One man’s trash is another man’s Treasury
With yields at record lows, investors are asking how much protection bonds will offer in a future crisis
The appeal of bonds for many investors is simple and enduring. They cushion portfolios against stock market tumbles, and pay a positive return to boot. At least, that’s the theory.
When US equities shed a quarter of their value following the collapse of Lehman Brothers in September 2008, yields on 10-year US Treasuries dropped from 4% to a little over 2%. Man Group’s Peter van Dooijeweert reckons investors made about 20% returns on 10-year US Treasuries over the financial crisis period.
Things are different now. Interest rates are bumping along at rock bottom, and bond yields are at historic lows. To gain the same level of protection in a similar crisis today, 10-year yields would have to fall well below -1%, van Dooijeweert said during a press briefing earlier this year.
That seems a bold assumption. But Man’s pension fund clients struggle to see an alternative diversifier that can be scalable to the same degree that bonds are. “We spend a lot of time speaking to clients about the role of bonds going forward,” van Dooijeweert said. It’s anything but clear.
The case for holding on to government bonds rests on the belief they would still cushion portfolios in a crisis.
A pension fund CRO explains it like this. An investor valuing a US Treasury like a corporate bond would consider it worth next to nothing – the debt burden is high, the economic outlook poor, revenues are stretched, and the management is chaotic. But in practice, the value is close to a hundred.
The reason, of course, is that Treasuries are liquid and fungible. They can be exchanged for cash via repo, or posted as collateral. They are a natural harbour in a storm. So their value will generally rise as skittish investors flee the vicissitudes of the stock market.
When bond yields turn negative none of that necessarily changes. Research from US investment firm First Quadrant suggests bonds continue to provide downside protection even when yields are as low as they’ve been in Germany and Japan in recent years.
Federal Reserve and ECB research also indicates that banks dump stocks and buy liquid assets in a crisis, says First Quadrant’s Ed Peters. “They need liquidity. The yield isn’t relevant in that environment.”
On the other hand, with scarce data on exactly how bonds behave when yields are negative, nobody can be overly confident about their qualities as a future hedge.
Peters acknowledges the uncertainty. If investors are holding bonds for downside protection and diversification “then, at the moment, that’s okay”, he says – but he adds: “We don’t know for sure.”
Of course, weighing the diversification properties of bonds isn’t the only problem institutional investors face. Low yields themselves are a huge concern. “If your return requirements as a pension fund are 7% or 8% and bonds are yielding 60 basis points, you have a real problem,” van Dooijeweert said.
The paltry yield leaves investors with a ticklish decision to make. If the rationale for buying bonds is they provide downside protection with a regular coupon, take away the coupon and what are you left with?
The answer looks a lot like an option. Investors may reason they’re better off buying a put option against a stock and paying a premium rather than bleeding a negative real yield on their bond holdings. Each may amount to much the same financially, but the option provides a more perfect hedge against equity losses.
Bonds or options: it’s a call investors increasingly will have to make.
Only users who have a paid subscription or are part of a corporate subscription are able to print or copy content.
To access these options, along with all other subscription benefits, please contact info@risk.net or view our subscription options here: http://subscriptions.risk.net/subscribe
You are currently unable to print this content. Please contact info@risk.net to find out more.
You are currently unable to copy this content. Please contact info@risk.net to find out more.
Copyright Infopro Digital Limited. All rights reserved.
You may share this content using our article tools. Printing this content is for the sole use of the Authorised User (named subscriber), as outlined in our terms and conditions - https://www.infopro-insight.com/terms-conditions/insight-subscriptions/
If you would like to purchase additional rights please email info@risk.net
Copyright Infopro Digital Limited. All rights reserved.
You may share this content using our article tools. Copying this content is for the sole use of the Authorised User (named subscriber), as outlined in our terms and conditions - https://www.infopro-insight.com/terms-conditions/insight-subscriptions/
If you would like to purchase additional rights please email info@risk.net
More on Our take
Counterparty risk model links defaults to portfolio values
Fed’s Michael Pykhtin proposes using copula models to capture effects of margin calls on default risk
Does Basel’s internal loss multiplier add up?
As US agencies mull capital reforms, one regulator questions past losses as an indicator of future op risk
Is JSCC-CFTC stalemate about to be broken?
Japan CCP gains allies in battle to clear yen swaps for US clients, but CFTC shakeup could dash hopes
What T+1 risk? Dealers shake off FX concerns
Predictions of increased settlement risk and later-in-the-day trading have yet to materialise
Go your own way: departures pose new challenges for CFTC
Loss of Democratic majority would impede chairman’s ambitions for regulatory agenda
Altice’s dropdown is a warning for European creditors
Carve-out used to shield assets from lenders may occur in a fifth of European deals
Are market-makers better at dealing with central bank intervention?
Lack of pain following BoJ intervention suggests dealers are better at handling event risk
Hedge funds must race the clock to check their dealer-rule status
Working out whether a firm is caught by SEC registration requirement could take months