Bonds

Do target retirement date funds, offering glidepaths that shift asset allocations away from equities and toward bonds as target dates approach, safely generate attractive returns? To investigate, we consider seven such mutual funds offered by Vanguard, as follows:

• • Vanguard Target Retirement 2020 Fund (VTWNX)
  • Vanguard Target Retirement 2025 Fund (VTTVX)
  • Vanguard Target Retirement 2030 Fund (VTHRX)
  • Vanguard Target Retirement 2035 Fund (VTTHX)
  • Vanguard Target Retirement 2040 Fund (VFORX)
  • Vanguard Target Retirement 2045 Fund (VTIVX)
  • Vanguard Target Retirement 2050 Fund (VFIFX)

We consider as benchmarks SPDR S&P 500 ETF Trust (SPY), iShares iBoxx $ Investment Grade Corporate Bond ETF (LQD) and both 80-20 and 60-40 monthly rebalanced SPY-LQD combinations. We look at monthly and annual return statistics, including compound annual growth rate (CAGR) and maximum drawdown (MaxDD). Using monthly total returns for SPY, LQD, three target retirement date funds since October 2003 and four target retirement date funds since June 2006 (limited by Vanguard inception dates), all through September 2025, we find that:

Keep Reading

Are the “Simple Asset Class ETF Value Strategy” (SACEVS) and the “Simple Asset Class ETF Momentum Strategy” (SACEMS) mutually diversifying. To check, based on feedback from subscribers about combinations of interest, we look at three equal-weighted (50-50) combinations of the two strategies, rebalanced monthly:

1. 50-50 Best Value – EW Top 2: SACEVS Best Value paired with SACEMS Equally Weighted (EW) Top 2 (aggressive value and somewhat aggressive momentum).
2. 50-50 Best Value – EW Top 3: SACEVS Best Value paired with SACEMS EW Top 3 (aggressive value and diversified momentum).
3. 50-50 Weighted – EW Top 3: SACEVS Weighted paired with SACEMS EW Top 3 (diversified value and diversified momentum).

We consider as a benchmark a simple technical strategy (SPY:SMA10) that holds SPDR S&P 500 ETF Trust (SPY) when the S&P 500 Index is above its 10-month simple moving average and 3-month U.S. Treasury bills (Cash, or T-bills) when below. We also test sensitivity of results to deviating from equal SACEVS-SACEMS weights. Using monthly gross returns for SACEVS, SACEMS, SPY and T-bills during July 2006 through August 2025, we find that: Keep Reading

Does the ICE BofAML MOVE Index, the implied volatility of U.S. Treasuries as derived from options on U.S. Treasuries with maturities 2, 5, 10 and 30 years, usefully predict U.S. stock market and U.S. Treasury bond returns? To investigate, we perform two sets of calculations using SPDR S&P 500 ETF (SPY) as a proxy for the U.S. stock market and iShares 20+ Year Treasury Bond ETF (TLT) as a proxy for U.S. Treasury bonds:

1. Lead-lag analyses using correlations between end-of-month MOVE Index or change in MOVE Index and monthly SPY or TLT returns.
2. Average next-month SPY or TLT returns by ranked fifth (quintile) of end-of-month MOVE Index or change in MOVE Index.

Using end-month MOVE Index levels and monthly dividend-adjusted SPY and TLT data during November 2002 (limited by MOVE Index data) through August 2025, we find that: Keep Reading

How do returns of different asset classes recently interact with the Effective Federal Funds Rate (EFFR)? We focus on monthly changes (simple differences) in EFFR  and look at lead-lag relationships between change in EFFR and returns for each of the following 10 exchange-traded fund (ETF) asset class proxies:

• Equities:
  • SPDR S&P 500 (SPY)
  • iShares Russell 2000 Index (IWM)
  • iShares MSCI EAFE Index (EFA)
  • iShares MSCI Emerging Markets Index (EEM)
• Bonds:
  • iShares Barclays 20+ Year Treasury Bond (TLT)
  • iShares iBoxx $ Investment Grade Corporate Bond (LQD)
  • iShares JPMorgan Emerging Markets Bond Fund (EMB)
• Real assets:
  • Vanguard REIT ETF (VNQ)
  • SPDR Gold Shares (GLD)
  • Invesco DB Commodity Index Tracking (DBC)

Using end-of-month EFFR and dividend-adjusted prices for the 10 ETFs during December 2007 (limited by EMB) through July 2025, we find that: Keep Reading

Do exchange-traded funds (ETF) that hold convertible corporate bonds offer attractive performance? To investigate, we compare performance statistics for the following four convertible bond ETFs, all currently available, to those for a monthly rebalanced 60%-40% combination of SPDR S&P 500 ETF Trust (SPY) and iShares iBoxx $ Investment Grade Corporate Bond ETF (LQD):

