Register For Our Mailing List

Register to receive our free weekly newsletter including editorials.

Home / 52

The conundrum of finding yield amid low interest rates

Shifting monetary policy across developed markets has forced many investors to consider the risks involved in holding U.S. and Australian Treasuries. After six years of unprecedented liquidity, the U.S. Federal Reserve is tapering its asset purchases, and could start raising interest rates in 18-24 months. In Britain, unemployment is declining faster than expected, prompting debate that the Bank of England may raise interest rates next year. Over the longer term, interest rates will rise, and investors should understand the inherent risks in so-called ‘risk-free’ assets, given their limited return potential.

Although interest rates have risen over the past year as the U.S. Federal Reserve began talking about withdrawing monetary accommodation, even at current yields we question whether U.S. Treasuries sufficiently compensate investors for interest rate risk. The interest income earned from recently issued 10-year U.S. Treasury notes would be negated by the loss incurred from a 0.30% increase in interest rates over a one-year holding period. The same risk is present in the 10-year Australian government bond, where a 0.35% increase in interest rates would have the same effect on the Australian Treasury bond maturing 21 April 2024. But yields remain artificially depressed from several years of expansionary monetary policy. U.S. 10-year government bonds yield 2.7% and Australian 10-year government bonds yield 4.2%, below their historical averages of 6.5% and 7.9% respectively. We believe Treasuries have gone from offering ‘risk-free returns’ to effectively becoming ‘return-free risk’.

Broad benchmarks, which often dictate the way investments are allocated, reflect the composition of a market. The Barclays U.S. Aggregate Bond Index (‘the Barclays Agg’), the most widely used proxy for the U.S. bond market, is now over 70% concentrated in low-yielding U.S. government-related debt. Soaring fiscal deficits have increased outstanding U.S. Treasury debt by 255% between 2007 and 2013. The Barclays Agg yields only 2.3% and few compelling yield alternatives remain within the ‘core’ fixed-interest landscape, making it more difficult for investors to meet total return targets. The same is true beyond the United States and we think investors globally should move away from the traditional view of core fixed-interest management into a broader investment framework.

SM snip1 070214

SM snip1 070214

Value in a broadened investment framework

Over the past few years, aversion to non-traditional, riskier assets such as high-yield debt, structured credit, and emerging-market debt, has waned as investors seeking yield took on more credit risk. This approach can be successful if the investor has the resources to conduct in-depth credit analysis. A larger, more diversified portfolio can benefit from actively assessing relative value and shifting portfolios toward the best value proposition, called a ‘multi-credit strategy’.

In a multi-credit strategy, managers actively assess three major components during the portfolio construction process, while remaining driven by long-term views:

  • Sector valuation. Is the sector overvalued or undervalued? How do valuations compare to historical levels?
  • Risk assessment. What are the major macroeconomic and sector-specific risks? Does each sector fairly compensate for the risk they carry?
  • Relative value. Can another sector offer better returns for the same duration or credit risk? Is our outlook more positive for one sector relative to another?

Just as important is the risk management component, which considers diversification and correlation, among other factors. By properly assessing these components and shifting portfolio allocations toward the best value proposition, investors can steadily outperform a broader benchmark over time.

A multi-credit strategy should be tailored to individual needs. Some investors have the tolerance to tilt toward less liquid, more research-intensive sectors which typically offer premiums for their lack of liquidity and relative complexity. This is where Guggenheim believes there is most value. For other investors with higher liquidity needs, a multi-credit strategy can focus on high quality, liquid sectors. For example, last year’s U.S. Treasury sell-off spread into investment-grade U.S. municipal bonds, where credit spreads widened to levels not seen in over two years, moving beyond what we felt was fair given our constructive view on specific credits. The sell-off created a temporary buying opportunity in municipal bonds which offered higher yields than in 2012, for the same credit risk. These short-term buying opportunities can ultimately be a source of long-term outperformance for investors with the flexibility to take advantage of them, while remaining long-term oriented on the overall strategy.

The Barclays Agg is overweight in government-related debt, resulting in its lacklustre yield and making the traditional approach to fixed income investing antiquated. In today’s low-interest rate environment, we believe investors need to take a different approach to generate better returns. Over the past year, such better returns were achieved by increasing allocations to corporate bonds, residential mortgage-backed securities, commercial mortgage-backed securities, municipal bonds and asset-backed securities. This approach can increase a portfolio’s yield by more than 200 basis points over the benchmark.

Intuitively, a multi-credit approach would increase tracking error, a measure of how much a portfolio’s performance differs from its benchmark. We think increasing tracking error for the potential of achieving higher returns is justified. Remaining tightly aligned to broad benchmarks leaves investors without the flexibility to take advantage of undervalued sectors.


