, these ETFs tend to increase in value during a crisis; this volatility balances that of equities. The longer the time to maturity, the more these effects are leveraged. For instance, if the SNB lowers rates by 0.25%, the 3-7 ETF (which has an average duration of 5.11 years, according to the iShares website) would theoretically rise in price by 0.25% x 5.11 = 1.27%. The 7-15 ETF, with an average duration of 10.2 years, would rise by about 2.55%. These calculations are never exact because the market tries to anticipate the next rate move, but they serve as an indication of how it works.
It's also worth noting that not all crises play out the same way. When inflation rises and rates increase, as in 2022 or the 1970s, bonds offered no protection; in those cases, gold was the protector. So, if bonds fail, gold might be the alternative.
Now, suppose you buy the 3-7 ETF and the central bank raises rates by 0.25% and keeps them there forever. You would lose 1.27% initially, but since the yield is higher than the risk-free rate, you would gradually recover what you lost. This is usually calculated as 2x the ETF's duration, so 5.11 x 2 = 10.22 years (this is a very rough calculation just to give an idea of how long you could be underwater).
If you look at the portfolio as a whole, volatility decreases as the bond duration increases. However, if you look at a single ETF, its individual volatility increases with duration. So, their usefulness depends on how you view your portfolio.

+10
For other currencies (Euro and USD), there are much longer durations available. In these cases, central bank interest rates become less important, and the credit rating or perceived safety of a nation becomes more critical. For example, Germany recently announced an increase in public debt, which devalued long-term bonds but had no effect on short-term ones.

High Yield

Regarding Corporate and High Yield bonds... I find them uninteresting except perhaps as a money market substitute with a higher yield... but that would be a money market with volatility too. In my opinion, they are too correlated with equities to be interesting.


Personally, I don't hold any bonds; I preferred other instruments to protect my portfolio. For example, CAOS: it acts like a money market fund but also sells PUT options, so it rises significantly when the market crashes quickly. The downside is that it is denominated in USD.
 
Thanks for your explanations. My understanding and further thoughts:

In practice, it should maintain value, though with some volatility since it includes bonds up to 3 years... Unfortunately, I don't think there are true CHF money market ETFs available.
I agree. 0-3 year maturities are probably the worst type of bond investment. There is basically no interest plus the risk of loosing money short-term.

If you look at the portfolio as a whole, volatility decreases as the bond duration increases. However, if you look at a single ETF, its individual volatility increases with duration. So, their usefulness depends on how you view your portfolio.
Not sure I understand. Are you saying that holding iShares Swiss Domestic Government Bond 3-7 ETF as your only bond instrument increases your overall volatility?

For other currencies (Euro and USD), there are much longer durations available.
Does Switzerland not have any government bonds with a duration >10 years?

For example, CAOS: it acts like a money market fund but also sells PUT options, so it rises significantly when the market crashes quickly.
Thanks for this input. I quickly looked at this instrument. It looks very complex, I did understand its mechanism.

As an interim conclusion to my original question: Maybe the iShares Swiss Domestic Government Bond 3-7 ETF would be the VT of bonds for Swiss investors. If you want to diversify, you can add iShares Swiss Domestic Government Bond 7-15 ETF.
 
Not sure I understand. Are you saying that holding iShares Swiss Domestic Government Bond 3-7 ETF as your only bond instrument increases your overall volatility?
If you look solely at the individual ETFs, the 3-7 is less volatile than the 7-15 for the reason I mentioned earlier: the longer the time to maturity, the stronger the reaction to interest rate changes. However, if you look at the performance of the entire portfolio, you should experience lower overall volatility with the 7-15, assuming the same allocation percentage across the whole portfolio. This is because, although it has higher individual volatility, this volatility is usually decorrelated from equities (not always, as seen in 2022). Therefore, the 7-15 offers better protection during a crash.
For example, assuming a portfolio of 50% VT and 50% bonds: if the stock market crashes by 30%, the 3-7 might rise by 7.5%, while the 7-15 could rise by about double that (15%). In the first scenario, the total portfolio drops by 22.5%; in the second, it drops by only 15%. This increases the Sharpe ratio
You might argue, 'Okay, I'll just increase the percentage of the 3-7 to boost protection.' That is valid, but by doing so, you are reducing your exposure to equities, which means you will capture less return when the stock market rises.


Does Switzerland not have any government bonds with a duration >10 years?
Yes, it does, with the iShares 7-15 ETF, the maturity extends up to 15 years, but the average duration is around 10 years. I am not aware of any way to acquire Swiss bonds with longer maturities.
However, generally speaking, if you buy bonds in other currencies with maturities exceeding 10 or 15 years, the price begins to factor in the probability of a nation's bankruptcy. If I recall correctly, Austria issued bonds with a 100-year maturity; these certainly price in Austria's long-term stability.

In my opinion, if someone wants a bond ETF, the 7-15 is the most sensible choice for us in Switzerland. This is because it is denominated in CHF, offers better protection during crises, and provides slightly higher returns than shorter-duration ETFs.
Personally, I have chosen not to hold them, as I rely on many other instruments to protect against market drops. This protection is particularly necessary for me since I use leverage through a Lombard loan.

It looks very complex, I did understand its mechanism.
Essentially, it works like BOXX, which I mentioned earlier, with the added feature that they also purchase protective put options. In crises where the market is in freefall, this ETF rises significantly (as seen during the COVID crash, for example). Conversely, in sideways markets like 2022, it tends to struggle a bit.

There are countless ETFs designed to protect a portfolio, but it might be better to open a separate thread to discuss them. These instruments are not bonds at all and are far more complex.

As an interim conclusion to my original question
I think it's highly subjective and depends on how you construct your portfolio. If I had to choose, I would pick the 7-15 and skip the 3-7. But that's just based on my own approach to building my portfolio.
With a 60% allocation to VT and 40% to US 7-10 year bonds (I believe the ETF is IEF), you historically achieve the maximum Sharpe ratio with these two assets. The Sharpe ratio is an excellent indicator for measuring risk-adjusted growth.
 
Dumb question from my side: why should investors living in Switzerland only invest in Swiss bonds? (this is the only discussion I see here).

Why not invest in US bonds, or bonds from other countries?
 
Back
Top