No. of Recommendations: 1
If the name sounds even remotely like "high yield" (aka junk) you might want to reconsider. You might even want to reconsider for bond funds that are AAA rated. Some bond funds have subprime junk in them and the holders don't have any idea what they're holding.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070909/ap_on_bi_ge/risky_mortgages_investors;_ylt=AptN.3oEWlbtt4tSc0gv_0Cb.HQA

Hedge
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
The link works without adding in the rest of the junk.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 4
f the name sounds even remotely like "high yield" (aka junk) you might want to reconsider. You might even want to reconsider for bond funds that are AAA rated. Some bond funds have subprime junk in them and the holders don't have any idea what they're holding.

I'm not even going to look at the link. On this boar we know much more than what gets spouted off elsewhere.

The premium on junk over Treasuries and investment grade corporates has increased. Whether there is still more to unwind is unclear and different junk funds are differently exposed to sub-prime and other very high risks, as well as leveraging issues. More conservative junk funds may now have enough differential to consider as an option, though obviously anyone considering these should be aware of the risk of default risks if the economy gets really bad. Some muni funds apparently took a beating because of flight by hedge funds that, as best I can understand, had to do with their liquidity, not with significantly increased risk to the funds' securities.

As to regular bond funds: unless you are dealing with funds that aggressively pursued sub-prime, the affect will be small. Yes, some AAA rated mortgage bonds should not have been and, yes, Dr. Tarr found Fidelity's inflation-adjusted securities fund to be dabbling in mortgage junk. But the total amount of default or default risk adjustment loss these funds will experience will be minimal, much less than the impact of interest rate changes.


The whole point of finance broadcasts and writing is to grab attention (and help those who make money from herding others), which means it almost always exaggerates.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
I'm not even going to look at the link. On this boar we know much more than what gets spouted off elsewhere.

Didn't mean to sour your milk, Loki. I thought it was a good article. But, perhaps I should have posted on the Investing Beginners board, rather than here.

Happy Fooliversary!

Hedge
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
<As to regular bond funds: unless you are dealing with funds that aggressively pursued sub-prime, the affect will be small. >

Because of an imminent credit crunch in short-term commercial paper, there may be uncharacteristic upheavals in plain-vanilla-type money market funds, from next week through November. I moved to a Ginnie Mae fund.

Wendy
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
Because of an imminent credit crunch in short-term commercial paper, there may be uncharacteristic upheavals in plain-vanilla-type money market funds, from next week through November. I moved to a Ginnie Mae fund.

What evidence do you have for this? So far, with all the crying spilled milk from the hedgies and big banks, I have seen no affect on money markets, which I have at three different institutions. And, this is one area, I'm sure the Fed can provide liquidity to keep intact.

What you have done is moved money into a fund that (at least Vanguard's GNMA) has a yield barely higher than that of the money market and subjected yourself to both interest rate and refinancing risk.
Print the post Back To Top