Does the 60/40 portfolio still make sense?
Does the 60/40 portfolio still make sense?
The 60/40 approach to portfolio construction has long been a mainstay of investing – allocate 60% to equities for capital appreciation and 40% to bonds for income and potential risk mitigation.
It’s a simple investment strategy that has performed extremely well over the past two decades, as stock prices have risen in a near-straight line and interest rates have fallen to record lows, pushing up bond prices.
But some investors are now losing faith in this model amid the challenging macroeconomic environment.
Although equity and bond returns are seldom positively correlated, some fear that this trend could continue. However, this does not mean investors should completely shun bonds from their strategic asset allocation.
Bonds can still provide valuable portfolio risk reduction and diversification, even if equity-bond correlations remain positive.
Volatility matters more for risk reduction
There are two ways in which an asset can reduce portfolio volatility:
1) volatility effect: the effect of adding an asset with lower volatility than equities, even if this asset is perfectly correlated to equities.
2) correlation effect: the effect of adding an asset that has a low or negative correlation to equities.
Historically, a portfolio of bonds has been roughly half as volatile as stocks. Given this sizable difference, most of the risk reduction in a 60/40 has come from the lower volatility of bonds rather than their negative correlation with equities.
As long as bonds remain less volatile than equities going forward, a 60/40 portfolio can still look attractive from a risk perspective.
Risk/reward can still be attractive even if correlations spike
If all an investor cared about was reducing their portfolio volatility, one could argue that they should simply increase their allocation to cash.
But naturally, there’s more to efficient portfolio construction than minimising risk. Investors also care about returns and whether they are being appropriately compensated for taking risk.
So how much do correlations and/or volatility need to increase to make you indifferent between a 60/40 versus just owning equities? The answer is a lot.
Based on our economics team’s return forecasts and assuming the last 20 years of volatility persists, we find that equities offer an expected return/volatility ratio of 0.27 compared to 0.38 for bonds.
However, the risk-reward for the 60/40 still beats equities under nearly all assumptions about correlations and bond volatility. This means correlations and/or volatility would need to rise materially in order to blunt the appeal of the 60/40.
For example, let’s assume that equity-bond correlations increase to +0.6 – a level that was only briefly seen in the 1990s. In this scenario, bond volatility would need to increase 2.8x from 5.4% today to 14.5% to make investors indifferent in terms of risk-reward between a 60/40 versus an equity-only portfolio.
The 60/40 portfolio is probably here to stay
The simultaneous sell-off in equities and bonds this year has alarmed investors. But when it comes to constructing an efficient portfolio, our analysis finds that correlations matter less you might think.
This is because most of the risk reduction in a 60/40 equity-bond portfolio comes from the lower volatility of bonds rather than their negative correlation with equities.
Looking ahead, bond volatility and/or correlations would need to rise materially in order to erode the risk-reward ratio of the 60/40 compared to holding equities only.
- Forget soft landings – how much of a recession is needed to tame inflation?
- Finding opportunities in an environment of rising inflationary risk and growth concerns
- US recession risk remains as Fed seeks to tame inflation
- Asia fixed income making a come back?
- Infographic: A snapshot of the world economy
- Our multi-asset investment views - July 2022
The contents of this document may not be reproduced or distributed in any manner without prior permission.
This document is intended to be for information purposes only and it is not intended as promotional material in any respect nor is it to be construed as any solicitation and offering to buy or sell any investment products. The views and opinions contained herein are those of the author(s), and do not necessarily represent views expressed or reflected in other Schroders communications, strategies or funds. The material is not intended to provide, and should not be relied on for investment advice or recommendation. Any security(ies) mentioned above is for illustrative purpose only, not a recommendation to invest or divest. Opinions stated are valid as of the date of this document and are subject to change without notice. Information herein and information from third party are believed to be reliable, but Schroder Investment Management (Hong Kong) Limited does not warrant its completeness or accuracy.
Investment involves risks. Past performance and any forecasts are not necessarily a guide to future or likely performance. You should remember that the value of investments can go down as well as up and is not guaranteed. You may not get back the full amount invested. Derivatives carry a high degree of risk. Exchange rate changes may cause the value of the overseas investments to rise or fall. If investment returns are not denominated in HKD/USD, US/HK dollar-based investors are exposed to exchange rate fluctuations. Please refer to the relevant offering document including the risk factors for further details.
This material has not been reviewed by the SFC. Issued by Schroder Investment Management (Hong Kong) Limited.