Hacker News Reader

Comment by mjs | Hacker News Reader

The reason they're coloured like that is that you can get to the pale red (0%-3%) by putting you money is much safer vehicles like term deposits or bonds. If you're getting less than 3% out, stocks aren't worth it.

View on HN

Possibly, though I have serious doubts that bonds make 3% when corrected for both inflation and taxes.

In any case I would love to see (or make myself) the comparison with other vehicles.

bond yields rise with inflation

http://www.hussmanfunds.com/rsi/yieldsinflation.htm

As far as I understand it, your statement is correct at face value, but incorrect in the context of this discussion, since we're discussing the relative yields of bonds and other investment vehicles over a long time period.

Say use all my money to buy a long term bond today. If inflation would rise tomorrow, you correctly point out that bond yields of tomorrow's bonds will rise. However, mine is fixed. This means I'm hit, firstly, by the inflation, and secondly, by the fact that the price of the bond will fall. (The price will fall because competing bonds will have better yields tomorrow).

Correct me if I'm wrong.

my understanding is that you can buy government bonds indexed to certain measures of inflation. TIPS, I believe they are called. Obviously, they yield less than a regular bond, if inflation doesn't go up, but they do keep you in positive territory, if inflation does go up.

Indeed. However, TIPS also provide a nice counterpoint against mjs' claim that "If you're getting less than 3% out, stocks aren't worth it." In 2010 TIPS did not necessarily keep you in positive territory.

TIPS currently have negative real yields - you pay for the privilege of hedging against inflation. When inflation is expected, TIPS do not necessarily guarantee positive real returns.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-10-25/treasury-draws-nega...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com