Bonds

“Exploiting the Presidential Cycle and Party in Power” summarizes strategies that hold small stocks (large stock or bonds) when Democrats (Republicans) hold the U.S. presidency. How has this strategy performed in recent years? To investigate, we consider three strategy alternatives using exchange-traded funds (ETF):

1. D-IWM:R-SPY: hold iShares Russell 2000 (IWM) when Democrats hold the presidency and SPDR S&P 500 (SPY) when Republicans hold it.
2. D-IWM:R-LQD: hold IWM when Democrats hold the presidency and iShares iBoxx Investment Grade Corporate Bond (LQD) when Republicans hold it.
3. D-IWM:R-IEF: hold IWM when Democrats hold the presidency and iShares 7-10 Year Treasury Bond (IEF) when Republicans hold it.

We use calendar years to determine party holding the presidency. As benchmarks, we consider buying and holding each of SPY, IWM, LQD or IEF and annually rebalanced portfolios of 60% SPY and 40% LQD (60 SPY-40 LQD) or 60% SPY and 40% IEF (60 SPY-40 IEF). We consider as performance metrics: average annual excess return (relative to the yield on 1-year U.S. Treasury notes at the beginning of each year); standard deviation of annual excess returns; annual Sharpe ratio; compound annual growth rate (CAGR); and, maximum annual drawdown (annual MaxDD). We assume portfolio switching/rebalancing frictions are negligible. Except for CAGR, computations are for full calendar years only. Using monthly dividend-adjusted closing prices for the specified ETFs during July 2002 (limited by LQD and IEF) through December 2023, we find that:

Keep Reading

Should investors consider portfolio volatility when choosing allocations to stocks and bonds in their retirement accounts? In his October 2023 paper entitled “Retirement Planning: The Volatility-Adjusted Coverage Ratio”, Javier Estrada introduces volatility-adjusted coverage ratio (VAC) as an alternative retirement portfolio metric. He defines this metric as coverage ratio (C, number of years of withdrawals supported relative to retirement period length) divided by annual portfolio volatility during retirement. He compares optimal stocks-bonds allocations for different fixed real annual withdrawal rates across 22 country markets and the world market using either C of VAC. For all markets and withdrawal rates, he uses historical returns for stocks and bonds with annual portfolio rebalancing and 30-year retirement periods. Using annual returns for stocks and bonds and annual inflation rates in the U.S. during 1872 through 2022 (Shiller data) and in 21 other countries during 1900 through 2019 (Dimson-Marsh-Staunton data), he finds that: Keep Reading

Is the the conventional retirement portfolio glidepath as recommended by many financial advisors, away from stocks and toward bonds over time, really optimal? In their October 2023 paper entitled “Beyond the Status Quo: A Critical Assessment of Lifecycle Investment Advice”, Aizhan Anarkulova, Scott Cederburg and Michael O’Doherty present a lifecycle income/wealth model using stationary block bootstrap simulations (average block length 120 months to preserve long-term behaviors) with labor income uncertainty, Social Security income, longevity uncertainty and historical monthly returns for stock indexes, government bonds and government bills across developed countries. They apply this model to estimate outcomes for several age-dependent, monthly rebalanced portfolios of stocks and bonds, including a representative target-date fund (TDF), as well as some fixed-percentage allocation strategies. They focus on a U.S. couple (a female and a male) who save during working years starting at age 25 and consume Social Security income and savings starting at age 65 with constant real 4% annual withdrawals. They evaluate four outcomes: (1) wealth at retirement; (2) retirement income; (3) conservation of savings; and, (4) bequest at death. Using monthly (local) real returns for domestic stock indexes, international stock indexes, government bonds and government bills as available for 38 developed countries during 1890 through 2019, they find that:

Keep Reading

Does a simple relative momentum strategy applied to tradable U.S. Treasury term structure proxies produce attractive results by picking the best duration for exploiting the current interest rate trend? To investigate, we run short-term and long-term tests. The short-term test employs five exchange-traded funds (ETF) to represent the term structure:

SPDR Barclays 1-3 Month T-Bill (BIL)
iShares 1-3 Year Treasury Bond (SHY)
iShares Barclays 3-7 Year Treasury Bond (IEI)
iShares Barclays 7-10 Year Treasury Bond (IEF)
iShares Barclays 20+ Year Treasury Bond (TLT)

The second test employs three Vanguard mutual funds to represent the term structure:

Vanguard Short-Term Treasury Fund (VFISX)
Vanguard Intermediate-Term Treasury Fund (VFITX)
Vanguard Long-Term Treasury Fund (VUSTX)

