Can You Lose Money in Bonds? How Bond Returns Really Work in Retirement

I'll admit something. After over a decade of this, there is one phone call I can predict almost word for word.

A client with several million dollars invested opens a statement, sees red next to the bond fund, and asks: "Andrew, why are my bonds down?" They are looking at a real number. It's just the wrong one.

So let's take the question seriously. Can you actually lose money in bonds — and if the answer is yes, why would anyone approaching retirement own them?

The short answer

Yes, you can lose money in bonds. Bond returns have two parts: price change and interest income. Your statement shows the price first, so a bond fund can look "down" while its total return — price plus income — is flat or positive.

In a retirement portfolio, high-quality bonds exist to fund your withdrawals when stocks are down. They are not there to beat stocks.

Key takeaways:

• Can you lose money in bonds? Yes. But total return = price change + interest income. Judging bonds on price alone will mislead you almost every time.

• Rising rates cut bond prices once. They raise your income every year afterward. As of July 30, 2026, the Bloomberg U.S. Aggregate index yielded about 4.92% to maturity (iShares AGG data).

• Down years are rare but real. Before 2022, the Aggregate index had only four losing calendar years since 1976, none worse than −2.9%. Then 2022 delivered −13.01% (Bloomberg data via YCharts and MUFG).

• The main job of bonds in a $2M–$10M retirement portfolio is defusing sequence of return risk — the danger of withdrawing from a falling portfolio in your first decade of retirement.

• Bonds have genuine drawbacks: inflation, ordinary-income taxation, IRMAA exposure, credit risk, and lower expected returns than stocks.

Why is my bond fund losing money?

Usually it isn't — or at least not by as much as the screen suggests. You are looking at price, and price is one of two moving parts.

Every bond does two things. It pays you interest on a schedule. And it changes in price as interest rates move. Your fund's share price, or net asset value, reflects only the second one.

FINRA, the industry regulator, draws the line clearly. Yield figures are useful, but your total return is only truly known when you sell or when the bond matures, and it combines the interest you collected along the way with whatever you finally receive. Price change is not your return. It is a component of your return.

There is a difference, and the difference is most of the argument.

The distribution that looks like a loss

Here is where the confusion usually starts. What you see depends on what you own, which is why two clients holding nearly identical bond exposure can have completely different reactions to the same month.

If you own a bond ETF, the share price drops on the ex-dividend date by roughly the amount of the distribution. Janus Henderson explains the mechanics plainly: on the distribution date, the NAV falls by the per-share payout, assuming nothing else moved.

Nothing was lost. The cash simply relocated from the fund to you. Reinvest it, and you own more shares at a slightly lower price — same total value, different arrangement.

If you own a bond mutual fund, most accrue interest daily, so that visible drop generally never appears.

Same economics. Different optics. Only one of them generates a phone call.

Either way, the number to hunt for is total return — not share price, not NAV. Ask for it by name, because most account screens will happily show you everything except that.

How does bond return actually work?

Think of a bond as a loan you made. You collect interest along the way, and you get your principal back at the end. The price in between only matters if you sell.

Duration measures how much that price moves when rates move. A fund with a duration of 6 loses roughly 6% in price if yields rise one percentage point, and gains roughly 6% if they fall one point. It's an approximation — a second-order effect called convexity makes it imprecise for big moves — but it's close enough to plan around.

As of July 30, 2026, the Bloomberg U.S. Aggregate index carried an effective duration of about 5.72 years and a yield to maturity near 4.92% (iShares AGG). Let's put those to work.

The math on $1,000,000

Say you hold $1,000,000 in a high-quality core bond fund yielding 4.92%, duration 5.7. Rates rise a full percentage point over the year.

Component	Effect
Price change (≈ −5.7%)	−$57,000
Interest earned (≈ 4.92%)	+$49,200
Total return	about −$7,800, or −0.8%

The number that grabs you is $57,000. The number that happened is closer to $7,800.

That gap is not a rounding error. It is the difference between a portfolio problem and a bad afternoon.

Now look at what comes next. The fund reinvests maturing bonds at the new, higher rates, and its yield climbs toward 5.9%. On $1,000,000, that's roughly $10,000 more income every year — not once, every year, for as long as you hold it.

Why time is on your side

There's real research behind this, and it's more specific than the usual reassurance.

Writing in the Financial Analysts Journal in 2014, three researchers — Leibowitz, Bova, and Kogelman — showed that for a duration-targeted bond portfolio, annualized returns converge back toward the starting yield over multi-year horizons, more or less regardless of what rates did in between. In their data, nearly every six-year holding period since 1985 landed within one percentage point of where it started.

