Buying LTTs on secondary market

Discussion of the Bond portion of the Permanent Portfolio

Moderator: Global Moderator

Post Reply
User avatar
BearBones
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 689
Joined: Sat Sep 18, 2010 4:26 pm

Buying LTTs on secondary market

Post by BearBones »

What follows is a question I raised on the Treasury Bond Buying tutorial. I am posting this separately, since I may not be the only one misinterpreting how to buy LTTs on the secondary market. I know very little about buying bonds, so I am going out on a limb in asking this question.
http://gyroscopicinvesting.com/forum/ht ... php?t=6.90
MediumTex wrote:
2. One should ladder different years and sell 10% (the shortest duration) each year, right? Or do you buy all 2042's and sell 10%/yr, eventually ending up with 10 yr ladder?
Neither.  I would say buy all 2042's and in 2022 sell them all (you may have some other bonds that you bought along the way when you rebalanced) and buy 2052's.
3. If the former, there is a gap in LTTs between 2031-36, right in the beginning of my 10 year ladder! Just buy 2036-42?
Why are you talking about a 10 year ladder in the context of the LT bond part of the PP?  I may have missed it somewhere up-thread.
It would seem to me that creating a rough ladder of 30 yr treasuries would keep the duration from changing so much. There would also be less of a potential for a large gain/loss every 10 years (as opposed to yearly). Both would seem potentially advantageous.

So, what is the rationale for buying all 2042s and selling all in 10 years vs buying 2033-42 (if they all existed), and selling yearly only the 10% that reaches 20 years 'till maturity?
murphy_p_t
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1675
Joined: Fri Jul 02, 2010 3:44 pm

Re: Buying LTTs on secondary market

Post by murphy_p_t »

this is a good question (assuming you're talking about working in a taxable account). Favoring your case is that LTT trade free now at Vanguard/Fidelity.
User avatar
Tortoise
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 2751
Joined: Sat Nov 06, 2010 2:35 am

Re: Buying LTTs on secondary market

Post by Tortoise »

For some people (like myself), the simplicity of just buying one 30-year bond and being able to forget about it for 10 years is hard to resist.

Yes, if you create a 20-30 year ladder the maturity will remain more constant over time, but I'd say it's arguable whether that will always be a good or a bad thing. Since the future is unpredictable, it's probably a wash. In any case, the difference in volatility between a 20-year bond a 30-year bond is not huge, as I recall. Both would carry a PP just fine in a falling interest rate environment.

In any case, if you always buy the longest bond available when you add to your PP or rebalance, you will eventually end up with a ladder of sorts anyways. So this is probably mainly a question of how to initially set up your PP's LTT piece.

As is often recommended around here, I think you should do whatever makes you feel more comfortable. Either approach seems fine for an HB PP and likely won't result in an appreciable performance difference over time.
User avatar
Tortoise
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 2751
Joined: Sat Nov 06, 2010 2:35 am

Re: Buying LTTs on secondary market

Post by Tortoise »

Ok, so I wanted to double-check the difference in volatility (duration) between 20- and 30-year LTTs, so I did a few calculations in Excel using the =DURATION() formula. And after looking at the actual numbers, it looks to me like when yields are very low, a single 20-year bond may not have quite enough volatility for the PP. Selling the bond when it reaches 25 years to maturity--or forming a ladder, as BearBones suggested--instead of waiting the full 10 years may be a better idea.

Here's my reasoning: I did a simple comparison of bond durations for yields ranging from 0% to 15%, assuming the 20-year and 30-year yields are approximately the same--which is usually the case. (For those who may not know, "duration" is roughly the percentage change in a bond's price per 1% change in yield.) My calculations are shown below.

