US Stock-Bond Correlation and Capital Preservation
This report examines how the relationship between US stock and bond returns has changed across long-run annual data and a more recent monthly yield proxy. It considers what those measures can and cannot tell investors about preserving capital.
October 2026
BlackRidge Research
BlackRidge Research | US Stock-Bond Correlation and Capital Preservation01
BlackRidge
MARKET HISTORY | US EQUITIES AND BONDS
02 / 13
A shifting stock-bond correlation is no capital-preservation rule
US stock-bond correlation changes sign across the three fixed samples. Every reported interval spans zero, so these estimates do not establish a persistent relationship [01][02][03].
Pearson correlation (unitless)
1961-1980
0.08
1981-2000
0.37
2001-2020
−0.51
−1.0−0.50.00.51.0
Unitless Pearson correlation of nominal annual US CRSP broad-market total returns and bond returns, 1961-1980, 1981-2000, and 2001-2020 (20 observations each). 95% percentile intervals use 2,000 paired circular-block replicates of length 5 [01][02][03].
Period
Annual observations
Correlation
95% interval
1961–1980
20
0.08
−0.65 / 0.50
1981–2000
20
0.37
−0.03 / 0.75
2001–2020
20
−0.51
−0.81 / 0.06
Observation
These are a retrospective illustration of the latest 60 years, split into three consecutive fixed 20-calendar-year windows, not a preregistered or blinded selection. The earlier 34 annual years, 1927-1960, are absent here, though the full rolling and break analysis uses them. The windows do not overlap. Independence does not follow. The first estimate is weak and sensitive to individual years: deleting one year can reverse its sign.
Interpretation
Every 95% interval includes zero. These estimates therefore leave the sign of the underlying association unresolved. The paired circular-block intervals remain broad.
Implication
Bond instruments and duration change across the series, constraining like-for-like comparison; their effects cannot be isolated here. Annual co-movement is descriptive. It identifies neither a causal regime nor dependable capital preservation.
Measurement limit
Read signs as sample-specific. Correlation alone does not quantify portfolio losses or purchasing power after inflation. This boundary matters. No standing portfolio rule follows. Evidence stays limited.
BlackRidge Research | US Stock-Bond Correlation and Capital Preservation02
BlackRidge
US STOCKS AND BONDS / ROLLING CORRELATION
03 / 13
US stock-bond correlation shifts across rolling windows
The stock-bond relationship changed sign across the historical record. Its long-run pattern is less stable than a single hedge assumption suggests [01][02][03].
Correlation coefficient (dimensionless)
20-year rolling correlation
Nominal annual US stock and bond returns, 20-year rolling correlation coefficient, 1927 to 2020. The coefficient is dimensionless. The 75 windows overlap. Sources: [01][02][03].
Measure
Value
Window
Minimum
−0.66
1998–2017
Maximum
0.52
1976–1995
Positive
43
75
Negative
32
75
Observation
The range is wide. The lowest reading was -0.66 for 1998 to 2017, while the highest was 0.52 for 1976 to 1995. Across 75 overlapping twenty-year windows, 43 correlations were positive and 32 negative. These endpoints describe materially different co-movement in nominal annual returns, rather than a single stable hedge relationship [01][02][03].
Interpretation
That variation matters for capital preservation. A portfolio that relies on bonds to offset equity moves is exposed to the correlation assumption embedded in its design. The sign counts show that positive and negative relationships both occur in the sample. A fixed historical average would conceal that variation.
Implication
Treat the figures as a stress-testing prompt. Test a range of stock-bond relationships when sizing defensive holdings, then assess the portfolio against the losses it must withstand. The rolling evidence supports checking whether protection persists across long spans, not assuming it will recur on demand.
Measurement limit
There is a limit. The windows overlap, so the 75 readings are descriptive observations, not 75 independent regimes. Correlation measures co-movement, not the size of losses or whether a bond allocation preserved purchasing power. These nominal-return results alone cannot settle that question [01][02][03].
