Why Gilts Are For Losers

Published in Investing on 17 May 2012

With gilt yields at their lowest levels since 1703, UK bonds are only for fools.

There are many reasons why you may decide to buy a share, bond or other asset.

You may buy an asset because it offers an attractive income yield, the prospect of long-term capital gains or because it gives you voting rights.

Alternatively, you may buy as a speculator, hoping only that you will be able to sell at a higher price to the next buyer. This next owner is known as the 'greater fool' (note the small 'f') and he often disappears just when he is most needed.

The bond bubble

Also, you may decide to buy an asset purely because it is a sure and safe haven in troubled times. At the moment, this is what's happening with highly rated government bonds, notably UK gilts, German bunds and US Treasurys.

Indeed, 'risk off' buying of UK gilts has pushed up their prices to all-time highs. As a result, gilt yields have dropped to their lowest levels since the Bank of England's records began in 1703. That's right: buying gilts today means earning the lowest coupons for at least 309 years.

As I write, the yield on the 10-year gilt has dropped to 1.86% a year, which is absolutely the lowest fixed income ever paid by these benchmark UK bonds.

This is great news for HM Treasury, as ultra-low gilt yields sharply reduce the interest bill the UK must pay on its £1 trillion of national debt. However, such low yields spell future disaster for bondholders when interest rates start to rise and cause bond prices to plunge.

Safety versus income

Of course, the main attractions of gilts are that they offer both liquidity (ease of buying and selling) and safety to shell-shocked investors. This is because they are backed by 'the full faith and credit' of the British government.

Indeed, during a rush to safe havens prompted by the ongoing eurozone crisis, 10-year gilt prices have risen almost a sixth (nearly 16%) in the past 12 months.

However, because bond coupons (their regular income) are fixed, bond prices take a knock when inflation is high or rising, when interest rates rise or when an issuer's credit rating is downgraded. Given that all three events are likely to happen in the UK in the coming decade, gilts look to be a medium-term catastrophe, it seems to me.

Why buy gilts?

As a private investor, I'm not a pension fund, insurance company or major bank. Therefore, there is no regulatory obligation on me to keep a substantial slice of my free capital in highly liquid -- but also highly over-priced -- government bonds.

Thus, instead of being sucked into the gilt game and ending up a loser, I'd much prefer to stack the odds in my favour and emerge a winner. To do this, I would buy a selection of blue-chip, mega-cap shares that offer an overwhelming income advantage over gilts in the form of high, well-covered dividend yields.

Six dividend Goliaths

For example, here's a mini-portfolio of six FTSE 100 businesses that all pay chunky cash dividends to their shareholders (sorted by dividend yield):

CompanyShare price (p)Earnings ratingDividend yield (%)Dividend cover
Aviva (LSE: AV)270.24.98.92.1
AstraZeneca (LSE: AZN)2,634.507.16.62.1
Vodafone (LSE: VOD)164.910.65.31.9
J Sainsbury (LSE: SBRY)296.110.35.21.8
GlaxoSmithKline (LSE: GSK)1,422.5011.65.21.6
Royal Dutch Shell (LSE: RDSB)2,045.507.25.12.7

Source: Digital Look

As you can see, these household names pay dividends ranging from 5.1% at oil giant Royal Dutch Shell to 8.9% at insurer Aviva. Overall, the average dividend yield for this concentrated portfolio exceeds 6% a year.

In my view, and based on current yields, only fools and institutions would buy gilts right now. Any sensible investor seeking a high and rising income -- plus the possibility of capital growth -- should be switching into lowly rated FTSE 100 stocks.

In summary, why be a guaranteed loser over the next decade by buying gilts and similar low-yielding bonds? Instead, emerge a winner by banking a generous income from dividends while waiting for the world economy to right itself!

Investing is by no means easy in today's uncertain economy. That's why we've published "Top Sectors Of 2012" -- our guide to three favourable industries. This free report will be dispatched immediately to your inbox.

Further investment opportunities:

> Cliff owns shares in GlaxoSmithKline.

Share & subscribe

Comments

The opinions expressed here are those of the individual writers and are not representative of The Motley Fool. If you spot any comments that are unsuitable hit the flag to alert our moderators.

CunningCliff 17 May 2012 , 12:40pm

In essence, my argument can be summarised as follows:

Which would you rather have: a fixed income of 1.86% a year for 10 years, or a (likely to rise) income starting at 6% a year, plus the potential for capital growth?

For me, the latter is a no-brainer! ;0)

Cliff

AleisterCrowley 17 May 2012 , 12:59pm

So how can I short gilts then, Cliff ?!

CunningCliff 17 May 2012 , 1:05pm

Also, the UK is *guaranteed* to lose its AAA rating in the next decade, as our national debt soars above £1.3 trillion. What then for Gilts?

Cliff

CunningCliff 17 May 2012 , 1:17pm

Also, here's a quote for the db x-trackers II UK GILTS SHORT DAILY ETF: http://www.bloomberg.com/quote/XUGS:LN

Note the steady fall in its value over the past year, showing that shorting Gilts is no easy call...

