Structural Risk and Convexity in our Bond Portfolio

I don’t get why if we have a structural risk, we should lower the convexity of our bond portfolio, so for instance switch from a barbell to a bullet portfolio or from a laddered to a bullet portfolio
What I don’t get is: let’s say we go from a laddered portfolio to a bullet portfolio to lower the convexity, aka lower dispersion of the cash flows, but by going to a bullet portfolio, are we not concentrating all our risk into one time to maturity whereas if we stayed in the laddered portfolio, the risk would be spread out more across several maturities and bonds?

Yes: you’re substituting interest rate risk for structural risk.

I dont think I understood the concept. Do you mind elaborating
But arent interest rate and structural risk related concepts?

Interest rate risk assumes parallel yield curve shifts and can be managed by choosing an appropriate (effective or modified) duration.

Structural risk encompasses non-parallel yield curve changes – steepening, flattening, changes in curvature, and so on – and cannot be managed merely by effective or modified duration. It wants more exotic management (e.g., of convexity and key rate durations).

1 Like


My pleasure.