BlackRidge Research | US Stock-Bond Correlation and Capital Preservation03
BlackRidge
U.S. STOCKS AND BONDS | CAPITAL PRESERVATION
04 / 13
A selected shift toward stronger negative stock-bond correlation
The full annual scan selects 1998 as the split year. Stock-bond correlation turns negative afterward [01][02].
Fisher-transform difference statistic (unitless)
Full-scan Fisher-transform difference statistic
Unitless full-scan Fisher-transform difference statistic across candidate annual split years, 1927 to 2020; 1,000 null replicates per stationary paired circular-block setting [01][02][03][05][06].
The sign changed. The estimate is +0.20 across 1927–1998 and −0.56 across 1999–2020, based on 72 and 22 annual observations. That points to stronger negative co-movement in the selected later sample. The equity series is the U.S. CRSP broad-market total return in Kenneth R. French’s data library. French identifies the library provider, not French stocks or a French calendar [01][02].
Interpretation
Selection matters. The scan statistic is the maximum Fisher-transform difference statistic across candidate years. Under the primary five-year stationary paired circular-block resampling setting, the full-scan adjusted p-value is 0.090. The three- and ten-year sensitivities move the result, so inference depends on block length [03][05][06].
Implication
For capital preservation, the selected later estimate is consistent with stocks and bonds moving in opposite directions on average over that historical sample. It can inform scenario analysis. It does not establish reliable protection during a loss episode or predict the next regime [01][02].
Measurement limit
This is exploratory, conditional on stationary paired circular-block resampling, with 1,000 null replicates for each block setting. It is neither a causal nor a permanent-break test, and it does not guarantee calibration for arbitrary changes. The periods do not overlap, but statistical independence has not been established. The scan was not retuned [03][05][06].
BlackRidge Research | US Stock-Bond Correlation and Capital Preservation04
BlackRidge
INFLATION AND DIVERSIFICATION
05 / 13
When stock-bond correlation turns positive
Across annual observations from 1927 through 2020, stock-bond correlation is negative below 4% average CPI inflation and positive at or above it. This retrospective split has only 25 higher-inflation observations.
Pearson correlation coefficient (unitless)
Average CPI inflation at or above 4%
0.29
Average CPI inflation below 4%
−0.09
−1.0−0.50.00.51.0
Annual Pearson correlation between US CRSP broad-market equity total returns and bond returns, grouped by realized annual average CPI inflation. Coefficients are unitless; observations cover 1927-2020 (94 years). Real returns use annual CPI. [01][02][03][05][06]
Group
n
Correlation
Nominal joint loss
Inflation-adjusted joint loss
High inflation
25
0.29
4/25 (16.0%)
9/25 (36.0%)
Low inflation
69
−0.09
3/69 (4.3%)
4/69 (5.8%)
Threshold
High n
High correlation
Low n
Low correlation
3%
38
0.14
56
−0.05
4%
25
0.29
69
−0.09
5%
19
0.28
75
−0.08
Observation
At the 4% threshold, correlation is 0.29 above it and -0.09 below. Joint nominal losses occur in 16.0% and 4.3% of observations. After returns are adjusted by annual CPI, the rates are 36.0% and 5.8%. The distinction matters for capital preservation: nominal diversification may overstate how often both assets protect purchasing power together. [01][02][03][05][06]
Interpretation
The sign pattern persists at the predetermined 3% and 5% cutoffs. Higher-inflation correlations are 0.14 and 0.28, against -0.05 and -0.08 below each threshold. Samples shrink to 19 observations in the 5% group. Treat these as historical estimates, not precise forecasts.
Implication
Portfolio reviews should track nominal co-movement alongside joint losses after inflation. Bonds may cushion an equity decline in dollars while failing to preserve purchasing power. This supports monitoring, not a timing rule: the analysis neither identifies causation nor tests a signal available to investors in real time.
