ELAN makes a note saying “an increase in short term rates would cause the most significant reduction in the value of a ladder portfolio…”
I’m confused, is this an error? I understand a ladder portfolio as having maturities evenly distributed thereby hedging risk. Why would short term rates cause a greater reduction than barbell or bullet?
This statement is made in the context of a given key rate duration/non parallel shift examle Tulips. As highlighted above the barbel could have suffered the most significant decline in value if it was more tilted towards the short term maturities ( as in having the largest key rate duration here). In this special case it is the ladder portfolio, but it doesn’t mean that it’s the rule in general, but correct me if I am wrong…
@1logic: No peak of a bullet portfolio can never be short term as they have greater weight concentrated in the intermediate maturity relative to short and long term maturity sectors. They would be least affected of all by the increase in short term rates.
Its been a while since I’ve read FI, but I was thinking that the only criteria of a bullet portfolio was a concentration in a specific maturity, so if portfolio was mostly short term bonds, but had a few mid and long maturity bonds it would still be considered a bullet portfolio. I could definitely be wrong though. What would that portfolio be classified as if its not considered a bullet portfolio?