Yield (%)  20-Yr Duration  30-Yr Duration  Difference (%)
---------  --------------  --------------  --------------
  15           6.8              7.1            4.5
  14           7.1              7.5            5.3
  13           7.5              8.0            6.3
  12           8.0              8.6            7.4
  11           8.5              9.2            8.7
  10           9.0              9.9           10.3
   9           9.6             10.8           12.2
   8           10.3            11.8           14.3
   7           11.1            12.9           16.8
   6           11.9            14.3           19.7
   5           12.9            15.8           23.1
   4           14.0            17.7           27.1
   3           15.2            20.0           31.6
   2           16.6            22.7           36.9
   1           18.2            26.0           43.0
   0           20.0            30.0           50.0

What this shows is that when yields are high, it makes almost no difference whether you hold a 20- or 30-year bond. Their volatility is very similar. So holding a single 30-year bond for 10 years in such an environment before buying a new one makes perfect sense. But as yields become low, the difference in volatility between 20- and 30-year bonds gets amplified significantly. Near 0% yield, the difference in duration approaches a maximum of 50%. Not exactly a negligible difference!

This is looking to me like a 20-year bond in a low-yield environment may not provide quite enough "oomph" relative to a 30-year bond. If anyone wants to confirm my calculations or point out a flaw in my argument, I'm all ears.

[Note that my reasoning above completely ignores the tax question that BearBones raised in his OP. Tax isn't my area.]
User avatar
Tortoise
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 2751
Joined: Sat Nov 06, 2010 2:35 am

Re: Buying LTTs on secondary market

Post by Tortoise »

Wow... I thought my previous post would generate at least a little discussion, but I guess not. It was a surprising discovery for me, and I'm wondering why nobody else seems to be very surprised by it. Maybe most folks on this forum invest in TLT rather than buying T-bonds directly.

I think I'll be selling my T-bonds to buy new ones when they reach 25 years until maturity instead of 20 years. With yields this low, the difference in duration between a 20-year and 30-year bond is over 30%. And it will climb to 50% as yields approach zero. (See the table in my previous post.)

If we ever get to the point where yields are playing a game of ping-pong around 0%, would you want to be trying to capture that volatility with a bond of 50% lower duration than a 30-year bond? I'm not sure I would.
User avatar
MomTo2Boys
Senior Member
Senior Member
Posts: 100
Joined: Tue May 15, 2012 9:42 pm
Location: The US

Re: Buying LTTs on secondary market

Post by MomTo2Boys »

Tortoise wrote: Wow... I thought my previous post would generate at least a little discussion, but I guess not. It was a surprising discovery for me, and I'm wondering why nobody else seems to be very surprised by it. Maybe most folks on this forum invest in TLT rather than buying T-bonds directly.

I think I'll be selling my T-bonds to buy new ones when they reach 25 years until maturity instead of 20 years. With yields this low, the difference in duration between a 20-year and 30-year bond is over 30%. And it will climb to 50% as yields approach zero. (See the table in my previous post.)

If we ever get to the point where yields are playing a game of ping-pong around 0%, would you want to be trying to capture that volatility with a bond of 50% lower duration than a 30-year bond? I'm not sure I would.
I actually find this fascinating but haven't responded because I just now read it because I've had trouble lately accessing the boards. SO.

Here's my follow up question - for someone like me who not only has bought the bonds themselves but who also owns a fairly nice chunk of EDV, do you know how the volatility of EDV compares to the different durations (30 vs. 25 vs. 20 yrs) of bonds? I'm just curious, because I'm struggling with how much EDV to own as a bond portion and why. On the bond down days, I want to yell at it like a puppy who just soiled the living room carpet, and on the bond up days (like yesterday, the day after the election when the stock market tanked) I want to pick it up and carry it around on my shoulders.

Also, thank you for working out the math on this. I intend to only keep my bonds to 25 years now instead of 20, as well.
(Trying hard to not screw up handling the money that my husband and I have traded untold life-hours to earn...)
User avatar
sophie
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1963
Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2012 7:15 pm

Re: Buying LTTs on secondary market

Post by sophie »

Good question.  There was a debate in another thread about EDV vs TLT.

Harry Browne definitely states that the longest duration bonds possible should be used for the portfolio.  These would be zero coupon 30 year bonds.  He did warn against zeros because of the large bid/ask spread, and therefore recommended nominal 30 year bonds.  Thanks to easy online bond trading and bond funds like EDV, though, the spread is smaller now than it was at that time (I think).  Since you can hold EDV shares as long as you want, the spread becomes even less of an issue.

