Balanced Bond Strategies Aren't Broken. Here's Why.

06 July 2020

3 min read

Matthew Sheridan, CFA| Lead Portfolio Manager—Income Strategies

Monika Carlson| Managing Director, Senior Investment Strategist and Head—Income and Systematic Fixed Income Business Development

Balanced bond strategies are designed to provide a buffer on the downside, participation on the upside, and efficient income. But with government bond yields at historic lows, can these fixed-income strategies still meet their objectives? We think so.

Balanced strategies combine interest-rate-sensitive assets with credit assets in a single portfolio. This approach can help managers get a handle on the interplay between interest-rate risk and credit risk and make better decisions about which way to lean as conditions change.

Balanced bond strategies are effective because they blend asset classes whose returns are negatively correlated. Risk-mitigating assets, such as US Treasuries, tend to do well when growth slows, while return-seeking assets, such as high-yield corporates, shine when growth accelerates and interest rates rise.

In this way, strong returns on one side of the portfolio can help offset weakness on the other. This was the case when the capital markets sold off sharply in March. While returns for some income-generating assets—such as emerging-market debt and securitized assets—were down by more than 20%, the Bloomberg Barclays US Intermediate Treasury Index enjoyed a flight to safety that boosted monthly returns above 5%. In balanced bond strategies, Treasury positions helped mitigate the broader market drawdown.

Negative Correlation Still Key to Downside Protection

But what of fears that the relationship between risk-mitigating and return-seeking assets has broken down under the extreme stress of the pandemic? That would be concerning. If the correlation between Treasuries and high yield has turned positive, that could limit the downside-mitigation benefits of a balanced approach.

To address this concern, we’ve given recent correlations a closer look. In Display 1, we divided correlation data between the 10-year US Treasury yield and high-yield spreads into days when spreads narrowed (a risk-on environment) and days when spreads widened (a risk-off environment) over rolling six-month periods.

Treasuries Provide Diversification When It’s Needed Most

10-Year Treasury Yield vs. High-Yield Spread: Six-Month Rolling Correlation of Daily Moves

Through May 31, 2020
High-yield spreads are option adjusted.
Source: Bloomberg Barclays and AllianceBernstein (AB)

In risk-on environments, correlations indeed increased. When high yield performed well, so too did Treasuries. This makes sense because the US Federal Reserve and other central banks have pledged to keep rates low and have instituted numerous programs to boost investor confidence and return liquidity to the system. These actions have been helpful across the risk spectrum.

But critically, when high-yield spreads widened and risk assets declined, correlations between Treasuries and high yield remained negative. In other words, government bonds continued to be an offset to risk assets when protection was needed most, allowing balanced bond strategies to mitigate the downturn.

Low Yields Don’t Unhinge a Balanced Bond Strategy

Despite reassurance about negative correlations, some investors worry that today’s low, low yields will limit downside protection going forward. They’re concerned that, with central banks anchoring rates at historic lows, government bonds will have less room to rally during risk-off periods—and that returns will be commensurately curtailed. This fear is especially prevalent in the US, where 10-year Treasury yields below 1% are new territory.

Historical experience outside of the US, however, shows that low yields do not necessarily translate into low returns. Japan has a long history of extremely low yields (Display 2). For 11 of the last 12 years, the yield on the 10-year Japanese government bond was less than 1%. Meanwhile, annual returns over the same period averaged more than twice as much and, in fact, rarely matched starting yield levels.

Low Yields Don’t Always Mean Low Returns

10-Year Japanese Government Bonds: Yield and Return

Through December 31, 2019
Compares yield at start of year to that year’s total return
Source: Bloomberg Barclays and AllianceBernstein (AB)

This dynamic has allowed balanced approaches to limit downside risks during periods of both high market stress and low or negative yields. Take, for example, a portfolio balanced between German bunds and euro high yield (Display 3).

Barbell Mitigated Downside Even When Yields Were Low or Negative

Euro-Area Downturns: 2015–2020

As of June 30, 2020
High yields represented by Bloomberg Barclays Euro High Yield Index; credit barbell is represented by a hypothetical naive barbell of 50% Bloomberg Barclays Euro
High Yield Index and 50% 10-year German bunds. 
Source: Bloomberg Barclays and AllianceBernstein (AB)

During the periods shown above, when high-yield spreads widened meaningfully, government bond yields were at or below half a percent. Yet in every case, a balance between government and high-yield bonds significantly muted the credit downdraft.

Even when German bund yields were negative, as in the most recent downturn, government bonds proved an adequate buffer and led to meaningfully higher returns for a balanced strategy compared with risk assets alone.

