Why active managers of core bond funds are migrating away from the Barclays Aggregate index.
Of all the mutual fund categories that have undergone changes since the 2008 financial crisis, few if any can lay claim to the combination endured by the intermediate-term bond category, home to most core offerings in the bond-fund universe. Back then, the category had just under $500 billion in assets. Since, the category has mushroomed as investors have fled equity market volatility. Its size now registers at more than $1 trillion.
The group has done much more than simply grow, however. Fund managers have meaningfully changed the way they’ve been managing core portfolios. Most intermediateterm bond funds use the Barclays Capital U.S. Aggregate Bond Index as their benchmark. One trend that was especially visible in 2011 was a willingness on the part of managers to run their portfolios with less interest-rate sensitivity than that bogy. In essence, managers made an active decision to decouple themselves from the index.
Many managers were worried that, even after a late 2010 spike, Treasury yields were still too low and that a nascent economic recovery would result in a yield spike that would push down the prices of longer-duration portfolios. The economy proved less robust than expected, however. At the same time, fears of contagion from Europe’s problems drove down the prices of riskier assets in the late summer, while triggering a massive Treasury bond rally that saw the 10-year note go from 3.65% in February 2011 to levels around 2% in August 2011 (and drifting lower ever since). Fewer than 12% of funds in the category managed to match or beat the return of the Barclays Aggregate Index in calendar-year 2011.
Even more has changed under the hood of the average core bond fund, though. On the heels of the financial crisis, many managers went bargain-hunting for beaten-down bonds of all kinds that were too tempting to pass up. In many cases, that meant bulking up in areas of the market that are either lightly represented in the Barclays Aggregate benchmark—such as commercial mortgages—or those that don’t make it into the index at all, such as nonagency mortgages and high-yield corporate bonds.
What’s particularly notable, however, is that the shift away from the benchmark has been sustained, even after many of these sectors have returned to more normal levels of trading and pricing. One way we’ve been able to observe the shift is by looking at historical correlations between funds and the Barclays Aggregate benchmark. In particular, the R-squared statistic is a useful way of examining how much of a fund’s returns over a given period can be explained by the returns of the index.
To get a feel for how much things have changed, we went back and calculated R-squared data for the average fund in the intermediate-term bond category on a rolling 36-month basis (Exhibit 1). What it shows is fairly dramatic: R-squared figures for the average fund in the group began dropping in 2008, much as one would have expected given the opportunistic buying that occurred as the market swooned. But while the figure leveled out in the low 70s starting in early 2009, and took a dip even deeper in 2011, it never returned to the formerly high—that is, very close to 100—levels that it occupied in years prior to the crisis. On a trailing three-year basis ended November 2012, the average fund in the intermediateterm bond category now carries an R-squared of roughly 70.
To be sure, one can come up with different numbers depending on how time periods are sliced and diced; the period beginning 2009 was particularly unusual because of the aforementioned opportunistic buying after the crisis, and that time period still factors in to the category’s three-year history. But while shorter, more-recent periods may not produce as dramatic a picture, they still reflect a divergence from the index.