Since the bond allocation is less volatile than gold and stocks, it makes sense to maximize bond volatility.  I back-tested EDV vs TLT, and noted that overall performance is improved, and not hurt significantly during short periods of rising interest rates.  I'm opting to buy these going forward, although only in tax advantaged accounts.
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch." -- Benjamin Franklin
User avatar
BearBones
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 689
Joined: Sat Sep 18, 2010 4:26 pm

Re: Buying LTTs on secondary market

Post by BearBones »

Tortoise wrote: I think I'll be selling my T-bonds to buy new ones when they reach 25 years until maturity instead of 20 years. With yields this low, the difference in duration between a 20-year and 30-year bond is over 30%. And it will climb to 50% as yields approach zero. (See the table in my previous post.)
Thanks for the analysis, Tortoise! So far no one has pointed out any flaws in your methodology. Ideally, this discussion would be in Gumby's treasury buying tutorial, but it seems that folks often miss new posts there (in fact, I am thinking that we should start all new investing posts with "lard" in the subject to get more views).

So, if starting out, would you buy all at 30 yr maturity and sell 20% each year, eventually ending up with a 5 yr ladder?
User avatar
MediumTex
Administrator
Administrator
Posts: 9096
Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2010 11:47 pm
Contact:

Re: Buying LTTs on secondary market

Post by MediumTex »

Tortoise has done great work above.  Thanks for that number crunching.

BearBones, why not just buy all 30 year bonds and in five years buy a new batch of 30 year bonds?

What's the point of laddering if we are seeking the longest possible duration?
Q: “Do you have funny shaped balloons?”
A: “Not unless round is funny.”
User avatar
BearBones
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 689
Joined: Sat Sep 18, 2010 4:26 pm

Re: Buying LTTs on secondary market

Post by BearBones »

MediumTex wrote: BearBones, why not just buy all 30 year bonds and in five years buy a new batch of 30 year bonds?

What's the point of laddering if we are seeking the longest possible duration?
Because I enjoy taking simple things and making them more complex.  ;)
Might have more rationale if letting go to 20 year maturity, but it sure would be easier to do it your way.
If in a taxable act, is there any benefit to capturing capital gains/losses yearly rather than every 5?
User avatar
Pointedstick
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 8866
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2012 9:21 pm
Contact:

Re: Buying LTTs on secondary market

Post by Pointedstick »

I would imagine you could easily wind up with a poor man's ladder quite by accident if you simply buy your bonds at regular intervals. Then you can sell the oldest ones as they hit the 5-or-10-to-maturity mark.
Human behavior is economic behavior. The particulars may vary, but competition for limited resources remains a constant.
- CEO Nwabudike Morgan
User avatar
MediumTex
Administrator
Administrator
Posts: 9096
Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2010 11:47 pm
Contact:

Re: Buying LTTs on secondary market

Post by MediumTex »

BearBones wrote: If in a taxable act, is there any benefit to capturing capital gains/losses yearly rather than every 5?
Remember that you are going to be rebalancing every 2.5 years or so, and this might present some good tax loss harvesting opportunities in 30 year bonds along the way that would also allow you to increase the duration when you bought them back.

If you split your bond allocation 50/50 between TLT and individual bonds, this might give you even more flexibility, since you would only potentially have to sell half of your bond holdings to get back to the desired duration every few years.

I have found in my experience that it is easier to let individual bonds "sleep" in your portfolio.  They just sit there doing nothing most of the time, and twice a year they wake up and make a payment.  For me, there is very little temptation to sell individual bonds if the market is up or down, while TLT or one of the other bond funds presents you with constant opportunities to be tempted to sell.
Q: “Do you have funny shaped balloons?”
A: “Not unless round is funny.”
User avatar
BearBones
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 689
Joined: Sat Sep 18, 2010 4:26 pm

Re: Buying LTTs on secondary market

Post by BearBones »

This is all very good!
So, if LTTs in both taxable and tax-deferred acts, and if choosing to hold both individual bonds and TLT, are there any advantages as to where they are kept?
User avatar
MomTo2Boys
Senior Member
Senior Member
Posts: 100
Joined: Tue May 15, 2012 9:42 pm
Location: The US

Re: Buying LTTs on secondary market

Post by MomTo2Boys »

