Skip to content
All library documents

Why Stock and Bond Returns Can Move Together or Apart

Article Quant Q&A · Author: user30144

Summary

The document explains why stock and government bond prices can have changing correlations. Both asset classes respond to changes in risk-free discount rates: when rates rise, the present value of their future cash flows can fall. Equity prices also depend on uncertain corporate profits, while government bond cash flows are comparatively known. News about economic growth can therefore move stocks and bonds in opposite directions, as can changes in the equity risk premium that affect stocks more directly.

The answer describes these channels as a framework for interpreting correlation, rather than a complete theory predicting its sign. It says historical relationships have changed over time and does not claim the shifts are fully explained. It also notes that stock and bond prices have often moved differently at monthly frequency in recent decades, which has supported diversification in 60/40 portfolios. The discussion is qualitative and offers no data, formal model, or forecast.

Key ideas

  • Changes in risk-free discount rates can move stock and bond prices in the same direction.
  • Economic news about corporate profits can move stocks and bonds in opposite directions.
  • Changes in the equity risk premium can affect stocks without a similar bond-price response.
  • The drivers can combine, so the correlation may change sign over time.
  • The answer describes historical diversification benefits but does not provide a predictive model.

Tags

Full text
# What are the reasons that make stock return - bond yield correlation a meaningful one?


# What are the reasons that make stock return - bond yield correlation a meaningful one?












I have come across interesting charts that show the changing correlation between stock returns and government bond yields.

My gut instinct tells me that such relationship would be expected to be negative (bond yields go up, less demand for stocks, stock returns decrease as people are no longer adequately compensated for risk and move to bonds).

However, I believe that simply stating this is not enough reasoning. I was wondering: what established theories can show that stock returns and bond yields are meaningfully connected rather than it being just a correlation in numbers and are a bit more complex than just stating that these are competing asset classes.

I assume that there must be some theory behind it as we can see the correlation move from positive to negative and vice versa but am only aware of simplistic theories that state that it should stay strictly negative. Looking for a starting point in my research.

Thank you!

## Answer by Alex C (score 2)

https://quant.stackexchange.com/a/38380

The relationship of stocks to bonds is a very complicated question. The way I think of it is like this.

Bonds are discounted PV of known future cash flows. Equities are discounted PV of unknown future cash flows, which far from being constant are highly sensitive to the future state of the economy (corporate profits drop in a recession, etc.).

So what happens when "news" hits? If the news is purely about (higher/lower) future riskless discount rates, both equity prices and bond prices fall/rise, i.e. they move together. (Equities BTW are said to have "duration" just like bonds do).

If the "news" is about future corporate profits (e.g. "a recession is coming") then stocks drop a lot, the bonds may rise a little because riskless rates will be lower during the recession. And vice versa if the news is "no recession on the horizon, strong corporate profits expected"). In these cases bond prices and equity prices move inversely.

A third case is where the equity risk premium rises/falls for whatever reason (perhaps greater expected risk from investing in equities). In this case also stock and bond prices don't move together (the stocks move and the bonds stay about the same).

With so many moving parts it is hard to understand how it all works.

Historically, as you noted, there has been different behavior over different time periods (with the correlation sometimes changing signs). In my opinion it is not understood why this is. But generally at a monthly frequency for the past few decades bond and equity prices have tended to move largely differently (negative or near zero correlation), so that holders of 60/40 portfolios have benefited from the diversification that holding both bonds and equities provides.

Shown in full with attribution under the source's licence. Licence: CC BY-SA 4.0 (Stack Exchange)

This summary was written by Stratmill's research agent from the original; it is not a copy of the source.