Register For Our Mailing List

Register to receive our free weekly newsletter including editorials.

Home / 291

Why bother investing in government bonds?

At this time of year, many investors look back on the returns achieved in various asset classes in the previous year and reconsider their asset allocations. In 2018, Australian government bonds (+5.2%) soundly beat the ASX Accumulation Index (-2.8%). The gains for government bonds were driven by yields falling, with the five-year Australian government bond yield now a miserly 1.84%. This is below the latest reading of consumer price inflation at 1.9%.

Experienced investors know that switching their sector allocation to last year’s winners is a recipe for underperformance, and a contrarian approach is much more likely to deliver outperformance. Given all this, is it now time to sell out of government bonds? What alternatives do investors have for the low risk allocation within their portfolio?

Three common reasons for owning government bonds

The most common reason given for making an allocation to government bonds is the expectation of a negative correlation in returns when riskier asset classes fall. This expectation is based on good historical experience. In times when equities have materially fallen, government bonds have typically delivered solid gains. If an investor is running a 60/40 equities/bonds portfolio, the gains from bonds are expected to provide a decent offset if equities enter a bear market (>20% fall). Many Australian investors with superannuation balanced fund allocations have less than 10% invested in government bonds. For these investors, the hoped-for bump from government bonds in a downturn will do little to offset the losses taken on the 80%+ of the portfolio invested in equity-like assets.

Based on current yields, this portfolio protection expectation comes at a substantial cost to long-term returns. Current yields provide limited room for bond yields to fall further, meaning the upside for bonds in a downturn is unlikely to be substantial. In effect, government bond investors are paying a high annual premium for insurance that is likely to have a limited payoff in a downturn.

A second reason for allocating to government bonds is their perceived low risk status. For countries like Australia and New Zealand, with relatively low debt to GDP ratios, this perception is reasonable. But for countries like Japan and Italy, there is material credit risk embedded in their government bonds. These countries have a long history of running deficits, rising debt to GDP ratios, poor demographics and no meaningful plan to ever reduce their debts.

When the next downturn occurs, there’s a reasonable probability that investors bailout of these government bonds with debt defaults or restructurings required. Even the low risk perception of US government bonds is questionable after a decade of both major political parties supporting very high deficits. If the US government can’t balance its budget now with a booming economy, will it ever be able to?

A third reason put forward for holding government bonds is their liquidity during times of crisis. However, this is an apples and oranges comparison. The proponents are arguing that government bonds are more liquid than shares, property and credit investments, all of which have much higher expected returns. A fairer comparison is to bank bills or term deposits. These have higher yields than a five-year Australian government bond and also have good liquidity from their short-dated investment terms. If the investment fees charged by a typical bond manager are included, the yield shortfall on government bonds is even higher.

Alternatives to government bonds

The merit of various alternatives to government bonds will vary, depending on the investor classification and their liquidity requirements. For investors classified as non-institutional (retail, SMSFs, not-for-profits, family offices), blackboard special term deposit rates of up to 2.75% are available. Building a ladder of maturities allows for a regular return of capital, maintaining good liquidity. Some online savings accounts have even higher rates, but these are often limited to smaller balances.

Investment TypeSuitable ForCurrent YieldMaturityLiquidity
Term DepositsNon-Institutional2.00-2.75%1-60 monthsBuild a ladder of maturities for portfolio liquidity
Bank Bills/ Commercial PaperInstitutional2.00-2.80%1 day-12 monthsVery good daily liquidity
AAA RMBSInstitutional3.40-4.00%1.8-3.0 yearsCurrently good, will reduce in a downturn

For institutional investors that cannot access regular term deposit rates, the primary alternatives are overnight accounts, bank bills and commercial paper. One-month bank bills are currently paying 2.02%, with commercial paper paying a premium on top of this to account for the small amount of credit risk involved. Unlike term deposits, bank bills and commercial paper can be traded on a same day settlement basis. Short dated, AAA-rated, senior tranches of securitisation transactions yield around 2.80%. These typically have a weighted average life of 1-5 months.

Institutional investors looking for higher yields but with a similar credit risk and maturity profile to government bonds can also consider AAA-rated residential mortgage backed securities (RMBS). These typically come with a weighted average life of 1.8-3.0 years and yields of 3.4%-4.0%. Liquidity on these instruments is currently good, but this will reduce if there is a downturn. RMBS is a good alternative to government bonds for investors looking at medium- and long-term holding periods. They won’t provide an offset to equity losses in a downturn, but they can come with a yield of more than double that of government bonds. Based on the current starting position, AAA-rated RMBS returns will easily beat government bonds in a solid majority of years and over the medium and long term, without adding credit risk.


Jonathan Rochford, CFA, is Portfolio Manager for Narrow Road Capital. This article has been prepared for educational purposes and is in no way meant to be a substitute for professional and tailored financial advice.

February 01, 2019

Hi Bob - thank you for your comments and questions.

The key reason for outperformance in the medium and long term and the majority of years, but not every year, is the volatility of government bonds. The unusually strong return for government bonds in 2018 saw it beat AAA RMBS. However, this isn't likely to be repeated as it came from yields falling closer to zero. Government bonds are far more volatile than AAA RMBS on a month to month basis.

AAA RMBS carries a higher credit rating than Queensland, Western Australia, South Australia, Tasmania and the Northern Territory. This indicates lower credit risk. It has the same credit rating as Australia, NSW and Victoria.

Based on historical returns for equities and current debt yields, you would need a 50/50 Australian equities/Australian government bond portfolio to match the AAA RMBS I'm investing in. This is a huge increase in drawdown/loss risk to achieve the same return and will be far more volatile on a month to month basis.

Stanley McDonald
February 01, 2019

To support the case that "last year's winner is a recipe for under performance" you refer to Black Rock U.S. data for the period 1991 to 2010. The data in the Morningstar (Australian) Gameboard for the more recent 1999-2018 period, shown in Graham Hand's introduction, actually shows regular instances that do not support the argument. Why?

February 02, 2019

Hi Stanley - thank you for the question.

The Blackrock study tracked actual returns from allocating to winners versus allocating to losers, simulating what I suggested. The Morningstar chart does show some asset classes winning in consecutive years, but it doesn't have a return over the entire period from following a winners or losers strategy.

Bob Martin
January 31, 2019

Hi Jonathan,

I'm going to have to take issue with your final sentence, suggesting RMBS does not come with credit risk. (hello to the year 2007).

You state that RMBS returns will beat gov bonds in a "majority" of years, without adding credit risk.

Can I ask, if they only beat gov bonds in a "majority" of years, and not "all" years, does that not imply they are adding credit risk, and in the majority of years you are simply being rewarded for taking on this additional credit risk, but sometimes this very real risk means you underperform more conservative allocations like government debt? Could you not achieve the same return outcome from RMBS more cost effectively, and more efficiently (as measured by financial risk metrics) by simply holding a portfolio of say 90% government debt, 10% equities? (or whatever other equivalent % sees you end up at a similar point along along the frontier).

Honestly, if you can prove that holding this kind of credit produces greater risk adjusted returns than simply a weight of gov debt and straight equities .. I will sign up to whatever program you're selling.

Can we agree, the reason they (most definitely) will under perform in some of the "majority" of years is primarily because of credit risk yes?


Leave a Comment:



How active bond funds hunt for value in fixed 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.