Scott Minerd is the Global Chief Investment Officer and a Managing Partner of Guggenheim Partners, LLC, a privately held global financial services firm with more than USD190 billion in assets under management. Principle Advisory Services is Guggenheim Partners’ distribution partner in Australia and New Zealand.


Leave a Comment:



Red pill or blue pill? Navigating the matrix of fixed income

Christian Baylis on financial repression in fixed income

Don't invest just for yield: the smarter way to generate income


Most viewed in recent weeks

10 reasons wealthy homeowners shouldn't receive welfare

The RBA Governor says rising house prices are due to "the design of our taxation and social security systems". The OECD says "the prolonged boom in house prices has inflated the wealth of many pensioners without impacting their pension eligibility." What's your view?

House prices surge but falls are common and coming

We tend to forget that house prices often fall. Direct lending controls are more effective than rate rises because macroprudential limits affect the volume of money for housing leaving business rates untouched.

Survey responses on pension eligibility for wealthy homeowners

The survey drew a fantastic 2,000 responses with over 1,000 comments and polar opposite views on what is good policy. Do most people believe the home should be in the age pension asset test, and what do they say?

100 Aussies: five charts on who earns, pays and owns

Any policy decision needs to recognise who is affected by a change. It pays to check the data on who pays taxes, who owns assets and who earns the income to ensure an equitable and efficient outcome.

Three good comments from the pension asset test article

With articles on the pensions assets test read about 40,000 times, 3,500 survey responses and thousands of comments, there was a lot of great reader participation. A few comments added extra insights.

The sorry saga of housing affordability and ownership

It is hard to think of any area of widespread public concern where the same policies have been pursued for so long, in the face of such incontrovertible evidence that they have failed to achieve their objectives.

Latest Updates


$1 billion and counting: how consultants maximise fees

Despite cutbacks in public service staff, we are spending over a billion dollars a year with five consulting firms. There is little public scrutiny on the value for money. How do consultants decide what to charge?

Investment strategies

Two strong themes and companies that will benefit

There are reasons to believe inflation will stay under control, and although we may see a slowing in the global economy, two companies should benefit from the themes of 'Stable Compounders' and 'Structural Winners'.

Financial planning

Reducing the $5,300 upfront cost of financial advice

Many financial advisers have left the industry because it costs more to produce advice than is charged as an up-front fee. Advisers are valued by those who use them while the unadvised don’t see the need to pay.


Many people misunderstand what life expectancy means

Life expectancy numbers are often interpreted as the likely maximum age of a person but that is incorrect. Here are three reasons why the odds are in favor of people outliving life expectancy estimates.

Investment strategies

Slowing global trade not the threat investors fear

Investors ask whether global supply chains were stretched too far and too complex, and following COVID, is globalisation dead? New research suggests the impact on investment returns will not be as great as feared.

Investment strategies

Wealth doesn’t equal wisdom for 'sophisticated' investors

'Sophisticated' investors can be offered securities without the usual disclosure requirements given to everyday investors, but far more people now qualify than was ever intended. Many are far from sophisticated.

Investment strategies

Is the golden era for active fund managers ending?

Most active fund managers are the beneficiaries of a confluence of favourable events. As future strong returns look challenging, passive is rising and new investors do their own thing, a golden age may be closing.



© 2021 Morningstar, Inc. All rights reserved.

The data, research and opinions provided here are for information purposes; are not an offer to buy or sell a security; and are not warranted to be correct, complete or accurate. Morningstar, its affiliates, and third-party content providers are not responsible for any investment decisions, damages or losses resulting from, or related to, the data and analyses or their use. Any general advice or ‘regulated financial advice’ under New Zealand law has been prepared by Morningstar Australasia Pty Ltd (ABN: 95 090 665 544, AFSL: 240892) and/or Morningstar Research Ltd, subsidiaries of Morningstar, Inc, without reference to your objectives, financial situation or needs. For more information refer to our Financial Services Guide (AU) and Financial Advice Provider Disclosure Statement (NZ). You should consider the advice in light of these matters and if applicable, the relevant Product Disclosure Statement before making any decision to invest. Past performance does not necessarily indicate a financial product’s future performance. To obtain advice tailored to your situation, contact a professional financial adviser. Articles are current as at date of publication.
This website contains information and opinions provided by third parties. Inclusion of this information does not necessarily represent Morningstar’s positions, strategies or opinions and should not be considered an endorsement by Morningstar.

Website Development by Master Publisher.