The practical version: hold roughly as long as your fund's duration, and the extra income tends to make up for the price hit.

Two caveats, because they matter. This applies to constant-duration funds and ladders, not to a single bond. And it degrades when inflation and yields move violently. Treat it as a strong tendency, not a promise.

This is also why the starting yield deserves more attention than it gets. Morningstar has noted that bond return forecasts show far more agreement across firms than stock forecasts, precisely because of the tight historical link between starting yields and the following decade's returns.

Vanguard's research points the same direction, with one important qualification: the relationship holds well for intermediate and long bonds and much less well for very short instruments, whose coupons reset constantly.

A 4.92% starting yield is a materially better setup than the sub-2% yields of 2020 and 2021. Which is a strange thing to say out loud after the few years bondholders have had. It's still true.

Why are bonds losing money right now?

Because long-term rates are at generational highs and the Federal Reserve is openly split.

At its July 29, 2026 meeting, the Fed held its target range at 3.50%–3.75% for the fifth straight time. The vote was 9–3, with three regional presidents dissenting in favor of a rate hike — the first time three officials broke the same direction since September 2016.

That same week, the 30-year Treasury yield touched roughly 5.24%, its highest since July 2007.

The curve as of July 31, 2026: 1-year 4.05%, 2-year 4.29%, 5-year 4.46%, 10-year 4.74%, 30-year 5.28%.

Short and intermediate yields are pinned by a Fed on hold. Long yields are climbing on inflation and fiscal worries. If you own longer-duration bonds, that's your price decline, and there's no mystery in it.

It is also why the income you're being paid right now is the highest it's been in nearly two decades. Both facts have the same cause. Most people only notice one of them.

How bad can bond losses get, and how long do they last?

Worse than most retirees expect. But the shape of the risk is very different from stocks, and shape matters more than people think.

Before 2022, the Bloomberg U.S. Aggregate had managed only four negative calendar years since 1976: 1994 (−2.9%), 2013 (−2.0%), 2021 (−1.5%), and 1999 (−0.8%). Then 2022 delivered −13.01% — roughly four and a half times worse than anything that came before.

The peak-to-trough decline reached about −16% and took 26 months to heal, the deepest and slowest drawdown in the index's history.

Put that in dollars. On a $2,000,000 bond allocation, 13.01% is about $260,000 — in the part of the portfolio you owned specifically so you wouldn't have to think about it.

What followed: +5.53% in 2023, +1.25% in 2024, +7.30% in 2025, and +0.43% through early July 2026.

For scale, J.P. Morgan's Guide to the Markets puts the Aggregate's average intra-year decline at 3.3%, against 14.3% for equities. Bond drawdowns are usually shallower and shorter. 2022 was the exception that reminded everyone the category exists.

Past performance does not indicate future results. Index returns are unmanaged and not directly investable.

Are individual bonds safer than bond funds?

Not really. They relocate the same risk somewhere you won't see it.

The appeal is obvious, and I don't dismiss it: hold an individual bond to maturity, and absent a default you get your face value back. Interim price swings become somebody else's problem. That is genuine psychological comfort, and psychological comfort has real value in retirement.

But follow the economics. If rates rise and you hold your 3% bond to maturity, you do get your principal back — while collecting 3% in a 5% world, year after year. That opportunity cost is economically the same loss the fund investor sees printed on a statement. One version is disclosed to you monthly. The other is not.

As one Bogleheads contributor put it, a bond fund is basically a bond ladder somebody else manages for you.

Individual bonds do offer something funds genuinely can't: a defined maturity date you can match to a known expense. If you know you need $200,000 in five years, a bond maturing in five years is an elegant answer. Just don't confuse the absence of a printed price with the absence of risk.

Why own bonds when T-bills and CDs pay almost as much?

Because short rates don't stay put, and that turns out to be its own kind of risk.

With 1-year Treasuries at 4.05% and the 10-year at 4.74%, the gap is narrow enough that rolling T-bills feels like safety you're getting for free. It isn't free. It carries reinvestment risk: when the bill matures, you reinvest at whatever rates happen to exist that morning.

If the Fed eventually cuts, your 4% income becomes 2% income — quite possibly at the exact moment your portfolio needs it most.

Intermediate bonds lock today's yield in for longer. Vanguard's research adds a second point worth knowing: short-term instruments correlate more closely with equities, which makes them weaker diversifiers than intermediate bonds.

That matters more than the yield comparison, because diversification is the actual job.

The real reason retirees own bonds: sequence of return risk

This is the part almost nobody writing about bonds explains. It is also the entire argument.