Cliff

AleisterCrowley 17 May 2012 , 2:09pm

I've seen XUGS - it's for day trading only, not long term holds

Infrasonic 17 May 2012 , 3:13pm

Gilt complex Cliff?...

zwhale 17 May 2012 , 3:18pm

How about the "Black Swan" argument; we can't predict what might happen in the future. Past performance etc. etc. so those dividend yields you mentioned above may not occur in the future. Having some of your investments in bonds in my opinion is a good idea.

koochak 17 May 2012 , 3:46pm

This is great news for HM Treasury, as ultra-low gilt yields sharply reduce the interest bill the UK must pay on its £1 trillion of national debt.

I don't understand this given that the government pays the coupon rate, which is fixed, not the current yield.

CunningCliff 17 May 2012 , 3:53pm

Hi koochak,

This shows the UK's total Gilt issuance:
http://www.dmo.gov.uk/reportView.aspx?rptCode=D5E&rptName=103051397&reportpage=Market_Size

As you can see, Gilt issuance has surged in recent years as the UK descends deeper into debt. Thus, a large proportion of Gilts has been issued in recent years, plus Gilts are maturing and being reissued with new coupons all the time.

Thus, falling Gilt yields help the Treasury, as they reduce the coupons on new and rolled-over bonds.

Cliff

rober00 17 May 2012 , 4:50pm

Good piece Cliff!!!

ANuvver 17 May 2012 , 4:51pm

Couldn't agree more Cliff.

The "risk off" trade - aka "return of, rather than return on capital" - is a trading concept, conveniently appealing to long-termist attitudes for short-term purposes.The institutions are quite happy to be in a regulatory armlock. Course they are, it's supported and profitable - for now. As - not if - inflation continues to rise and the UK loses its 'least ugly girl at the eurodance' status, the security narrative will fall apart. Then where are the returns going to come from?

Gilts have been distorted from a 'til I die' secure holding into the most dangerous bubble currently around and are now the stuff of sheer speculation.

Of course, just as markets can stay irrational longer than most people can stay solvent, bubbles tend to last far longer than rationality can explain.

Rather than attempting to short bills, I'd just exercise the luxury of avoiding them. If you absolutely must get involved, at least make it linkers.

longpod 17 May 2012 , 6:35pm

If these six dividend goliaths are so good, how come Cliff only owns one of them?

WillXster 17 May 2012 , 10:08pm

It's not about yield, it's about capital preservation - look at the fall in share price of your picks up there today and explain why they'd be a safer investment.

It's not return on investment that matters at the moment, it's about return of investment.

OsbieFeel 18 May 2012 , 12:55am

I agree with WillXster that it's all about capital preservation - but I actually think equities offer the best chance of this! Sure, share prices will oscillate, but has anyone observed the price action on, say, Spanish bonds lately?

Let's not forget that Britain is one of the most (by some measures the most) indebted countries in the world. Right now all the attention is on southern Europe, but one day we will get our turn in the spotlight. When that happens, I don't want to be holding promises from a government - I want a piece of something real, a company with tangible assets.

WillXster 18 May 2012 , 11:36am

Britain has never defaulted on it's debts, and while it maintains it's own currency will never need to. Debt isn't a problem whilst you can service it and it will drive growth in the economy.

Are you really telling me there's a company out there that is as trustworthy?

sejon 18 May 2012 , 12:03pm

So...if the returns on bonds are dismal, and on cash they're atrocious, are you suggesting we should hold 100% in equities? :-P

I'm in my mid-20's and hold roughly 10% in government and corporate bonds. What that 10% lacks in returns, it (slightly) makes up for in letting me sleep a little better at night!

CunningCliff 18 May 2012 , 12:07pm

longpod, "If these six dividend goliaths are so good, how come Cliff only owns one of them?"

Because Cliff is 'cashing up for a big crash', that's why! ;0)

Cliff

OsbieFeel 18 May 2012 , 12:40pm

@WillXster: Britain has certainly been through periods of inflation, and the Bank of England would like nothing better than to kick off another one. Isn't this default, in all but name?

And even worse, if we don't get inflation, the likely result will be deflation ... in which case servicing debt may become a major problem.

As for "trustworthy companies," well they are owned by their shareholders and are ultimately accountable to them. I'm not saying there's as much oversight as there should be, but I think your average shareholder is a more reliable watchman than the average voter.

So yes, I do trust companies over governments. Or more accurately, I distrust companies less than governments ...

anshah 18 May 2012 , 3:58pm

And so cunning cliff thinks that it is OK for equities to crash, but not OK for bonds to crash is it? Cunning cliff thinks its ok to hold an asset that has crashed as many times in the last few years as my Windows PC crashes? This is where our hard earned money needs to be put to use you say? Thanks for the advice, sir!

Join the conversation

Please take note - some tags have changed.

Line breaks are converted automatically.

You may use the following tags in your post: [b]bolded text[/b], [i]italicised text[/i]. All other tags will be removed from your post.

If you want to add a link, please ensure you type it as http://www.fool.co.uk as opposed to www.fool.co.uk.

Hello stranger

To add your own comment, please login.

Not yet registered? Register now.