Jump to content

thepupil

Member
  • Posts

    4,022
  • Joined

  • Days Won

    4

thepupil last won the day on April 25

thepupil had the most liked content!

About thepupil

  • Birthday 11/22/1988

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

thepupil's Achievements

Mentor

Mentor (12/14)

  • Well Followed Rare
  • Dedicated
  • First Post
  • Collaborator
  • Posting Machine Rare

Recent Badges

5

Reputation

  1. that's what makes a market. from my standpoint, long term real rates at >2% are the highest they've been since 2010 and is a very reasonable rate to lend to the sovereign. long term nominal rates offer one the ability to defease legacy debt at a discount and a disaster deflation hedge w/ punch. i worry more about reinvestment risk / rates going away and not making money on that, then about rates going up more. but hey, I'm the guy who startged the "Bonds!" thread in April 2022 and has seen bonds underperform bills so far.
  2. Let's say for whatever reason, you need $100 in 30 years. you have a choice between 2 instrument to get that $100. You can buy a 30 year zero coupon bond for $28.75 / 4.3% yield. At maturity, it will be worth $100. or you can buy $28.75 t-bills @ >5% Let's say you buy t-bills and make an extra 1% / yr for the next 10 years. rates don't change at all. In 10 years you will have about $48 dollars. If you bought the 30 year zero, you'd have ~$43. Now let's say there's a global depression and short term rates drop to 0 for the next decade. (years 11-20) and long term rates go to 2%. Your t-bill option is now making nothing and risks not making it to the $100. Your 30 year zero would rocket to $67.5 (it's a 20 year now) and you'd make up far more than the carry you lost in the first 10 years by not going in the higher yielding t-bills. And you know you can just hold and it will be $100 in 20 years. there's no reinvestment risk. you are promised your $100 nominal in 2054. an extreme example using the longest treasury and the shortest for affect, but the people buying treasuries are doing so to fill some need and the next 12 month's yield is certainly not the only need. think if you're a pension seeking to mathc LT liabilities, an individual seeking deflation / depression hedge, an individual defeasing one's mortgage, an insurance company looking to lock in a known yield over 5,7,10,20 years. the t-bill provides more yield and has no duration risk, but it has FAR more reinvestment risk than other bonds. rates go down and you make nothing. no compensation for your yield going away. I'm happy to underperform bills by owning bonds in exchange for a little punch if rates decline.
  3. i mean the end game is to issue as absolutely much as they can while there stock is where it is. I'd view it as absolutely devastating those who were short @ prices pre this most recent run. they just massively increased intrinsic value per share (assuming they don't completely incinerate the cash).
  4. this is why God created IRA's, TIPS, and munis.
  5. #lifegoals (though maybe I’ll be earning some carry every now and then)
  6. I'm in this camp as well. being mortgage free would stress me the fuck out. I'm simply not rich enough to forego the $xxxK of liquidity afforded to me by my mortgage. maybe if i had assets in excess of say 10x my mortgage, I'd pay it off. even if the rate were high ish (say 6-7%), I wouldn't want to give up the liqudiity/flexibility/diversity of having a mortgage offset by a bunch of different kind of assets. I've gotten to point where cars are low single digit % of NW...I don't bother financing those even when cheap, so I understand at a point, it becomes a "who cares about optimizing" but need like $6,8,$10mm to just casually pay off my mortgage to have one fewer bill.
  7. agreed! I've said this before, but I think the degree to which people bought at low rates really creates an impressive amount of transaction cost for selling one's home. Let's settle on a low rate mortgage being worth 80% of par. If you move (and prepay) you are buying back a mortgage worth 80% at 100%, so you're losing 20% of par. At 40-70% LTV, that's 8-14% of asset value. Tack on the usual realtor fees and shit of 8% and you're talking about 16-24% of ASSET value in transaction costs of moving and even bigger % of your equity. I think if I moved sold my house, I'd instantly be worth $300K less. in other words, my liquidation value is much less than my Gross NAV.
  8. a couple of quibbles. - in spitball you changed $250K / $500K (50% of par) to $337K / $500K = 67% of par, so i agree with the direction - A 30 year mortgage at 3% does not exist today. There are plenty of 23-26 year mortgages at 3% but no 30 year mortgages. Using the treasury curve, a 26 year 3% mortgage (which exists) is worth 85% of par. a 30 year 30% mortgage (which does not exist) is worth 78% - Your discount rate of 6% is about 130 bps higher than treasuries. a 26 year using tsy curve + 130 bps is worth 74% of par. a 30 year using tsy 130 bps is worth 69% of par (in line with your calculation...close to your 67%). By using a term that's 4 years longer (low rate mortgages were originated 3+ years ago) and a discount rate that's about 130 bps higher than the treasury curve, you are coming up w/ a discount that's significantly higher. 15% (85% of par) to 31% (69% of par). we can all make various assumptions and come up with a range of values, low mortgages definitely have value to the borrower...it's just not quite as high as people think. to be clear, there’s nothing wrong with using a 6% discount rate, just explaining reasons for different view on what the PV is.
