Does the Hedge Hold? A Study of Stock–Bond Correlation

Macroeconomic Perspectives, Q4 2025 • Anika Harode 

Introduction

For decades, the 60/40 portfolio has been shorthand for balance: 60% equities for growth, 40% bonds for stability. The logic seemed simple and durable: when growth faltered and stocks fell, Treasurys tended to rally, and the fixed income sleeve absorbed the shock.

Table 1: Stock–Bond Correlation and Core CPI Changes from 2015–2025

Year	2015	2016	2017	2018	2019	2020	2021	2022	2023	2024	2025
Stocks & Bonds Correlation *	-0.18	-0.24	-0.37	-0.15	-0.49	0.43	0.30	0.54	0.63	0.13	0.01
YoY Change in Core CPI (%)	0.12	1.27	2.13	2.44	1.81	1.26	4.68	7.99	4.12	2.95	2.15
*correlation between yearly percent change in stock and bond index prices

But relationships that feel timeless in markets often prove to be regime dependent. Table 1 tells the story. From 2015 through 2020, stock¹–bond² correlations stayed negative, troughing at –0.5 in 2019, while core CPI³ remained contained at 0.12% to 2.44%. Bonds reliably offset equity volatility in this environment. But the pandemic shock and inflation surge unraveled this logic. Correlations flipped positive (0.3 in 2021, rising to 0.6 in 2023) as core CPI surged to 7.99%. In these years, discount rate shocks drove both stocks and bonds down together, undermining diversification precisely when it was most needed.

Even as inflation has cooled back to 2.15% in 2025, correlations have drifted toward zero, and the hedge properties of Treasurys appear diminished, not restored. The central question now is whether investors can still lean on the classic 60/40, or if the portfolio’s safety net has frayed beyond repair.

Can the 60/40 Still Protect You?

The weakening of the Treasury hedge has also been documented in broader research. The Bank for International Settlements (BIS)⁴ notes that equity–bond correlations turned persistently positive in mid-2021, a regime not seen since the 1980s. They attribute this shift to inflation shocks overwhelming growth signals, leaving bonds to fall alongside equities rather than offsetting them.

To test whether bonds still provide a sizable hedge, we look directly at episodes of equity drawdown. Drawdown periods are defined as when stocks breach a minimum 10% drawdown. The start date of this period is a local peak, and the end date is defined as the day of maximum drawdown from the respective peak. From each peak to trough, we start by tracking stock returns, bond returns, and the performance of a 60/40 blend. We also compute a portfolio beta: how much the portfolio moves for every 1% decline in equities. This standardizes the episodes and makes them easier to compare across regimes and variations in portfolio structures.

Table 2: Classic Portfolio, 60% Stocks, 40% Bonds

Drawdown Period	Stocks Return %	Bonds Return %	Bond Sensitivity to 1% Decrease in Stocks %	Portfolio Return %	Portfolio Beta	YoY Core CPI
09-Oct-2007 — 09-Mar-2009	-56.78	25.07	0.44	-24.04	-0.42	-0.32
21-May-2015 — 11-Feb-2016	-14.16	13.25	0.94	-3.20	-0.23	1.27
26-Jan-2018 — 08-Feb-2018	-10.16	-3.76	-0.37	-7.60	-0.75	2.44
20-Sept-2018 — 24-Dec-2018	-19.78	4.53	0.23	-10.05	-0.51	2.44
19-Feb-2020 — 23-Mar-2020	-33.93	14.23	0.42	-14.66	-0.43	1.25
03-Jan-2022 — 12-Oct-2022	-25.43	-29.33	-1.15	-26.99	-1.06	7.99
19-Feb-2025 — 08-Apr-2025	-18.90	0.84	0.04	-11.01	-0.58	2.26

The evidence in Table 2 shows how the classic 60/40 portfolio’s hedge properties have shifted. In the 2007–09 crisis, stocks collapsed by -56.8%, yet bonds rallied +25.1%, limiting the portfolio’s decline to –24%. The portfolio beta, –0.4, implied that more than half of the equity drawdown was absorbed by the bond sleeve. Even in smaller mid-cycle corrections, like mid-2018, bonds still helped: stocks fell –19.8%, bonds rose +4.5%, and the 60/40 lost –10.1%, with a portfolio beta of –0.5.

But in the inflationary regime, this protection broke down. In 2022, when equities fell –25.4%, bonds fell too (–29.3%), dragging the 60/40 portfolio down –27.0%. The beta spiked to –1.1, showing bonds amplified, rather than offset, the decline. Even the more recent 2025 drawdown highlights diminished ballast: equities dropped –18.9%, bonds saw only a small gain (+0.8%), and the portfolio still fell –11.0% with a portfolio beta of –0.6. This –0.6 beta in 2025 compared to the –0.4 beta in 2007–09 demonstrates how bonds have weakened as a hedge over time.