Measurement limit
Annual CPI for a calendar year is not known at its start, so this classification cannot serve as a contemporaneous signal. The same CPI deflator also enters both real return series, affecting their correlation through construction and market outcomes. Periods are distinct and non-overlapping, but are not thereby statistically independent. The findings describe this sample only.
BlackRidge Research | US Stock-Bond Correlation and Capital Preservation05
BlackRidge
CAPITAL PRESERVATION | JOINT LOSSES
06 / 13
When stocks and bonds fall together
Joint losses were uncommon in nominal terms and more frequent after annual inflation adjustment. That distinction matters for capital preservation, although sign counts hide loss size and the path within each year.
Nominal returns
Stocks lose, bonds lose7 / 94
Stocks lose, bonds do not lose16 / 94
Stocks do not lose, bonds lose21 / 94
Neither stocks nor bonds lose50 / 94
Returns after annual CPI adjustment
Stocks lose, bonds lose13 / 94
Stocks lose, bonds do not lose17 / 94
Stocks do not lose, bonds lose26 / 94
Neither stocks nor bonds lose38 / 94
Measure
Count or rate
Denominator or interval
Bonds positive when stocks lose
16/23 (69.6%)
23
Bonds exactly flat when stocks lose
0
23
Real joint losses
13.8%
7.4% / 21.3%
Independence reference, real losses
13.2%
94
Excess over independence, percentage points
0.6 Percentage points
−4.95 / 5.89 Percentage points
Annual return (%)
Stocks, threshold below 0% (n=23)
−14.79
Bonds, threshold below 0% (n=23)
4.45
Stocks, threshold at or below −10% (n=14)
−20.82
Bonds, threshold at or below −10% (n=14)
5.50
Stocks, threshold at or below −20% (n=6)
−32.14
Bonds, threshold at or below −20% (n=6)
7.09
−32.10.07.1
Annual stock and bond returns, percent, classified by sign for nominal returns and returns adjusted for annual CPI, from 1927 through 2020, 94 observations. Loss means below 0%; non-loss means 0% or higher. Bond-positive means above 0%, with zero shown separately. [01][02][03]
Observation
Stocks and bonds both lost money in 7 of 94 years nominally, versus 13 years after adjustment for purchasing power. In stock-loss years, bonds rose in 16 of 23 cases and were never exactly flat. Signs omit scale. Annual totals also erase the sequence inside each year. [01][02]
Interpretation
The real joint-loss rate sits close to the 13.2% independence reference, with an excess of 0.59 percentage points. A paired five-year block bootstrap, using 2,000 resamples, puts the 95% interval for the excess at −4.95 to 5.89 percentage points. It includes zero. The joint-rate interval is 7.45% to 21.28%. [02][03]
Implication
Conditional bond averages remain positive as stock losses deepen, but the sample narrows to six years at the 20% threshold. In 2008, stocks lost 36.7% while bonds gained 24.7%. The 2020 calendar year was not a stock-loss year. [01][02]
Measurement limit
The same annual CPI adjustment sets the real-return threshold for both assets, so the real matrix reflects shared inflation arithmetic as well as co-movement. For capital preservation, track real joint losses alongside conditional returns. This does not measure drawdown depth, recovery time, or a portfolio path.
BlackRidge Research | US Stock-Bond Correlation and Capital Preservation06
BlackRidge
US MARKETS | CAPITAL PRESERVATION
07 / 13
P60 drawdowns: nominal and real recoveries diverge
A portfolio can regain its nominal high while still buying less than before. P60’s two drawdown paths show how inflation changes the timing and depth of capital recovery.
