Track the companies that matter to you. It's FREE! Click one of these fan favorites to get started: Apple; Google; Ford.



The Best Investment for the Next 40 Years

Don't let it get away!

Keep track of the stocks that matter to you.

Help yourself with the Fool's FREE and easy new watchlist service today.

Given how badly the stock market has performed over the past decade, a lot of people have started to question the wisdom of having the majority of your portfolio invested in stocks. In particular, some are looking at bonds as a viable alternative not just for short-term income but also for better long-term investing results.

A historical precedent
Earlier this year, investment researcher Rob Arnott released some interesting data. Looking back over the 40 years that ended in February 2009, Arnott noted that the much-vaunted "risk premium" -- the extra return that stock investors are supposed to get in return for the added risk they take over safer investments like Treasury bonds -- turned out not to exist. Specifically, between 1969 and 2009, investors would have been better off buying long-term Treasury bonds and rolling them forward than buying stocks.

As it turns out, though, the reason why bonds have outperformed stocks over the past 40 years has more to do with how extraordinary well bonds have performed than it does any bad performance from stocks. According to stock expert Jeremy Siegel, both have had average annual returns of around 12% over that time frame. But therein lies the problem for those who think that bonds can continue to outperform.

What it takes to earn 12%
The challenge bond investors face in today's environment is that opportunities for safe investments with high yields are just about gone. Even the longest-term Treasury bonds earn just 4.33%, while Treasuries in the five-to-10-year range earn between 2.5% and 3.5%. Rates were much higher in 1969, and in between, interest rates spiked to extremely high levels during the late 1970s and early 1980s. As rates came down, Treasury investors saw not only healthy income from those high-interest bonds, but also big capital gains as well.

Looking forward, though, there's simply no way for interest rates to come down far enough for bonds to enjoy the same sort of gains. At a 12% return, you'd roughly triple your investment in 10 years. But even if rates fell to 0%, a current 30-year Treasury yielding 4.3% would only double in price. Even a more modest 8% return would require rates to fall dramatically -- more than they're likely to fall in any realistic scenario.

To get better rates, you'd have to leave the realm of safe Treasuries and venture into corporate bonds. But even there, you'd have a lot of trouble finding issuers willing to pay you double-digit returns on your money. Consider some of the latest quotes available:


Bond Maturity

Current Yield

Kraft Foods (NYSE: KFT  )

Feb. 2018


Citigroup (NYSE: C  )

Aug. 2014


American Express (NYSE: AXP  )

March 2038


Weyerhaeuser (NYSE: WY  )

March 2032


Hewlett-Packard (NYSE: HPQ  )

March 2013


Home Depot (NYSE: HD  )



Leucadia (NYSE: LUK  )



Source: Wall Street Journal.

You can see that even these bonds won't get very close to 12%. Meanwhile, you're taking on considerable default risk with some of these issuers -- risk that exposes you to the same potential for losses that stocks have.

The best of bonds, the worst of stocks
Meanwhile, on the other side of the comparison, stocks clearly weren't at their best in February. By now, with stocks up 50% from their levels in late February, stocks have moved back ahead of bonds over the past 40 years.

Still, that won't stop critics from pointing out the negative returns that the stock market has suffered in the past decade. Nevertheless, you have to remember that those comparisons are with stocks at the top of the tech bubble. Making comparisons between asset classes doesn't make sense when one class went from historic highs to historic lows, while the other did practically the opposite. Drawing conclusions from those comparisons can lead you to make huge mistakes.

Bonds certainly have a place in every investor's portfolio. But they can't entirely replace stocks for most investors. For bonds to outperform stocks over the long run is extremely unlikely. With bonds so expensive and stocks so cheap, it's much more likely that we'll see a period of substantial outperformance for stocks in the coming years.

Looking to the future for your portfolio? Find out how a new tax law will soon give you access to one of the best tools to build your fortune.

Fool contributor Dan Caplinger owns a mix of stocks, bonds, and other investments. He doesn't own shares of the companies mentioned in this article. Leucadia is a Motley Fool Stock Advisor selection. American Express and Home Depot are Inside Value picks. The Fool formerly owned shares of American Express. Try any of our Foolish newsletters today, free for 30 days. The Fool's disclosure policy is still in its teens and is ready to face the next 40 years.

Read/Post Comments (3) | Recommend This Article (13)

Comments from our Foolish Readers

Help us keep this a respectfully Foolish area! This is a place for our readers to discuss, debate, and learn more about the Foolish investing topic you read about above. Help us keep it clean and safe. If you believe a comment is abusive or otherwise violates our Fool's Rules, please report it via the Report this Comment Report this Comment icon found on every comment.

  • Report this Comment On September 10, 2009, at 9:15 PM, ds10 wrote:

    You state that in 10 years "even if rates fell to 0%, a current 30-year Treasury yielding 4.3% would only double in price."

    Am I missing something?

    Using the Rule of 72, won't it take 16.7 years for a 4.3% bond to double in value?

  • Report this Comment On September 11, 2009, at 3:39 PM, makmel wrote:

    what is your projected annual return for LUK?

  • Report this Comment On May 18, 2010, at 12:51 AM, DonkeyKongsDaddy wrote:

    DS--When rates fall, the price of a bond rises. This is because the present value of the future coupons and the redemption at maturity increases. I believe that this is what the author was getting at. If rates fell to zero, the present value of those future cash flows would double. I didn't do the math to verify, but you get the gist.

Add your comment.

Compare Brokers

Fool Disclosure

Sponsored Links

Leaked: Apple's Next Smart Device
(Warning, it may shock you)
The secret is out... experts are predicting 458 million of these types of devices will be sold per year. 1 hyper-growth company stands to rake in maximum profit - and it's NOT Apple. Show me Apple's new smart gizmo!

DocumentId: 980924, ~/Articles/ArticleHandler.aspx, 10/21/2016 2:25:08 PM

Report This Comment

Use this area to report a comment that you believe is in violation of the community guidelines. Our team will review the entry and take any appropriate action.

Sending report...

Today's Market

updated Moments ago Sponsored by:
DOW 18,137.21 -25.14 -0.14%
S&P 500 2,139.32 -2.02 -0.09%
NASD 5,253.00 11.17 0.21%

Create My Watchlist

Go to My Watchlist

You don't seem to be following any stocks yet!

Better investing starts with a watchlist. Now you can create a personalized watchlist and get immediate access to the personalized information you need to make successful investing decisions.

Data delayed up to 5 minutes

Related Tickers

10/21/2016 2:09 PM
AXP $67.17 Up +0.39 +0.58%
American Express CAPS Rating: ****
C $49.39 Down -0.20 -0.39%
Citigroup CAPS Rating: ***
HD $126.49 Up +0.24 +0.19%
Home Depot CAPS Rating: ****
HPQ $13.79 Down -0.32 -2.23%
HP CAPS Rating: ***
KRFT.DL $0.00 Down +0.00 +0.00%
Kraft Foods CAPS Rating: *****
LUK $18.75 Down -0.05 -0.27%
Leucadia National CAPS Rating: *****
WY $31.35 Down -0.15 -0.48%
Weyerhaeuser CAPS Rating: ***