All Over AgainMichael Panznerupdated Feb 23, 2012TweetAt GET.com we maintain complete editorial integrity on our content & provide transparent & unbiased information. Companies don't pay us to include their products although we receive a compensation when you successfully apply to products from our partners. See how we make money here.At GET.com we maintain complete editorial integrity.(Image: source) Call me cynic, but it's hard to see this as a good thing:"Junk ETFs Draw Most Cash on Record as High-Yield Hunt Speeds Up" (Bloomberg) Exchange-traded funds for speculative-grade bonds are drawing the biggest inflows on record from investors seeking easier access to higher-yielding assets. ETFs that track junk-bond indexes have tapped $5.5 billion of investments in the securities this year, according to data from Lipper. That almost quadruples the $1.4 billion recorded during the same period of 2011, which was then the highest since the fund research firm started tracking junk ETF data in 2007. While exchange-traded funds comprise 2 percent of the $1 trillion in U.S. corporate speculative-grade debt outstanding, they accounted for more than a third of the total $14.8 billion of inflows this year into mutual funds and ETFs that buy junk bonds. With the Federal Reserve pledging to hold its benchmark interest rate near zero until at least late 2014, investors are seeking better returns, said Peter Tchir, founder of New York- based hedge fund TF Market Advisors. "ETFs are giving people a fair degree of comfort, providing them with daily transparency and the ability to see a trade in and out, and asking for relatively low fees," Tchir said. The funds allow individual investors to speculate on debt ranked below investment grade without owning the bonds, which is stoking more flows into ETFs. In fact, it's looking more and more like 2007 all over again. Got those crash helmets ready? Editorial Disclosure: Any personal views and opinions expressed by the author in this article are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect the viewpoint of GET.com. The editorial content on this page is not provided by any of the companies mentioned, and has not been reviewed, approved or otherwise endorsed by any of these entities. Opinions expressed here are author's alone, not those of the companies mentioned, and have not been reviewed, approved or otherwise endorsed by any of these entities.