For each test, we allocate all funds at the end of each month to the fund with the highest total return over a specified ranking (lookback) interval, ranging from one month to 12 months. To accommodate the longest lookback interval, portfolio formation commences 12 months after the start of the sample. We focus on compound annual growth rate (CAGR) and maximum drawdown (MaxDD) as key performance metrics. Using monthly dividend-adjusted closing prices for BIL since May 2007, for IEI since January 2007, for SHY, IEF and TLT since July 2002 and for VFISX, VFITX and VUSTX since October 1991, all through September 2023, we 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 September 2023, we find that: Keep Reading

What conditions affect the correlation between stock and bond returns, a critical input to asset allocation decisions? In their July 2023 paper entitled “Empirical Evidence on the Stock-Bond Correlation”, Roderick Molenaar, Edouard Senechal, Laurens Swinkels and Zhenping Wang relate changes in this correlation to economic variables and analyze the implications of such changes for stock-bond portfolios. They employ rolling 36-month Spearman rank correlations for stock market and 10-year government bond returns to detect correlation changes. While considering longer periods, they focus on post-1952 monthly and post-1978 daily U.S. data (after Federal Reserve independence) as most representative of the future. Using stock and bond returns and economic data starting 1875 for the U.S., 1801 for the UK, 1871 in France and 1987 for Canada, Germany, Italy and Japan, all through 2021, they find that:

Keep Reading

How do returns of different asset classes recently interact with inflation as measured by monthly change in the not seasonally adjusted, all-items consumer price index (CPI) from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics? To investigate, we look at lead-lag relationships between change in CPI 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 monthly total CPI values and monthly dividend-adjusted prices for the 10 specified ETFs during December 2007 (limited by EMB) through June 2023, we find that: Keep Reading

“Simplified Offensive, Defensive and Risk Mode Identification Momentum Strategy” describes a strategy that each month holds offensive (defensive) assets when average return on iShares TIPS Bond ETF (TIP) over the past 1, 3, 6 and 12 months is positive (negative). Is past return of TIP, which purely impounds investor expectations for U.S. inflation, a reliable indicator of future asset class returns? To investigate, we relate TIP returns to future returns for each of the following 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)

We consider both linear correlation and non-linear ranking tests. We look at TIP returns over the past 1, 3, 6 and 12 months separately, and as an average of these past returns (average past TIP return). Using monthly dividend-adjusted returns for TIP and the above asset class proxies as available during December 2003 (limited by TIP) through February 2023, we find that: Keep Reading

Is there a way to restore/enhance the relevance to investors of the Fed model, which is based on a putative investor-driven positive relationship between stock market earnings yield (equity earnings-to-price ratio) and U.S. Treasury bond (10-year) yield? In his February 2023 paper entitled “The Fed Model: Is it Still With Us?”, David McMillan re-examines the predictive power of this relationship with the addition of regime shifts that may expose predictive power not persistent across the full sample. He considers three versions of the Fed model:

1. Fed1 – ratio of earnings yield to bond yield (yield ratio).
2. Fed2 – simple difference between earnings yield and bond yield (yield gap).
3. Fed3 – logarithmic version of Fed2 (log yield gap).

He tests the power of each model variation to predict stock market returns at horizons of 1, 3 and 12 months, either including or excluding earnings yield and the interest rate term structure (U.S. Treasury 10-year yield minus 3-month yield) as control variables. He considers two ways to detect regime shifts in each model variation: (1) regressing each series on a constant term and looking for a break in its value; and, (2) a Markov-switching approach. Using monthly S&P Composite index level and earnings, and 10-year and 3-month U.S. Treasury yields during January 1959 through December 2021, he finds that:

Keep Reading

A subscriber asked about the performance of a strategy that each month allocates funds to pairs of exchange-traded fund (ETF) asset class proxies according to the term spread, as measured by the difference in yields between the 10-Year constant maturity U.S. Treasury note and the 3-Month U.S. Treasury bill (T-bill). Specifically:

• When the term spread is less than 0%, hold 50% Invesco DB Commodity Index Tracking Fund (DBC) and 50% SPDR Gold Shares (GLD), rebalanced monthly.
• When the term spread is 0% to 2%, hold 50% SPDR S&P 500 ETF Trust (SPY) and 50% iShares MSCI EAFE (EFA), rebalanced monthly.
• When the term spread is greater than 2%, hold 50% iShares 20+ Year Treasury Bond (TLT) and 50% Vanguard Real Estate Index Fund (VNQ), rebalanced monthly.

Also, how does the performance of this strategy (Term Spread Strategy) compare to that of a portfolio that each month allocates 50% to Simple Asset Class ETF Value Strategy (SACEVS) Best Value and 50% to Simple Asset Class ETF Momentum Strategy (SACEMS) equal-weighted (EW) Top 2. We begin the test at the end of June 2006, limited by SACEMS inputs. We ignore monthly rebalancing frictions for both strategies. Using monthly dividend-adjusted prices for the specified ETFs starting June 2006 and monthly gross returns for 50-50 SACEVS Best Value and SACEMS EW Top 2 starting July 2006, all through November 2022, we find that: Keep Reading