1. SPDR Bloomberg Convertible Securities ETF (CWB)
2. iShares Convertible Bond ETF (ICVT)
3. First Trust SSI Strategic Convertible Securities ETF (FCVT)
4. American Century Quality Convertible Securities ETF (QCON)

We focus on average return, standard deviation of returns, reward/risk (average return divided by standard deviation of returns), compound annual growth rate (CAGR) and maximum drawdown (MaxDD), all based on monthly data. Using monthly dividend-adjusted returns for all specified ETFs since inceptions and for SPY and LQD over matched sample periods through July 2025, we find that: Keep Reading

How should global investors assess country sovereign bond and equity risks? In his July 2025 paper entitled “Country Risk: Determinants, Measures and Implications – The 2025 Edition”, Aswath Damodaran examines country risk from multiple perspectives. To estimate a country risk premium, he considers direct and indirect measures of country government bond risk and country equity risk. Based on a variety of sources and methods, he concludes that: Keep Reading

How much should investors who hold a conventionally diversified portfolio (stocks and bonds) be willing to pay for and an additional equity or bond fund that outperforms its benchmark (provides alpha)? In their May 2025 paper entitled “How Much Should You Pay for Alpha? Measuring the Value of Active Management with Utility Calculations”, Andrew Ang and Debarshi Basu estimate the amount an investor is willing to pay for access to an active equity or bond mutual fund, starting from an optimal stocks-bonds portfolio. Specifically, they:

1. Empirically estimate investor risk aversion for a given stocks-bonds base portfolio, focusing on a 60-40 S&P 500 Total Return Index-Bloomberg US Aggregate Bond Index portfolio.
2. Add one of 1,203 active U.S. large-capitalization mutual funds in the Morningstar database or one of 47 fixed income mutual funds in the Morningstar Core Plus US bond category to the base portfolio.
3. For each added fund, compute the utility benefit (certainty equivalent or willingness-to-pay) of adding it.

For robustness, they repeat this analysis for different stocks-bonds base portfolios and different assumptions about equity-bond correlations. Using monthly returns for the selected indexes and mutual funds during January 2016 to December 2024, they find that: Keep Reading

Should investors expect a negative correlation between stock market and bond market returns? In his February 2025 paper entitled “Rethinking the Stock-Bond Correlation”, Thierry Roncalli examines the stocks-bond return correlation from theoretical and empirical perspectives, employing a 4-year rolling window of monthly returns for the latter. Using both long-term and recent returns, he finds that: Keep Reading

The performance of conventional factor portfolios, long and short extreme quantiles of assets sorted on the factor metric, faces considerable skepticism (see “Compendium of Live ETF Factor/Niche Premium Capture Tests”). Is their some more surgical way to capture theoretical factor premiums? In their March 2025 paper entitled “Investment Base Pairs”, Christian Goulding and Campbell Harvey offer a factor portfolio construction approach that confines portfolio long-short selections to pairs that most strongly exhibit value, momentum and carry premiums (base pairs). The approach identifies enduring pair relationships, not short-lived price gaps. Base pair identification derives from a combination of five variables:

1. The correlation between an asset’s factor signal and its own subsequent return.
2. The correlation between an asset’s factor signal and the paired asset’s subsequent return.
3. The correlation between factor signals between paired assets.
4. Differences in factor signal volatilities between paired assets.
5. Differences in average signal levels between paired assets.

They apply this base pair identification approach by each month reforming long-short, leveraged portfolios of futures and forwards base pairs to generate 20-year backtests of 12 strategies: Equity Value, Bond Value, Currency Value, Commodity Value, Equity Momentum, Bond Momentum, Currency Momentum, Commodity Momentum, Equity Carry, Bond Carry, Currency Carry and Commodity Carry. They also look at strategy averages by class and factor, and overall (All). Benchmarks are comparable conventional strategies that rank assets only on a factor signal. Using monthly data for 64 liquid futures and forwards series (15 equities, 13 bonds, 9 currencies and 27 commodities) during January 1985 through September 2023, they find that: Keep Reading

The “Simple Asset Class ETF Value Strategy” (SACEVS) seeks diversification across a small set of asset class exchanged-traded funds (ETF), plus a monthly tactical edge from potential undervaluation of three risk premiums:

1. Term – monthly difference between the 10-year Constant Maturity U.S. Treasury note (T-note) yield and the 3-month Constant Maturity U.S. Treasury bill (T-bill) yield.
2. Credit – monthly difference between the Moody’s Seasoned Baa Corporate Bonds yield and the T-note yield.
3. Equity – monthly difference between S&P 500 operating earnings yield and the T-note yield.

Premium valuations are relative to historical averages. How might this strategy react to changes in the Effective Federal Funds Rate (EFFR)? Using end-of-month values of the three risk premiums, EFFR, total 12-month U.S. inflation and core 12-month U.S. inflation during March 1989 (limited by availability of operating earnings data) through February 2025, we find that: Keep Reading