市場觀點

Quant chart: Rethinking risk – what bond drawdowns reveal

Even traditionally ‘safe’ assets like government bonds haven’t protected real wealth this century. Understanding their drawdown behavior sheds light on risk in multi-asset portfolios.

作者

    Head of Conservative Equities and Chief Quant Strategist

Every asset class, including savings, bonds, stocks, and even gold, has episodes where real purchasing power was eroded deeply. In his blog ‘No asset is safe – but some lose less’, Pim van Vliet takes a larger historical perspective, emphasizing that it’s not the absence of risk but the different shapes of risk that matter..

In this quant chart, we focus on the modern ‘bond winter’ as the latest chapter in that story, where inflation and rate cycles collide to produce real losses for fixed income investors. Examining the deeply held belief that bonds are a reliable hedge against loss, the chart offers a close up of how real drawdowns1 have shaped the experience of long-term bond holders, as well as touching upon the Total Portfolio Approach.

A double hit for investors

The chart captures the peak-to-trough real drawdowns in US government bonds over an extended period, essentially answering the question: ‘If I had bought bonds at the worst possible moment, how far would I have fallen, after accounting for inflation?’

Figure 1 – Real drawdowns US government bonds, 1900-2025

Source: McQuarrie (2024)2 and Robeco

While government bonds are often seen as safe, their real drawdown history tells a more nuanced story. In periods where inflation rises sharply and interest rates adjust upward, bond prices can fall while inflation simultaneously erodes value: a double hit for investors.

The 1970s and early 1980s stand out as a severe example, with real losses approaching 50%. But the experience of the early 2020s shows this is not just ancient history. Even recently, bond investors faced real drawdowns of around 30%, challenging the idea that bonds reliably protect wealth in all environments.

The key insight is not that bonds are inherently unsafe, but that nominal stability over short horizons does not guarantee real safety over long horizons. Risk that looks benign at a one-month frequency can accumulate quietly and painfully when inflation persists.

A more nuanced narrative

This horizon-dependent view of risk sits at the heart of the increasingly discussed Total Portfolio Approach. Rather than assigning assets to rigid ‘safe’ or ‘risky’ buckets, it focuses on how the entire portfolio behaves across economic regimes and over long investment horizons, with particular attention to downside risk in real terms.

From that perspective, bonds are not always the low-risk anchor they are often assumed to be. Conversely, equities, especially defensive equities, can look less risky than commonly believed when evaluated on long-term real drawdowns rather than short-term volatility. While equities are more volatile month to month, low-risk stocks have historically exhibited real drawdown profiles that are not dramatically worse than those of bonds, while offering better participation in economic growth and inflation adjustment over time.

Real losses impair recovery in a way nominal returns often obscure: a 30% loss in purchasing power requires more than a 40% gain just to break even. This asymmetry matters for long-horizon investors. Bond drawdowns illustrate that portfolio risk is not symmetric across asset classes. While equities may be volatile, they tend to grow with inflation over time, whereas bonds can be caught flat-footed when rising yields and inflation erode real value simultaneously.

A total portfolio perspective naturally accommodates thinking beyond traditional risk buckets and incorporates real return perspectives, especially in environments with elevated inflation and rate volatility. As Van Vliet notes in the full blog, diversification remains a key defense. Putting all your capital in a savings account increases long-term inflation risk. Putting everything in equities increases both short- and long-term drawdowns. A steady portfolio, including, for example, a meaningful allocation to low volatility, conservative equities, can offer a compelling combination of inflation protection, market stability, and long-term return.

Footnotes

1Real drawdowns here refers to declines in purchasing power after inflation.
2McQuarrie, E.F. (2024b) ‘Introducing a New Monthly Series of US Government Bond Returns 1793–2023’. working paper 4899187, SSRN

獲取最新市場觀點

訂閱我們的電子報,時刻把握投資資訊和專家分析。

掌握新形勢

重要資料

本網站僅供《證券及期貨條例》(香港法例第571章)及其附屬法例所界定之專業投資者瀏覽及使用。 投資涉及風險。過往表現並不代表未來表現。本網站所載資料僅供參考之用,並不構成任何投資建議,亦非作出買賣任何證券或採納任何投資策略之要約或招攬。投資者不應僅憑本網站提供之資料作出投資決定,在作出任何投資決定前,應徵詢獨立意見(包括有關稅務影響之意見)。投資者應確保完全理解投資產品的相關風險,亦應考量自身投資目標及風險承受水平。投資乃閣下之個人決定。除非銷售投資產品的中介人已向閣下告知該投資產品適合閣下,並已解釋其符合閣下投資目標之原因,否則閣下不應投資。請參閱相關發售文件或其他法律文件,以獲取包括風險因素在內的進一步詳情。 本網站由荷寶投資管理香港有限公司發布,該公司受香港證券及期貨事務監察委員會(「證監會」)規管(中央編號:APU851)。本網站未經證監會審閱。 無法保證任何投資產品可實現其投資目標。概不就任何投資產品之表現或投資回報作任何聲明或承諾。投資的價值或會波動。本網站所載過往表現、推算或預測,均不應視作未來表現之保證或指標,且概不提供任何明示或暗示之保證。本網站內容建基於相信為可靠之來源,惟因應資料傳遞技術特性及須採用多項數據來源(包括第三方內容),故概不保證其準確性。所述觀點僅乃截至上述日期,或會隨市況變化而改變,可予更改而毋須另行通知。該等意見可能有別於其他荷寶投資專業人士之意見。因使用本材料或當中所載任何評論、意見或估算而引致之直接、間接或相應損失,荷寶概不承擔法律責任。荷寶並無責任更新本網站或任何網站內容。未經荷寶事先書面許可,不得複製、分發或刊發本網站任何材料。 除非另有說明,資料來源:荷寶。