Taken together, these episodes illustrate a shift. In disinflationary environments, bonds consistently absorbed shocks and stabilized portfolios. In inflationary environments, the hedge properties of Treasurys were weakened or reversed, leaving the 60/40 exposed at the very moments it was designed to protect.

Searching for Better Shields

If the 60/40’s safety net has frayed, the natural next step is to ask whether diversification can restore it. Are there assets that cushion equity stress when bonds fail, or are Treasurys still the only reliable counterweight — just less effective in an inflationary regime? To test this, we run the same stress-event framework on two alternative allocations:

• Alternative Portfolio I: 60% stocks, 15% bonds, 15% cash, 10% gold.

• Alternative Portfolio II: 60% stocks, 15% bonds, 15% cash, 10% hedge funds.

The goal is not to replace bonds entirely, but to see whether layering in other diversifiers meaningfully improves downside protection.

Table 3: Alternate Portfolio I, 60% Stocks, 15% Bonds, 15% Cash, 10% Gold

Drawdown Period	Portfolio Return %	Portfolio Beta	YoY Core CPI
09-Oct-2007 — 09-Mar-2009	-27.55	-0.49	-0.32
21-May-2015 — 11-Feb-2016	-6.13	-0.43	1.27
26-Jan-2018 — 08-Feb-2018	-6.91	-0.68	2.44
20-Sept-2018 — 24-Dec-2018	-10.62	-0.54	2.44
19-Feb-2020 — 23-Mar-2020	-18.46	-0.54	1.25
03-Jan-2022 — 12-Oct-2022	-20.28	-0.80	7.99
19-Feb-2025 — 08-Apr-2025	-10.99	-0.58	2.26

Table 3 shows how gold⁵ and cash⁶ can reshape outcomes. During times of low inflation — such as 2007-2009, 2015-2016, and 2020 — the classic 60/40 portfolio produced better overall returns, as bonds still provided meaningful protection. However, in periods of elevated inflation, such as 2022, the alternative portfolio outperformed by cutting losses significantly. Although returns on Gold’s investment were negative during this period, their impact on the overall portfolio reduced total losses from -27.0% in the 60/40 to -20.3%, a notable improvement in a regime where Treasurys failed as a hedge.

Table 4: Alternate Portfolio II, 60% Stocks, 15% Bonds, 15% Cash, 10% Hedge Funds

Drawdown Period	Portfolio Return %	Portfolio Beta	YoY Core CPI
09-Oct-2007 — 09-Mar-2009	-30.49	-0.54	-0.32
21-May-2015 — 11-Feb-2016	-6.64	-0.47	1.27
26-Jan-2018 — 08-Feb-2018	-6.66	-0.66	2.44
20-Sept-2018 — 24-Dec-2018	-11.25	-0.57	2.44
19-Feb-2020 — 23-Mar-2020	-18.38	-0.54	1.25
03-Jan-2022 — 12-Oct-2022	-19.79	-0.78	7.99
19-Feb-2025 — 08-Apr-2025	-11.19	-0.59	2.26

The hedge fund⁷ allocation in Table 4 highlights how this second alternative fits into the picture. In low inflation regimes such as 2007–09 and 2015-2016, bonds rallied strongly while hedge funds offered limited or even negative offsets. But in high inflation periods such as 2022, hedge funds proved more resilient. During this period, when both stocks and bonds fell sharply, hedge funds returned –2.2%, allowing the portfolio to decline to only –19.8%, with an alternative II portfolio beta slightly lower than –0.8. Though this beta may not initially appear significant, it is the highest across all three portfolios in this episode, indicating that hedge funds provided meaningful downside relief at a time when traditional fixed income failed.

Together, these experiments suggest that diversification can help — but not all diversifiers are equal. What remains clear is that bonds are no longer the singular, reliable hedge they once were.

Inflation Regimes and Hedge Effectiveness

The final step is to compare these portfolio outcomes within the inflation regimes. Doing so makes clear that it is not just the size of drawdowns that matters, but the economic backdrop shaping whether bonds, gold, or hedge funds provide the stronger hedge. Table 5 illustrates this relationship by comparing portfolio betas across drawdowns alongside year-over-year changes in Core CPI.