While you're working, the order of your returns barely matters. You're contributing, and a down market just means buying cheap. Once you retire and start withdrawing, order becomes everything. A bad market early forces you to sell shares at depressed prices, and those shares are gone. They never participate in the recovery.

That's sequence of return risk, and it clusters in the years right around your retirement date, when your portfolio is at its largest relative to what you're pulling out.

The research here is unusually clear. Wade Pfau found that the compounded return in the first 10 years of retirement explains roughly 77% of the final outcome — the remaining 20 years explain far less. Two retirees can earn identical average returns across 30 years and land in completely different places, on nothing but timing.

Let me repeat that, because it undoes a lot of conventional thinking: the average return you earn matters less than the order you earn it in.

William Bengen's foundational 1994 study in the Journal of Financial Planning — the origin of the "4% rule" — ran on a 50% stocks / 50% intermediate-term Treasuries portfolio. Those bonds weren't there for return. They were there so the portfolio survived a bad opening decade.

A hypothetical example

Consider a hypothetical couple, ages 66 and 64, with $4,000,000 across retirement and brokerage accounts. They spend $200,000 a year. Social Security covers $70,000, so $130,000 comes from the portfolio — about 3.25%.

They hold 65% stocks ($2,600,000) and 35% bonds ($1,400,000).

Now stocks fall 30% in year two. The equity side drops to roughly $1,820,000. That is a genuinely awful year, and no allocation makes it pleasant.

But they don't have to touch it. Their $1,400,000 in bonds covers roughly ten years of withdrawals and throws off close to $69,000 a year in interest at current yields. They spend from bonds, leave equities alone, and rebalance once markets settle.

Had they held 100% stocks, that same $130,000 withdrawal would have meant selling shares at a 30% discount — permanently shrinking the base that has to fund the next three decades.

The bonds didn't earn them anything extra. They bought time. In retirement, time is the scarce asset.

Hypothetical illustration for educational purposes only. It does not reflect any actual client or account and does not guarantee any result.

What the evidence actually says about buckets and bond tents

Now I want to be more honest than this topic usually gets, because you're going to hear the confident version somewhere else.

Michael Kitces and Wade Pfau published influential work in 2014 showing that a rising equity glidepath — starting retirement conservative and growing more aggressive — could reduce both the probability and the magnitude of failure. Kitces later named this the "bond tent": your bond allocation peaks around your retirement date, then tapers. It maps neatly onto where sequence risk actually lives.

Then a 2015 follow-up in the same journal, using historical data rather than Monte Carlo simulation, found a fixed 60% equity allocation did as well or better. The rising-glidepath advantage didn't replicate.

Separately, Kitces' own analysis found that cash-and-bucket strategies do not mathematically outperform disciplined total-return rebalancing. Most of the apparent benefit turns out to be the rebalancing hiding inside them. Javier Estrada of IESE Business School tested this globally and reached the same conclusion.

So what's the honest read? Bond buffers and buckets are mostly behavioral tools. They make it psychologically possible to hold equities through a brutal market instead of capitulating at the bottom.

I think that behavioral protection is worth a great deal — I've watched it be the difference between a plan that worked and a plan that got abandoned in March. But it is not a source of excess return, and anyone selling it as a free lunch is overstating what the evidence supports.

If you would like a second opinion on whether your bond allocation is sized to your actual spending, that is exactly what a strategy session is for.

FREE STRATEGY SESSION

What are the real drawbacks of bonds?

Bonds are not risk-free, and a portfolio your size runs into every one of these.

Inflation is the big one. Long-term Treasuries delivered negative real returns for four consecutive decades — the 1940s through the 1970s. In the 1970s specifically, nominal returns were positive while inflation quietly ate them, and bonds' diversification value against stocks largely evaporated.

Bonds are far better insurance against a deflationary equity crash than against sustained inflation. With three Fed officials just voting to hike, this isn't a museum piece.

Taxes and IRMAA. This is the drawback that lands hardest on $2M–$10M households, and it's the one I most often find has been ignored entirely. Interest on taxable bonds is taxed as ordinary income, not at preferential capital gains rates, with a top federal rate of 37%.

The 3.8% Net Investment Income Tax applies above certain MAGI thresholds. And bond interest inflates MAGI, which feeds straight into IRMAA — the Medicare surcharge assessed on a two-year lookback.

For 2026, the standard Part B premium is $202.90 per month. Surcharges begin above $109,000 MAGI (single) or $218,000 (married filing jointly) and scale up to $500,000/$750,000. Total Part B premiums in the surcharge tiers run from $284.10 to $689.90 per month.