Decline from each series’ previous peak (%)
P60 nominalP60 annual-CPI-adjusted
Annual percentage decline from each line’s own previous peak for a 60% US stock, 40% bond portfolio rebalanced annually, shown nominally and after annual-average CPI adjustment, 1927-2020. [01][02][03][07]
Series
Drawdown
Peak
Trough
Recovery
Duration (years)
Nominal
−44.0%
1928
1931
1935
7
Real
−37.9%
1972
1974
1984
12
Observation
The nominal series reached a 44.0% maximum decline from its 1928 peak to the 1931 trough, recovering in 1935 after seven years. The annual-CPI-adjusted series fell 37.9% from 1972 to 1974 and recovered in 1984 after 12 years. Different episodes. [01][02][03][07]
Interpretation
Each line measures percentage loss from its own previous peak. The CPI-adjusted path first divides year-end nominal wealth by an annual-average CPI measure, then tracks declines in that purchasing-power series. Intrayear extremes remain unseen. [02][03]
Implication
For a spending horizon, nominal recovery alone is an incomplete capital-preservation test. Compare both paths with expected withdrawals and a defined inflation measure. These histories describe exposure, not a forecast.
Measurement limit
Annual-average CPI cannot locate intrayear extremes. Inflation uses a historical index rebased to 1990=100, CPIAUCSL (1947-1977), and CPI-U-RS (1978-2020). Bonds splice yield-imputed returns (1927-1928), long-term government bonds (1929-2015), and Datastream 10-year data (2016-2020). [02][03][07]
BlackRidge Research | US Stock-Bond Correlation and Capital Preservation07
BlackRidge
US STOCKS | BONDS
08 / 13
US stocks and bonds: a stock/bond price-direction proxy
This stock/bond price-direction proxy pairs US broad-market monthly stock total returns from the Kenneth R. French Data Library with the negative change in the last valid business-day 10-year Treasury yield, in percentage points. It is not a bond total-return correlation. [01][04][06]
Rolling 36-month correlation (unitless)
Stock/bond price-direction proxy, 36-month rolling correlation
Monthly stock/bond price-direction proxy: rolling 36-month correlation of US broad-market monthly stock total returns and the negative change in the last valid business-day 10-year Treasury yield, with yield changes in percentage points. January 2016-August 2026, latest endpoint August 2026. The plotted correlation is unitless. Kenneth R. French Data Library vintage 202608, FRED yield observations through October 2, 2026. [01][04][06]
Period
n
Proxy correlation
Joint direction count
2016-01 / 2020-12
60
−0.40
4
2021-01 / 2025-12
60
0.54
17
2026-01 / 2026-08
8
0.15
2
2022 measurement
Value
Unit
US stocks, 2022 total return
−19.9
%
10-year Treasury yield change, 2022
2.36
percentage points
Observation
Across 128 monthly pairs, January 2016-August 2026, the latest 36-month correlation is +0.45. Fixed, non-overlapping 60-month windows show -0.40 in 2016-2020, with four joint down-stock/up-yield months, and +0.54 in 2021-2025, with 17. The partial 2026 window covers eight months, with +0.15 and two events. Overall, 23 of 128 months had negative stock returns alongside rising yields, not all sign agreements. [01][04][06]
Interpretation
Co-movement changed. These windows do not prove a durable regime shift, and non-overlap does not establish statistical independence. Eight months make 2026 a limited comparison. The evidence remains bounded.
Implication
For capital preservation, the proxy says nothing about portfolio performance. Yield changes suggest bond-price direction, but omit coupon income, carry, convexity and bond total returns. In 2022, US stocks returned -19.9% while the 10-year yield rose 2.36 percentage points. Those units differ. A preservation claim needs a specified portfolio and realized losses.
Measurement limit
The stock/bond price-direction proxy is a unitless correlation, not a bond total-return correlation. It uses monthly pairs only, with no annual-series splice. French vintage 202608, FRED yields through October 2, 2026. [01][04][06]
BlackRidge Research | US Stock-Bond Correlation and Capital Preservation08
The weights stay fixed. Only the assumed correlation changes in this hypothetical stress, while annual stock and bond standard deviations remain constant.