MediumTex wrote:
BearBones wrote: If in a taxable act, is there any benefit to capturing capital gains/losses yearly rather than every 5?
I have found in my experience that it is easier to let individual bonds "sleep" in your portfolio.  They just sit there doing nothing most of the time, and twice a year they wake up and make a payment.  For me, there is very little temptation to sell individual bonds if the market is up or down, while TLT or one of the other bond funds presents you with constant opportunities to be tempted to sell.
Oh! I was actually going to ask about this. So the individual bonds pay out their dividends twice yearly? It's been confusing for me - I've owned bonds (both individual and EDV) since September. EDV pays dividends monthly (they are automatically reinvested, which I LOVE - I wish bonds did that!) but I haven't seen a dividend from the individual bonds I bought from the secondary market so I wanted to ask how often the dividends for individual bonds were paid. It looks like TLT pays monthly just like EDV but I have yet to see a payment from my individual bonds...
(Trying hard to not screw up handling the money that my husband and I have traded untold life-hours to earn...)
User avatar
Tortoise
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 2751
Joined: Sat Nov 06, 2010 2:35 am

Re: Buying LTTs on secondary market

Post by Tortoise »

MomTo2Boys wrote: Here's my follow up question - for someone like me who not only has bought the bonds themselves but who also owns a fairly nice chunk of EDV, do you know how the volatility of EDV compares to the different durations (30 vs. 25 vs. 20 yrs) of bonds? I'm just curious, because I'm struggling with how much EDV to own as a bond portion and why. On the bond down days, I want to yell at it like a puppy who just soiled the living room carpet, and on the bond up days (like yesterday, the day after the election when the stock market tanked) I want to pick it up and carry it around on my shoulders.
I think it helps to think of bond volatility in terms of duration, where a duration of X years means a bond's price will rise/fall by about X% if yields fall/rise by 1%. A zero-coupon bond's duration is equal to its maturity, so a regular T-bond with a duration of X years has the same volatility as a zero with X years 'till maturity.

Vanguard lists EDV's average duration as 26.4 years. To compare that with regular T-bonds, we just need to calculate the duration for 20-, 25-, and 30-year regular T-bonds at current yields (assuming coupon = yield):

20-year bond duration: 16.1 years (EDV is 64% more volatile)
25-year bond duration: 18.6 years (EDV is 42% more volatile)
30-year bond duration: 20.6 years (EDV is 28% more volatile)

And for what it's worth, iShares says the average duration of TLT is 17.2 years, so EDV is currently 53% more volatile than TLT.

Just keep in mind, though, that the durations of regular T-bonds change as yields change. When yields are high, zeroes are much more volatile than regular T-bonds. (When HB wrote Why the Best-Laid Investment Plans Usually Go Wrong, long-term yields were at 10%, so 30-year zeroes were 3 times more volatile than 30-year regular T-bonds!) But when yields are very low, there's less of a difference in volatility between the two. In the extreme case, if interest rates actually reach zero, regular T-bonds are zero-coupon T-bonds by definition.
sophie wrote: Harry Browne definitely states that the longest duration bonds possible should be used for the portfolio.  These would be zero coupon 30 year bonds.
[...]
Since the bond allocation is less volatile than gold and stocks, it makes sense to maximize bond volatility.  I back-tested EDV vs TLT, and noted that overall performance is improved, and not hurt significantly during short periods of rising interest rates.  I'm opting to buy these going forward, although only in tax advantaged accounts.
Good point. I had forgotten that Harry Browne argued in favor of the high volatility of zeroes in Why The Best-Laid Investment Plans Usually Go Wrong.

I looked at the daily 30-year T-bond yields since 1977 and verified that the daily standard deviation in bond price has historically been roughly proportional to the duration. (As far as I know, there's no mathematical reason why that has to be the case.) In other words, regular T-bonds have less absolute volatility when yields are high. That is likely why HB recommended zeroes back in 1987 when he wrote that book. Regular T-bonds were somewhat "weak" back then in that high-yield environment.

I'm just holding regular T-bonds for now, but you've given me food for thought regarding zeroes.