  9. I agree with this, but would point out that the value of that bond is much higher than $250K. Because I'm a complete nerd about this, I have a spreadsheet that automatically imports the yield curve and discounts each future mortgage P&I payment at the relevant zero coupon rate. My mortgage has 316 months left on it, has a 2.875% rate, and is worth about 83% of par using the treasury curve 75% at tsy curve + 100 68% at +200 63% at +300 50% at +600 38% at +1000. The weighted average life of the principal payments on my mortgage is 177 months, so while it was a 30 year mortgage in its now a 26.33 mortgage and the principal payments are on average just 15 years away so rates have not made 30 year mortgages worth 50 cents on the dollar. More like 80%. So the way i see it is that a risk averse person with my mortgage should just buy bonds (I buy about $5K / month in my 401k) as a way to slowly defease the low cost mortgage. An enterprising investor should buy riskier assets do do so. There's a tax angle as well. Assuming full taxability of the treasury interest, at the maximum federal rate, the return on treasuries is actually treasuries MINUS 1.5%. At that discount rate, my mortgage is worth a full 97% on the dollar (assuming no mortgage interest deduction). It's here where the argument for simplicity and just paying off the mortgage is strongest. If the choice is between treasuries in a taxable account and paying off mortgage where taking the standard deduction and there's zero tolerance for market risk,and no value placed on liquidity flexibility, then just pay off the mortgage. I value flexibility, liquidity, think i'll make more than treasuries (but am buying those in a tax advantaged account) and don't envision paying off the mortgage until i move or 2050
  10. Nothing is without risk and things that we can't contemplate can happen, but for the on the run 30 year bond to fall 50% in price, yields would have to go to 9.9%. duration risk is dynamic and has changed drastically since the 30 yr yielded 1.2%. as rates move up, duration risk decreases (modified duration of 30 yr bond is now like 16)
  11. agreed, have some for my parents IRA.
  12. regardless of whether i hold any, I think the CLO AAA ETF's are a great way to make a decent pre-tax return without taking duration risk, but with taking some incremental mark to market risk and credit relative to t-bills. it's pretty simple, you make SOFR + 100 -150 (5.3% +100-150 =6.3-6.8%), SEC yield on JAAA is 6.7% and you're betting on CLO's having <40% ish cumulative loss from defaults (which won't happen unless, to quote Jamie Dimon, the earth hits the moon). for a portion of someone who wants something safe, but wants to make more than bills, seems pretty good to me.
  13. haha, strangely, despite having little knowledge in the sector, my timing and IRR on energy investments has been excellent over the years. mainly a bit of contrarianism and, because of lack of knowledge, a focus on lower debt/high quality co's that were around for upcycle.
  14. it's small for me too. here's my 401k, was it "gutsy" to just be buying bonds instead of bills/stocks as they made 0% while i contributed to this thing which is not a huge % of my NW?...at beginning of thread i said, "time to start building and I'll be way too early and wrong". so far I've been right on being wrong lol. the below is just boring, rather than gutsy...just buying something where it's really hard to lose nominal $$$'s on as rates rise because you just keep re-investing at higher rates and duration keeps dropping as your coupons get fatter. is it gutsy to have recently bought like 10% on mgn in 20-30 yrs outside of this account over the last week or 2? I really don't think its gutsy at all. the downside is really easy to think about/model (outside weimar like debasement*) and i actually think portfolio is incrementally safer layering in a little duration. maybe that makes me a baggie risk parity bro... gutsy would be going full risk parity bro and having like 100% stocks 100% of account in LT bonds. gutsy would be getting long millions of 30 yr futs. I'm not gutsy. I'm just trying to survive/ be ready for a variety of environments. to that end, I think that 4 / 5 / 6 handles on safe no default bonds demands an allocation >0%, whereas 2011-2022, for me at least, 0% was the right bond allocation. *which is why we have 2 jobs, a mortgage that exceeds all my nominal bonds, and the other 80-90% of the portfolio. but so far wrong, underperformed t-bills, should have waited two years to start. alas, I'm not good at timing.
  15. yea, above example assumes one cannot (I've had years where it's made sense and years where it hasn't). if you can then tsy yield 4.8%, 3.0% after tax mgn rate 6.3%, 3.96% after tax -96 bps of carry on 30% of your portfolio you're losing ~1%/yr, only 30 bps / yr of negative carry to the whole portfolio to own some punchy recession/deflation hedges that will make you a good bit if LT rates go down.
×
×
  • Create New...