Table 5: Portfolio Comparison Against Core CPI Metrics

Drawdown Period	Classic Portfolio Beta	Alternative Portfolio I Beta	Alternative Portfolio II Beta	YoY Core CPI
09-Oct-2007 — 09-Mar-2009	-0.42	-0.49	-0.54	-0.32
21-May-2015 — 11-Feb-2016	-0.23	-0.43	-0.47	1.27
26-Jan-2018 — 08-Feb-2018	-0.75	-0.68	-0.66	2.44
20-Sept-2018 — 24-Dec-2018	-0.51	-0.54	-0.57	2.44
19-Feb-2020 — 23-Mar-2020	-0.43	-0.54	-0.54	1.25
03-Jan-2022 — 12-Oct-2022	-1.06	-0.80	-0.78	7.99
19-Feb-2025 — 08-Apr-2025	-0.58	-0.58	-0.59	2.26

In low-inflation environments — such as 2007–09, 2015–16, and 2020 — the classic 60/40 portfolio remained a strong hedge. In the 2007–09 crisis, for instance, the 60/40 portfolio beta of –0.42 meant that the portfolio lost less than half as much as equities. Portfolios with alternative investments (–0.49 to –0.54 betas) offered only marginal improvements, since Treasurys were already cushioning losses effectively. A similar pattern held in 2015–16 and 2020, when all portfolio betas clustered between –0.23 and –0.54, consistent with bonds working well in a muted inflation backdrop (CPI ≤1.3%).

The story changes in high-inflation regimes. The contrast was sharpest in 2022, when year-over-year CPI surged to 7.99%. The 60/40 portfolio beta collapsed to –1.06, showing that bonds amplified equity losses rather than offsetting them. By comparison, the gold/cash and hedge fund allocations held up significantly better, with betas of –0.78 to –0.80, absorbing more of the shock when it mattered most.

By 2025, with CPI easing to 2.26%, portfolios once again converged near –0.58 to –0.59. This suggests that while Treasurys no longer actively amplified drawdowns, they also have not returned to their historical role as dependable hedges. Alternatives added little incremental benefit in this lower inflation regime, but their importance remains clear in environments where inflation risk dominates.

In short, the portfolio beta analysis confirms that bonds hedge effectively when inflation is low and stable, but alternatives become essential when inflation is high and volatile. The higher (less negative) the beta, the more protection investors retain — and in recent years, only diversified portfolios provided that cushion.

This relationship has shown effect well before the 2000s as well. Between 1970 and 1980, U.S. equities and Treasuries displayed a mildly positive correlation of +0.17 on an annual return basis. This pattern reflects the inflationary backdrop of the decade, when both asset classes were pressured by macroeconomic shocks. Equity markets suffered sharp drawdowns in 1973–74 and again in 1977, while bondholders saw persistent erosion in real returns as inflation accelerated. The limited diversification benefit is evident: in contrast to the negative correlations that emerged in the 1990s and 2000s, the 1970s environment often left investors with few safe harbors. Rather than providing an offset in downturns, bonds frequently moved in the same direction as stocks, underscoring the challenges of portfolio construction during a stagflationary regime.

A New Playbook for Protection

The lesson from these episodes is not that diversification has lost its value, but that the nature of the hedge must evolve with the regime. In a world of rising inflation, simply relying on Treasurys is no longer enough. Gold and cash can soften the blow, but they are blunt tools. What matters is constructing hedges that work not only against equity volatility, but also against the macroeconomic forces — inflation shocks, policy shifts, rising discount rates — that drive assets to fall together.

At Fourth Wall, we build portfolios with this reality in mind. We view hedges not just as insurance against market drawdowns, but as protection during the moments when it matters most: when inflation erodes purchasing power and consumers need stability the most. Hedge fund strategies, with their ability to take both long and short positions across asset classes, offer a more flexible response to inflationary stress than static allocations. They are not about replacing bonds, but about adding tools that adapt when regimes shift.

The core of our approach is simple: protection should not vanish in the exact moments it is needed most. By positioning portfolios to withstand high-inflation regimes, we equip our clients to preserve capital and stay invested, rather than being forced into reactive decisions when markets and households alike are under strain. In today’s environment, that’s not just prudent, it’s essential.

¹Source: Yahoo! Finance, (^GSPC) S&P 500
²Source: Yahoo! Finance, (TLT) iShares 20+ Year Treasury Bond ETF
³Source: Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis (FRED), (CPIAUCSL) Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers – All Items in U.S. City Average
⁴Source: Bank for International Settlements (BIS), BIS Quarterly Review, December 2023, “Markets adjust to ‘higher-for-longer’”, The correlation of equity and bond returns
⁵Source: Yahoo! Finance, (GC=F) Gold Dec 25
⁶Source: Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis (FRED), (DFF) Federal Funds Effective Rate
⁷Source: Barclay Hedge, Barclay Hedge Fund Index

Embed Block

Add an embed URL or code. Learn more

Appendix

Methodology Index

Event Identification.
Stress events are defined as episodes in which the S&P 500 experiences a drawdown of at least 10% relative to a prior peak. The peak date is identified as the most recent trading day on which the index equaled its running maximum before the drawdown commenced. The trough date is defined as the day of maximum drawdown within that episode. If multiple troughs correspond to the same peak, only the deepest trough is retained, ensuring one representative episode per peak. Thus, each event window runs from the peak date (entry) to the trough date (exit).