Do the arithmetic on the top tier. That's $487.00 a month more than standard — about $5,844 a year per person, or roughly $11,700 for a couple, for the identical Medicare coverage. And these are cliffs, not ramps: one dollar over a threshold triggers the whole tier.

The planning response is asset location: taxable bonds generally belong inside IRAs and other tax-deferred accounts, with equities and municipal bonds in taxable. Done well, this is worth more than almost any security selection decision anyone will pitch you. This is not tax advice; consult your tax professional.

Credit risk. Moody's long-run data puts the average annual default rate for speculative-grade issuers near 4.9% since 1983, running as high as 10.6% in bad years. Investment-grade default rates are a small fraction of that.

Higher yield means higher risk, not free money — which is why we lean on high-quality bonds for the defensive sleeve rather than reaching for yield in the one place the portfolio is supposed to be boring.

Interest rate risk. Duration cuts both ways. The longer your duration, the harder a rate rise lands.

Opportunity cost. Money in bonds isn't compounding in stocks. Though the gap is unusually narrow right now: BlackRock's latest 10-year assumptions put U.S. aggregate bonds near 4.1% against just over 5% for U.S. equities, and Vanguard's model has at times shown the two within a fraction of a point. These are third-party forward-looking projections, not guarantees.

Correlation isn't guaranteed. Which brings us to 2022.

Did the 60/40 portfolio die in 2022?

No. But its bond ballast works better in some downturns than others, and it's worth knowing which kind you're insured against.

The record on when bonds cushion equity losses is good. In 2000 the Aggregate returned +11.6%, in 2001 +8.4%, in 2002 +10.3% — while stocks fell three years running. In 2008, bonds returned +5.24% while the S&P 500 lost roughly 37%. In 2020, +7.51%.

Then 2022: stocks down about 18%, bonds down 13.01%. Both together, for the first time since 1977.

The pattern underneath is inflation. Average U.S. stock-bond correlation ran +0.35 from 1970 to 1999 and −0.31 from 2000 to 2022, spiking to roughly +0.50 in 2022. Research from Barclays, LPL, and Amundi converges on the same threshold: the correlation reliably flips positive when inflation runs above roughly 5%.

The diversifying relationship resumed in 2023. But treat it as regime-dependent rather than as a law of physics, because it isn't one.

Bonds are excellent insurance against growth shocks and recessions. They are poor insurance against inflation shocks. That's not a flaw someone forgot to fix — it's a known failure mode, and knowing it is there is most of what you need.

It's also exactly why today's higher starting yields matter. More income cushion means more protection in the scenario where price protection fails you.

What should you do when your bonds are down?

For most retirees, remarkably little. But run these five checks.

1. Look at total return, not share price. Confirm whether you actually lost money or simply watched a distribution move from the fund into your account.

2. Check your duration against your spending horizon. Holding a duration of 8 for money you need in three years is a mismatch, and it's a fixable one.

3. Count your years of covered spending. How many years of withdrawals does your bond and cash allocation actually fund? That number tells you more than any percentage.

4. Rebalance rather than react. When stocks fall and bonds hold up, selling bonds to buy equities is how portfolios recover. Selling bonds after they've fallen locks in the loss and strips out your defense right before you need it again.

5. Review asset location. At your asset level, where you hold bonds can matter more than how many you hold.

Selling your bonds after a bad year is the same error as selling stocks after a crash, wearing different clothes. It converts a temporary decline into a permanent one.

How much of your portfolio should be in bonds?

There is no universal answer, and I'd be skeptical of anyone who offers one before asking what you spend.

The better question isn't "what percentage?" It's "how many years of withdrawals do I want protected from the stock market?" Answer that, and the allocation falls out of it.

A couple drawing $150,000 a year who wants ten years of protection needs roughly $1.5 million in bonds and cash, inflation-adjusted. Hold $5 million and that's 30% of the portfolio. Hold $2.5 million and it's 60% — at which point the honest conversation is about spending, not allocation.

Worth noting, and slightly counterintuitive: Christine Benz and her colleagues at Morningstar, in The State of Retirement Income: 2025, found a base-case safe starting withdrawal rate of 3.9% over 30 years at a 90% success threshold — and that the highest safe withdrawal rates came from relatively modest equity weightings, in the range of roughly 20% to 50%.

Not because bonds return more.

Because they deliver spending consistency, and consistency is what a withdrawal rate is actually measuring.

Your tax picture, Social Security timing, pension or business income, legacy goals, and your real tolerance for watching statements all belong in this calculation. That's a financial plan. It is not a rule of thumb, and the rules of thumb are where most of the damage gets done.