The Path to Efficient Income

Despite the advantages to holding government bonds as a buffer, some income investors may be tempted to simply forgo exposure to rate risk in today’s low-yield environment. In this case, the most likely alternative to a balanced bond strategy is an investment-grade corporate portfolio.

At first glance, a corporate portfolio seems like a reasonable option. We can construct a US investment-grade corporate portfolio that has roughly the same average quality as a simply constructed balanced portfolio comprising 50% US Treasuries and 50% US high yield (excluding debt rated CCC). The two hypothetical portfolios would have an average quality of A–/BBB+ and also have similar durations and historical volatility.

But there the similarities end. When we compare the average yield on the investment-grade corporate portfolio (2.2% as of early June) to the average yield on the naïve balanced portfolio (3.4%), we see that the balanced strategy supplies meaningfully higher income—and income would be higher still if we were to diversify across higher-yielding sectors.

Beyond a Static Balanced Bond Approach

The balanced bond strategy story doesn’t end here. Active management can increase income still further as well as potentially enhance downside mitigation and/or upside participation.

Managers can and should go beyond naïvely constructed, fixed allocations—diversifying their credit exposure across higher-yielding sectors, capitalizing on relationships along the yield curve, and tilting the structure toward rates or toward credit, depending on the market environment. Here are some approaches to consider today:

Actively manage interest-rate risk. As we’ve argued above, it’s important to hold duration during stressed market environments, even when yields are low. But where you take that interest-rate risk is also important. For example, the intermediate range of the US Treasury yield curve is relatively attractive today. Because it’s steeper, it provides both more generous yield and a price bump as bonds “roll” down the curve toward maturity.

Diversify beyond US high-yield corporates. On the credit end of the balanced portfolio, consider diversifying across sectors to enhance income and potential return. This approach takes advantage of differing correlations among sectors and capitalizes on relative value opportunity.

For example, today we see opportunities—and compelling yield (Display 4)—in select BBB-rated corporates; subordinated (AT1) European bank debt; securitized assets, such as credit risk–transfer securities; sovereign emerging-market debt; and even fallen angels.

Diversifying Beyond US High Yield Can Boost Income

Yield

CRT yields as of June 26, 2020; all other data as of June 30, 2020
*European bank AT1s
CMBX yields are loss adjusted. CRT yields are expressed as ranges.
Source: Bank of America ML, Bloomberg Barclays, IHS Marki, J.P. Morgan and AllianceBernstein (AB)

Lastly, avoid concentrating in any single issuer or bond, given today’s uncertain environment. And be selective; fundamentals matter.

Far from being broken, balanced bond strategies can meet their objectives—downside mitigation, upside participation and efficient income—in volatile, low-yield environments. Indeed, for income investors looking to navigate today’s challenging markets, balanced bond strategies will continue to serve an important role in asset allocations.

The views expressed herein do not constitute research, investment advice or trade recommendations, and do not necessarily represent the views of all AB portfolio-management teams and are subject to change over time.

About the Authors

Matthew Sheridan, CFA

Matthew Sheridan is a Senior Vice President and Portfolio Manager at AB, primarily focusing on the Income Strategies portfolios. He is a member of the Global Fixed Income, Global High Income and Emerging Market Debt portfolio-management teams. Additionally, Sheridan is a member of the Rates and Currency Research Review team and the Emerging Market Debt Research Review team. He joined AB in 1998 and previously worked in the firm’s Structured Asset Securities Group. Sheridan holds a BS in finance from Syracuse University. He is a CFA charterholder. Location: New York

Monika Carlson

Monika Carlson is a Managing Director, Senior Investment Strategist, and Head of the Income and Systematic platforms for the Fixed Income Business Development team. She is responsible for leading a team of investment strategists and product managers and for driving growth efforts on AB’s fixed-income platform. Additionally, as part of her client-facing role, Carlson represents AB’s market views and portfolio strategies to clients, prospects and consultants globally. She has held several roles at AB, including as the head of the Global Offshore Retail Platform in Product Management. Prior to joining AB in 2007, Carlson worked at Neuberger Berman. She holds a BBA in finance from Baruch College at the City University of New York and is a CFA charterholder. Location: New York

This is a marketing communication. This information is provided by AllianceBernstein (Luxembourg) S.à r.l. Société à responsabilité limitée, R.C.S. Luxembourg B 34 305, 2-4, rue Eugène Ruppert, L-2453 Luxembourg. Authorised in Luxembourg and regulated by the Commission de Surveillance du Secteur Financier (CSSF). It is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute investment advice or an invitation to purchase any security or other investment. The views and opinions expressed are based on our internal forecasts and should not be relied upon as an indication of future market performance. The value of investments in any of the Funds can go down as well as up and investors may not get back the full amount invested. Past performance does not guarantee future results.

This information is directed at Professional Clients only and is not intended for public use.