The Fed on Wednesday said it was keeping rates on hold until at least late 2014 but failed to tip its intentions clearly about any possible additional round of quantitative easing. The Fed once again stressed the "significant downside risks" from "strains in global financial markets," a nod to the backwash from euro zone issues, having eliminated this language from its last statement.

Going strongly into equities seems brave given the bumpy recovery and with continued risks of fallout from Europe, even with an implied promise of a safety net from the Federal Reserve. That leaves the rather unlovely option of government bonds, now 30 years into a bull market and offering low yields and the, distant, possibility of big losses when the Fed eventually hikes rates or gets behind the inflation curve.

"The Fed can no longer do what it once could, which is to take preemptive strikes against inflation," Jeffrey Gundlach of DoubleLine Capital told a convention of investment advisers, speaking before the Fed announced its decision.

"They will stay low for as long as we are in this debt morass. Jobs have snapped back less and less since the late 1980s. Do you think it might have something to do with this debt experiment we're in?"

Ten-year Treasuries are now yielding about 2 percent, having fallen from 2.40 in March on disappointing jobs and economic readings. A further rally is possible, maybe even likely, but the risk/reward proposition is hardly compelling.

Buying bonds right about now is like living on one lung; not a lot of fun, you know it won't work forever but it beats the hell out of the alternative. It won't be fun, frankly, because most of the gains you might get will only look good on a relative basis. It can't work forever, at some point the U.S. will break away from a Japan track and when it does, losses on bonds will be savage. Stocks, at least theoretically, have a higher upside but come with likely high volatility and huge risks if the economy hits another air pocket.

David Fuller's view I agree with James Saft on US Treasuries. The US will "break away from a Japan track" at some point in the next few years and yields will rise. Currently they are testing the September 2011 to February trough. An upward dynamic is required to reaffirm support in this range and a sustained push above 2.4% to signal a further advance. Other analysts and investment advisers say that investors who want the "safety" of government bonds should consider the debt of strong, stable countries such as Singapore or Norway. Surely their low yields are unsustainable as well, although their generally firm currencies offer some protection of purchasing power. Higher yields are available in the debt of European periphery countries or in some newly developing countries but the risks are commensurately higher as well.

So where might the investor find less risky yield?

If one is required to stay with fixed interest, I would prefer the corporate bonds of global Autonomies. The yields are higher and the multinational reach of these firms offers additional protection in a global economy which is not firing on all cylinders.

Better still, I would prefer the shares of higher yielding Autonomies with strong balance sheets. I think James Saft overstates the longer-term risks for these companies which are no longer overly dependent on Europe or even the USA for their earnings.

Iain Little of P&C Global Wealth Managers and GTI Fund Investment says:

"Nestlé shares today are the US Treasury Bonds of yesterday."