Frequently asked questions

Can you lose money in bonds?

 Yes. Bond prices fall when interest rates rise, and issuers can default. But because bonds also pay interest, your total return is often far better than the price decline alone suggests — and high-quality bonds held over a period roughly matching their duration have historically tended to recover through income.

Why does my bond ETF's price drop when it pays a dividend?

 The fund distributes cash it was holding, so the NAV falls by approximately the payout per share. Your total value is unchanged. Most bond mutual funds accrue interest daily instead, so you typically never see this.

Do I lose money in a bond fund when rates rise?

Prices fall, but the fund reinvests at higher rates. Research on duration-targeted portfolios has found that annualized returns over multi-year periods converge toward the starting yield regardless of the rate path — an approximation, not a guarantee.

Are individual bonds safer than bond funds?

They feel safer, because there's no printed price decline if you hold to maturity. Economically, holding a below-market bond to maturity carries an opportunity cost equivalent to the fund's markdown. Individual bonds do offer a defined maturity date you can match to a known expense.

Should I just hold T-bills and CDs instead?

They eliminate price volatility but introduce reinvestment risk — you reinvest at whatever rates exist at maturity. If rates fall, your income falls with them. Short instruments also correlate more with stocks, which makes them weaker diversifiers.

Did 60/40 stop working after 2022?

2022 was the first year since 1977 that stocks and bonds fell together. The relationship reverted in 2023. The pattern is inflation-driven: stock-bond correlation tends to turn positive when inflation exceeds roughly 5%.

Should I own bonds if I don't need the income?

Possibly. At $2M–$10M, bonds provide spending stability and sequence-risk protection, not just income. Even if you reinvest every dollar, owning an asset you're not forced to sell at a loss during a bear market has real value.

The bottom line

A red number next to your bond fund usually means less than it appears. Check total return before you conclude anything — and remember that today's lower price is the direct cause of tomorrow's higher income. They are the same event, described twice.

More importantly, judge your bonds against the job you gave them. They aren't there to beat stocks, and at $2 million to $10 million you probably don't need them to. They're there so that when equities have a genuinely terrible year — and across a 30-year retirement, they will — you have somewhere to draw income from that isn't the part of your portfolio currently marked down.

I'll be straight about the limits of that. The research says bond buffers work mostly by making it possible for you to behave well in a bad market, not by generating extra return. Whether they'll do their job in the next downturn the way they did in 2008 depends on whether that downturn comes with inflation attached. I can't tell you which one is coming. Nobody can.

What I can tell you is that a bond allocation sized to your actual spending gives you the option to wait and find out. That is the whole product. It is worth more than it sounds.

So: are your bonds down, or are you looking at the wrong number? For most people asking, it's the second one. For some it's genuinely the first, and that's a different conversation — about duration, about taxes, about how many years you've actually got covered.

Either way, it's a question with an answer. If you'd like someone to work through yours, that's what we do.

---

About the author:

Andrew Casteel, CFP®

Chief Investment Officer

Andrew is the Chief Investment Officer for Covenant Wealth Advisors and a CERTIFIED FINANCIAL PLANNER™ practitioner. He has over 11 years of experience in the financial services industry in the areas of wealth management and financial planning for retirement. Schedule your free Strategy Session today 

---

Disclosures: Covenant Wealth Advisors is a registered investment advisor with offices in Richmond, Reston, and Williamsburg, VA. Registration of an investment advisor does not imply a certain level of skill or training. Past performance is no guarantee of future returns. Investing involves risk and possible loss of principal capital. The views and opinions expressed in this content are as of the date of the posting, are subject to change based on market and other conditions. This content contains certain statements that may be deemed forward-looking statements. Please note that any such statements are not guarantees of any future performance and actual results or developments may differ materially from those projected. Please note that nothing in this content should be construed as an offer to sell or the solicitation of an offer to purchase an interest in any security or separate account. Nothing is intended to be, and you should not consider anything to be, investment, accounting, tax, or legal advice. If you would like accounting, tax, or legal advice, you should consult with your own accountants or attorneys regarding your individual circumstances and needs. This article was written and edited by a CERTIFIED FINANCIAL PLANNER™ professional with the assistance of AI. No advice may be rendered by Covenant Wealth Advisors unless a client service agreement is in place. Hypothetical examples are fictitious and are only used to illustrate a specific point of view. Diversification does not guarantee against risk of loss. While this guide attempts to be as comprehensive as possible no article can cover all aspects of retirement planning. Be sure to consult an advisor for comprehensive advice.