It's interesting how discussions progress sometimes. I started off thinking, "Wow, look at that 50% difference in duration between 20- and 30-year bonds when yields are near zero. I should probably sell my bonds at the 25-year mark instead of the 20!" But now my attention has been drawn to a new (but related) issue: regular T-bonds become "weak" in high-yield environments, thus possibly requiring a boost from zeroes.
MomTo2Boys wrote: So the individual bonds pay out their dividends twice yearly? It's been confusing for me - I've owned bonds (both individual and EDV) since September. [...] It looks like TLT pays monthly just like EDV but I have yet to see a payment from my individual bonds...
T-bonds make their coupon payments twice per year: (1) On the issue date, and (2) 6 months from the issue date. For example, if the issue date is 8/15/2012, the first coupon payment will be made on 2/15/2013, the second one on 8/15/2013, and so on year after year.

In your account where the bonds are held, you can usually click on the individual bonds to see the issue date and lots of other useful info. In my Schwab brokerage window, for example, when I click on my bonds it tells me the date of the next coupon payment (among many other things).
User avatar
MomTo2Boys
Senior Member
Senior Member
Posts: 100
Joined: Tue May 15, 2012 9:42 pm
Location: The US

Re: Buying LTTs on secondary market

Post by MomTo2Boys »

Tortoise wrote: It's interesting how discussions progress sometimes. I started off thinking, "Wow, look at that 50% difference in duration between 20- and 30-year bonds when yields are near zero. I should probably sell my bonds at the 25-year mark instead of the 20!" But now my attention has been drawn to a new (but related) issue: regular T-bonds become "weak" in high-yield environments, thus possibly requiring a boost from zeroes.
Tortoise, you're obviously super smart and your post had a lot of math and I'm sure 99.9% of the smarty pants people on these boards could follow everything you just said...but some of us need advice to be watered down really simple-like because we're not the sharpest knives in the drawer.

THUS:

Does anyone want to theorize on what the magic proportion of individual bonds vs. EDV might be? I think right now I'm probably at 40% EDV and 60% individual bonds bought on the secondary market. Part of me thinks that's too volatile (because even when stocks have an up day, my mega proportion of EDV tends to drag everything down more than I think is normal for the PP), but then when bonds have even the smallest up day it's like Christmas morning in my portfolio.
(Trying hard to not screw up handling the money that my husband and I have traded untold life-hours to earn...)
User avatar
Pointedstick
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 8866
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2012 9:21 pm
Contact:

Re: Buying LTTs on secondary market

Post by Pointedstick »

I think it will depend on your tolerance for complexity, in the end. In any event, normal 30 year treasuries are a replacement for TLT, while EDV ought to be replaced by zeroes. Holding some 30 year treasuries and some EDV should be like holding a mix of TLT and EDV.
Human behavior is economic behavior. The particulars may vary, but competition for limited resources remains a constant.
- CEO Nwabudike Morgan
User avatar
jimbojones
Associate Member
Associate Member
Posts: 33
Joined: Fri Sep 07, 2012 12:14 pm

Re: Buying LTTs on secondary market

Post by jimbojones »

I think this is a really useful discussion.  Thinking about it more, the maturity date of the bond is not important.  It's the duration of the bond that makes the difference for gains/losses due to interest rate changes.  Instead of focusing on the term of the LT bonds, it might make more sense to focus on the duration of the bonds. 

In 1987 ("best-laid plans"), LTT yields ranged from roughly 7%-9%, even lower than the rates experienced earlier in the 80s.  In 2001 ("fail-safe investing"), LTT yields ranged between 5% and 6%.  Using Tortoise's data, the duration for those yields (5%-9%) between 20-yr and 30-yr maturities ranges from about 10 to 15 years.  Isn't it more reasonable that the goal of the LTT allocation should be to maintain a duration between 10 and 15 years, as opposed to maintaining a term between 20 and 30 years?

If so, using Tortoise's data and the current sub-3% yields, we should be shortening the maturity of our LTTs to 20 years or less.  Otherwise, we're getting too much volatility out of LTTs. 
User avatar
Tortoise
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 2751
Joined: Sat Nov 06, 2010 2:35 am

Re: Buying LTTs on secondary market

Post by Tortoise »

Jimbo,

I went back and looked at my calculations more closely, and it actually looks like the relationship between duration and volatility (defined a couple of different ways) is much weaker than I initially thought.