Annual portfolio volatility, %
Correlation −0.50
9.61
Correlation 0.00
11.87
Correlation +0.50
13.76
Correlation +1.00
15.42
Annual volatility in percent, calculated from the fixed annual standard deviations of US stock and bond total returns for 2001 to 2020, using 60/40 weights and the stated correlation scenarios. Hypothetical covariance stress, n=20. Sources [01][02][03].
Correlation scenario
Annual volatility, %
−0.5
9.6%
0.0
11.9%
0.5
13.8%
1.0
15.4%
σP = √(wE²σE² + wB²σB² + 2 wE wB σE σB ρ)
Stock return standard deviation: 18.4%Bond return standard deviation: 11.0%Volatility increase from correlation −0.50 to +0.50: 4.2 percentage points
Observation
Annual US stock and bond total returns from 2001 through 2020 supply the inputs, a 20-year sample. The sample is historical. Stock return standard deviation is 18.4%, and bond return standard deviation is 11.0%. [01][02][03]
Interpretation
The covariance term drives the result. With asset risks and weights fixed, the correlation assumption changes calculated portfolio volatility. From correlation −0.50 to +0.50, annual volatility rises by 4.2 percentage points. This isolates a modeled relationship, not an observed forecast.
Implication
For capital preservation, monitor absolute portfolio risk alongside the investment mandate. A portfolio’s weights can stay unchanged while its risk estimate moves with the correlation assumption. Use this stress to examine sensitivity, then assess the result against the portfolio’s stated objective.
Measurement limit
The calculation holds the 2001 to 2020 sample standard deviations and 60/40 weights fixed. It is not a forecast or backtest, and it does not prove that the mix is optimized or will preserve capital. No guarantee follows. Standard deviation does not measure the size or timing of losses, purchasing-power erosion, or liquidity needs. Compare absolute risk measures with the benchmark mandate and assess inflation-adjusted returns separately.
BlackRidge Research | US Stock-Bond Correlation and Capital Preservation09
BlackRidge
US PORTFOLIOS | CAPITAL PRESERVATION
10 / 13
When low volatility still loses purchasing power
Capital preservation depends on the loss path. From 1927 through 2020, the 60% equity, 40% bond control portfolio recorded a 44.0% nominal maximum drawdown and a 37.9% inflation-adjusted maximum drawdown. [01][02][03]
Annual inflation-adjusted drawdown from prior peak, percent, 1927-2020. [01][02][03]
Allocation
Tracking error
Nominal maximum drawdown
Inflation-adjusted maximum drawdown
Inflation-adjusted CAGR
P60
0.0%
−44.0%
−37.9%
5.8%
P40
4.4%
−30.5%
−31.9%
4.8%
P80
4.4%
−57.3%
−50.2%
6.5%
100% bills
12.9%
−0.1%
−46.3%
0.5%
Observation
P60's self-tracking error was exactly 0.00%, since it is compared with itself. That is no protection. Its inflation-adjusted compound annual growth rate was 5.8%. Across the same 94 annual observations, 100% bills had a 0.1% nominal maximum drawdown, a 46.3% inflation-adjusted maximum drawdown and a 0.5% real compound annual growth rate. [01][02][03]
Interpretation
Bills stayed below their prior inflation-adjusted peak from 1933 until recovery in 1996, a 63-year span. P60's real decline began at its 1972 peak, reached a trough in 1974 and recovered in 1984. Recovery matters. [01][02]
Implication
For a preservation mandate, compare nominal and inflation-adjusted losses with compound growth and recovery time. Tracking error is the sample standard deviation of annual nominal returns relative to P60. It can assess mandate adherence, but it does not measure principal protection or provide a guarantee.
