The trouble with bond indices

October 27, 2015 | Kara Lilly Print

In the 1980s, Japan was on fire. The country’s impressive economic growth convinced many Americans that they’d have to adopt state-directed-capitalism just to keep up. Acclaimed books such as “Japan as Number One” by Ezra Vogel of Harvard, and “The Japan That Can Say No: Why Japan Will be First Among Equals” by Shintaro Ishihara and Sony co-founder Akio Morita predicted Japan’s inevitable economic dominance. American parents spoke seriously about the need to teach their children Japanese.

But this economic fairytale was short-lived. By 1989, Japan’s massive real estate bubble burst, throwing the country into a decades long battle with deflation that it has yet to kick. Yields on Japanese government bonds spiked above 8%—a stark contrast from the 2.5 to 6% range they held throughout the mid to late 80s. Asset prices plummeted. It was a stunning denouement for a country that had been slated to take over the world.

Japan’s crash in 1989 and its subsequent economic woes have provided policymakers and investors with many cautionary tales, but one in particular is usually overlooked. Japan’s credit profile was not great leading up to the crash, and since then it has worsened. Yet Japanese bonds—both then and now—make up a significant weight in the major global government bond indices.

This is a good example of a structural flaw in bond indices. Even though Japan struggles with deflation, is burdened by an aging population and huge welfare commitments, runs persistent deficits and has a general government debt-to-GDP of approximately 240%, the country accounts for as much as 25% of the two major global government bond benchmarks. In other words, a weak debtor receives a large weight in a major bond index and then gets to benefit from the capital that this attracts.

This occurs because, like most equity indices, bond indices weigh themselves on size. Except where the constituents in equity indices are weighted based on their market capitalization—which at least theoretically makes sense—the participants in a bond index are weighted based on the size of total debt—which is a lot less ideal. In a bond index, the debtors with the most debt, and typically the worse credit profile, make up the most of the index (you would hope for the reverse).

For example, imagine you have two nephews. The youngest nephew is a disciplined student in university with a part-time job at the local campus. He has no debts, pays his own tuition, and has never come to you to borrow money. In comparison, the eldest nephew is reckless, has no job, and owes a couple of thousands in credit card debt racked up from partying. If both of them came to you to borrow money and you followed the line of reasoning of most bond indices, you would be forced to fund the older and much less creditworthy nephew.

This weighting system is why Italy is a larger constituent in the European government bond indices than the much less indebted Germany. It is why a country in such a difficult long-term fiscal position such as Japan could make up as much as a 25% of the major global government bond benchmarks. For context, we hold Japan at a 2% weight in our Global Bond Fund.

The problem with this rigid rules-based system is the risk it introduces. Most individual investors hold bonds in their portfolio to earn a steady stream of income and for their defensive characteristics. They are not looking to generate outsized returns in the bond market through pricing anomalies; they want quality bond issuers that offer a reasonable yield for a given level of risk. But if these investors were to buy and hold a passive bond index for stability, they would be investing in a potentially less optimal solution.

Two things are worthwhile to remember here. First, the mechanics of a system matter for passive strategies, so if you are going to be a passive investor, spend the time to ensure you understand the underlying structure of what you are buying. ETFs and passive strategies are rules-driven strategies. To understand the amount of risk you are undertaking, you need to understand the rules of the game.

Second, the mechanics of how most bond indices are constructed can increase the level of risk. If you are looking to add stability in your portfolio by investing in a passive strategy that follows a bond index, be aware of the way bond issuers are weighted in most of these indices. You may want to consider other options.



  • David Sovie 27/10/2015 10:02am (5 years ago)

    I really like Mawer's clear headed thinking that is evident in your articles. I recently read a new book called "Pensionize Your Nest Egg" by Moshe Milevsky and he advocates taking about 30 to 40% of your retirement nest egg and buying a "Single Premium Immeadiate Annuity" to protect from sequence of return risk in the equity markets and longevity risk. He states that by utilizing mortality credits a retiree will get more guaranteed spendable dollars that are guaranteed for life. Your thoughts are greatly appreciated.

    • PJ 27/10/2015 10:56am (5 years ago)

      Under normal interest rate scenarios, what M. Milevsky advocates may be the right thing to do, depending on an individual's overall financial circumstances. However, at present, interest rates are abnormally low due to central bank actions that depress prevailing interest rates. Therefore at present, there are alternatives which are likely better.

      The only thing that the Single premium annuity will do is eliminate the risk of longevity, but at the tremendous cost of locking in the low interest rates implied in the guaranteed monthly payments.

  • Sandy Suranko 27/10/2015 10:52am (5 years ago)

    In your Bond Indices article. At the end you mention you might want to consider other options. What would you suggest?

  • Eric Stein 27/10/2015 4:26pm (5 years ago)

    Thank you for a clear, helpful article.
    I would also be interested an article on the costs and benefits of holding an active bond fund rather than personally buying a ladder of the relatively few bonds commonly available at nontransparent markup to an individual investor through a full-service brokerage in Canada.

  • Shaun 13/12/2016 8:40pm (4 years ago)

    Hmmm. Unlike most strategies that Mawer has implemented, the new global bond fund is struggling out of the gate and has underperformance the index by 5 percent or so. Any strategy update or more of the same?

Join the Discussion

Stay Curious

Subscribe to receive our latest insights and quarterly updates.

Popular Posts

Capitalizing on cloud migration | EP65

The enemy is us: Mitigating confirmation bias

Introducing the new Mawer EAFE large cap strategy | EP64

What the FAANG is going on? | EP62


(Not) Boring Links

Business Models

Investment Approach

Mental Models


This blog and its contents are for informational purposes only. Information relating to investment approaches or individual investments should not be construed as advice or endorsement. Any views expressed in this blog were prepared based upon the information available at the time and are subject to change. All information is subject to possible correction. In no event shall Mawer Investment Management Ltd. be liable for any damages arising out of, or in any way connected with, the use or inability to use this blog appropriately.