I compared the duration to (1) the annualized standard deviation of the bond price changes and (2) the peak-to-peak price swing, and these are the correlations I measured:

Correlation between 30-yr T-bond duration and annualized standard deviation of price changes: +0.32
Correlation between 30-yr T-bond duration and peak-to-peak price swing: +0.10


Those are positive correlations, but fairly weak ones--especially for the peak-to-peak price swings. Visually, on a scatter plot the points are all over the place.

Unless I made a mistake in my calculations (which is entirely possible), it appears that the peak-to-peak price swing that a 30-year T-bond investor has experienced each year since 1977 has been roughly uncorrelated with duration--which has ranged from 7 to 21 years over that time.

So if this is correct, my previous hunch was wrong. This would imply that a 30-year T-bond gives you just as much "oomph" (as measured in peak-to-peak price swings) whether the duration is very short or very long.

If this seems counterintuitive to anyone, keep in mind that duration is a measure of relative volatility--not absolute volatility. Duration tells you how much the price will change for a given change in yield. It doesn't tell you how much the yield is going to change. Nobody knows that, and it can't be predicted.

What appears to happen is that as yields become low, durations increase (by definition) but the changes in yield become smaller, and the two appear to roughly balance each other so that the overall price volatility stays about the same. Whether that will continue to be the case going forward, I have no idea.

At some point when I have some time I might transfer my Excel plots to Google Docs so I can share them here.
User avatar
BearBones
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 689
Joined: Sat Sep 18, 2010 4:26 pm

Re: Buying LTTs on secondary market

Post by BearBones »

jimbojones wrote: If so, using Tortoise's data and the current sub-3% yields, we should be shortening the maturity of our LTTs to 20 years or less.  Otherwise, we're getting too much volatility out of LTTs.
My understanding is that volatility is roughly gold > stocks > LTT >>> cash. If so, this would explain why we want to maximize volatility of the LTT asset. Is this correct, everyone?
User avatar
BearBones
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 689
Joined: Sat Sep 18, 2010 4:26 pm

Re: Buying LTTs on secondary market

Post by BearBones »

Tortoise wrote: What appears to happen is that as yields become low, durations increase (by definition) but the changes in yield become smaller, and the two appear to roughly balance each other so that the overall price volatility stays about the same. Whether that will continue to be the case going forward, I have no idea.
Tortoise, you are teaching on at least a 301 level and I have not had the 101 class! But I appreciate the fact that there are people like you out there smart enough to understand this, analyze data, and present it to us.

Does what you are stating above have tax implications? In other words, in a taxable act, should I favor the bonds with the lowest yield so that gains and losses from the LTT asset are primarily capital gains and losses?
User avatar
Tortoise
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 2751
Joined: Sat Nov 06, 2010 2:35 am

Re: Buying LTTs on secondary market

Post by Tortoise »

BearBones wrote: My understanding is that volatility is roughly gold > stocks > LTT >>> cash. If so, this would explain why we want to maximize volatility of the LTT asset. Is this correct, everyone?
Your ranking of the asset volatilities above is correct, but I wouldn't say you want to "maximize" volatility of the LTT piece. Maximizing it would mean holding only zero-coupon T-bonds, but then your LTT piece would be far more volatile than stocks and gold in high-yield environments. That's probably too volatile for most PP investors.

When LTT yields were at their highest in 1981 (~15%), zero-coupon bonds were 4.5 times as volatile as regular bonds. (Currently, with yields around 3%, zeroes are currently only about 1.5 times as volatile as regular bonds.) In other words, when yields become high, zero-coupon bonds transform from dynamite into thermonuclear warheads.

So yes, it might make sense to hold some zero-coupon bonds to get your LTT volatility more in line with stocks and gold, but you'll probably want to dial that percentage back as yields rise. Otherwise the growing volatility might make you lose your lunch.

For most PP investors, it's probably simplest just to hold regular T-bonds and stay away from zeroes altogether.
BearBones wrote: Does what you are stating above have tax implications? In other words, in a taxable act, should I favor the bonds with the lowest yield so that gains and losses from the LTT asset are primarily capital gains and losses?
I'll let somebody else answer that one since taxes aren't my thing.
Last edited by Tortoise on Sat Nov 10, 2012 4:29 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Post Reply