Return Calculations.
Asset returns over each event window are computed as simple cumulative changes in price:

$R_i=\frac{P_{\mathrm{trough},i}-P_{\mathrm{peak},i}}{P_{\mathrm{peak},i}}\times 100$

Where P_trough,i and P_peak,i denote the asset’s prices at the peak and trough dates, respectively. Dividends and distributions are excluded, as the analysis focuses on short-horizon drawdown dynamics.

• Cash. Cash returns are derived from the Effective Federal Funds Rate (DFF, FRED). The annualized rate is converted into a daily rate, and cumulative returns over the event window are obtained either by compounding daily accruals or, in the baseline approach, summing daily rates:

  • Summation method (baseline):

$R_{\mathrm{cash}}=\sum _{t=p}^T\frac{{\mathrm{DFF}}_t}{365}$

○ Compounding method (sensitivity):

$R_{\mathrm{cash}}=\prod _{t=p}^T(1+\frac{{\mathrm{DFF}}_t}{365\times 100})-1$

where (t) indexes trading days within the event window ([p,T]).

Hedge Funds. Hedge fund returns are proxied by the Barclay Hedge Fund Index. Monthly index data are first reshaped from wide format into a panel of year–month returns. For each event window, hedge fund performance is calculated by compounding the monthly returns falling between the peak and trough dates:

$R_{\mathrm{hedge}}=\prod _{m=p}^T(1+r_m)-1$

where r_m is the reported monthly index return. This approach ensures consistency with the index’s reporting frequency, while allowing results to be compared directly with daily-priced instruments.

Portfolio Returns.
Portfolios are modeled as static, buy-and-hold allocations over the peak–trough window. The cumulative portfolio return is calculated as the weighted sum of component returns:

$R_{\mathrm{hedge}}=\sum _i{w}_i{R}_i$

where w_i denotes the weight assigned to asset i

Portfolio Beta.
To compare hedge effectiveness across episodes, we compute a portfolio beta defined as:

${\beta }_p=-\frac{R_p}{R_s}$

where R_s is the cumulative stock return over the same window. This metric represents the percentage change in the portfolio per 1% decline in equities. A higher (less negative) beta indicates stronger downside protection. For example, if stocks fall –20% and the portfolio falls –10%, the portfolio beta is –0.50, meaning the portfolio loses only 0.5% for every 1% decline in equities.

---

INVESTMENT ADVICE DISCLAIMER

The information contained in this email is provided for informational and educational purposes only and should not be construed as professional financial advice. I am not a registered investment advisor, financial planner, broker, or tax professional.

Please note the following important points:

1. The views expressed are solely my personal opinions and do not constitute a recommendation to buy, sell, or hold any investment or financial product.

2. All investments involve risk, including the possible loss of principal. Past performance is not indicative of future results.

3. Any investment decisions you make should be based on your own research, goals, financial situation, risk tolerance, and consultation with qualified financial professionals.

4. I do not accept any liability for any loss or damage which may arise directly or indirectly from your reliance on the information provided.

5. Tax laws and regulations are complex and subject to change. Please consult with a qualified tax professional regarding your specific circumstances.

6. Before acting on any information provided, you should consider its appropriateness to your objectives, financial situation, and needs.

7. I strongly encourage you to seek advice from registered financial professionals before making any investment decisions.

BY ACTING ON THE INFORMATION PROVIDED IN THIS EMAIL, YOU ACKNOWLEDGE THAT YOU HAVE READ AND UNDERSTOOD THIS DISCLAIMER AND AGREE TO ITS TERMS.

This message does not constitute an offer, solicitation or recommendation to sell or an offer to buy any securities, investment products or investment advisory services. 
This document may contain forward-looking statements that are based on our current beliefs and assumptions and on information currently available that we believe to be reasonable, however, such statements necessarily involve risks, uncertainties and assumptions, and investors may not put undue reliance on any of these statements. The information generated by the charts, tables, and graphs presented herein is for general informational and general comparative purposes only.
References to indices or benchmarks herein are for informational and general comparative purposes only. Indexes are unmanaged and have no fees or expenses. An investment cannot be made directly in an index.
The information in this presentation is not intended to provide, and should not be relied upon for, accounting, legal, or tax advice or investment recommendations. Each recipient should consult its own tax, legal, accounting, financial, or other advisors about the issues discussed herein.