Key Takeaways
- • Fixed-income benchmarks are shifting from reliance on broad indices like the Bloomberg U.S. Aggregate Bond Index toward customized indexes that incorporate multiple asset classes, factors (interest rates, duration, economic scenarios), and align with specific portfolio objectives.
- • Customized benchmarks improve accountability and transparency in asset owner-manager relationships and can track closer to targeted hedging portfolios, according to Katie Cowan, head of insurance client solutions at First Eagle Investments.
- • Technology improvements and robust data collection have made it feasible for index providers to build benchmarks that include esoteric asset classes and factor considerations previously unavailable in traditional indices.
- • Custom benchmarks have limitations: as Aaron Chastain of NEPC notes, a 100% hedge ratio for interest rates and credit spreads cannot perfectly hedge against economic outcomes, demographic shifts, or assumption changes.
- • Pension plan improvements in funded status, falling duration liabilities, increased hedge allocations, and wider tool availability have prompted institutional investors to reconsider traditional fixed-income strategies, according to Jared Gross, head of institutional portfolio strategy at J.P. Morgan Asset Management.
Summary
The fixed-income benchmarking landscape is undergoing a significant transformation as asset owners and managers move away from one-size-fits-all indices toward customized solutions tailored to specific portfolio needs. Historically, broad benchmarks like the Bloomberg U.S. Aggregate Bond Index served as the primary performance measurement tool for the industry. However, advances in technology and data infrastructure have now made it economically feasible for index providers to construct benchmarks that go far beyond traditional bond markets, incorporating multiple asset classes and sophisticated factor considerations such as interest rates, duration, and economic scenarios.
The appeal of customization lies in improved governance and transparency. Katie Cowan of First Eagle Investments emphasizes that custom indexes can strengthen accountability between asset owners and their managers by more closely aligning benchmarks with actual portfolio construction and hedging objectives. For complex institutional portfolios, this granularity represents a meaningful upgrade over generic indices, allowing for closer tracking of an investor's intended strategic allocation and risk management framework.
However, practitioners acknowledge that customized benchmarks are not a panacea. Aaron Chastain, principal and corporate solutions leader at NEPC, cautions that even a theoretically perfect 100% hedge ratio applied to interest rates and credit spreads cannot fully protect against broader economic shocks, demographic changes, or shifts in underlying actuarial assumptions. This limitation underscores the need for a layered risk management approach rather than over-reliance on any single benchmarking methodology.
The broader adoption of custom benchmarks reflects fundamental shifts in institutional portfolio construction. Pension plans with improved funded status, declining duration liabilities, and growing allocations to hedging strategies require measurement tools that reflect these strategic changes. Jared Gross of J.P. Morgan notes that macroeconomic uncertainty and market volatility have made diversification an essential component of risk management, further driving demand for benchmarks that can capture nuanced portfolio exposures across a wider spectrum of fixed-income and alternative asset classes.
The appeal of customization lies in improved governance and transparency. Katie Cowan of First Eagle Investments emphasizes that custom indexes can strengthen accountability between asset owners and their managers by more closely aligning benchmarks with actual portfolio construction and hedging objectives. For complex institutional portfolios, this granularity represents a meaningful upgrade over generic indices, allowing for closer tracking of an investor's intended strategic allocation and risk management framework.
However, practitioners acknowledge that customized benchmarks are not a panacea. Aaron Chastain, principal and corporate solutions leader at NEPC, cautions that even a theoretically perfect 100% hedge ratio applied to interest rates and credit spreads cannot fully protect against broader economic shocks, demographic changes, or shifts in underlying actuarial assumptions. This limitation underscores the need for a layered risk management approach rather than over-reliance on any single benchmarking methodology.
The broader adoption of custom benchmarks reflects fundamental shifts in institutional portfolio construction. Pension plans with improved funded status, declining duration liabilities, and growing allocations to hedging strategies require measurement tools that reflect these strategic changes. Jared Gross of J.P. Morgan notes that macroeconomic uncertainty and market volatility have made diversification an essential component of risk management, further driving demand for benchmarks that can capture nuanced portfolio exposures across a wider spectrum of fixed-income and alternative asset classes.
Go deeper than the headline
Research every firm in this story, track the ones that matter and get the daily briefing — free for 7 days.