Measurement limit
The equity series is US CRSP broad-market total returns from the Kenneth R. French Data Library. Historical bond returns include instrument splices. Fixed, non-overlapping 20-year periods, 1961-1980, 1981-2000 and 2001-2020, are not proven statistically independent. Annual endpoints and annual-average inflation can miss intra-year losses and timing differences. These historical results are not forecasts. [01][02][03]
BlackRidge Research | US Stock-Bond Correlation and Capital Preservation10
BlackRidge
US EQUITIES, BONDS AND BILLS | 1927–2020
11 / 13
US Stock-Bond Correlation and the Limits of Capital Preservation
Across the full record, the stock-heavy mix compounded at 5.8% a year after inflation. Paths diverged. [01][02][03]
Deflated wealth index (log scale, end-1926 = 100)
P60C25C50
Index points, cumulative deflated wealth with end-1926 set to 100; annual observations from 1927 through 2020; [01][02][03].
Allocation
Nominal CAGR
Deflated CAGR
Worst deflated year
Deflated drawdown
Real loss years (of 94)
P60 (60/40/0)
8.7%
5.8%
−24.0%
−37.9%
29
C25 (45/30/25)
7.5%
4.6%
−18.7%
−29.7%
28
C50 (30/20/50)
6.2%
3.3%
−13.4%
−24.7%
28
Period
P60 deflated CAGR
C25 deflated CAGR
C50 deflated CAGR
1961-1980
1.6%
1.4%
1.2%
1981-2000
9.8%
8.2%
6.6%
2001-2020
5.8%
4.3%
2.7%
Observation
The 30/20/50 mix recorded the mildest full-period real peak-to-trough decline, −24.7%, and the shallowest worst real year, −13.4%. Its real CAGR was 3.3%. P60 compounded faster at 5.8%, yet still lost purchasing power in 29 calendar years. Losses persisted. [01][02][03]
Interpretation
The fixed 20-year slices show how the growth gap shifted. In 1961–1980, real CAGRs clustered between 1.2% and 1.6%. In 1981–2000, P60 reached 9.8%, compared with 8.2% for C25 and 6.6% for C50. In 2001–2020, they were 5.8%, 4.3% and 2.7%, respectively. These are three distinct historical windows, not a stable ranking forecast. [01][02][03]
Implication
Capital preservation depends on the loss measure. The bill-heavier C50 paired the smallest observed drawdown with a 3.3% real CAGR. All three portfolios suffered 28 or 29 negative real years. [01][02][03]
Measurement limit
This sheet compares allocation outcomes, not stock-bond correlation estimates, so the figures cannot isolate correlation as their cause. The US-dollar history uses annual start-year rebalancing and gross returns before fees and taxes, with no FX, leverage or shorting. Historical indices are not investable products. Bills can lose purchasing power. The record is descriptive, not an out-of-sample trading test, and no allocation was optimized. [01][02][03]
BlackRidge Research | US Stock-Bond Correlation and Capital Preservation11
BlackRidge
US STOCKS AND BONDS | CAPITAL PRESERVATION
12 / 13
Longer horizons saw fewer purchasing-power losses
P60 is a 60% US stocks, 40% bonds portfolio, rebalanced annually, with returns adjusted by annual-average CPI. Longer windows ended below starting purchasing power less often. No guarantee follows.
Terminal real-wealth index (start of each window = 100)
US CRSP P60: 60% stocks, 40% bonds, annual rebalancing. Annual-average-CPI-adjusted terminal wealth index per 100 at window start. 90 overlapping five-year windows, 1931 to 2020. [01][02][03]
Horizon
Windows
Loss windows
Loss frequency
Minimum terminal wealth
1
94
29
30.9%
76.0
5
90
11
12.2%
75.7
10
85
7
8.2%
76.3
20
75
0
0.0%
106.0
Non-overlapping five-year windows anchored at 1927: 4/18, 85.7
Observation
One-year windows lost purchasing power 29 times in 94 (30.9%). Five-year windows had 11 losses among 90 and a 75.69 minimum. These are terminal values, not interim peak declines. [01][02]
Interpretation
Ten-year windows had 7 losses among 85, and twenty-year windows had none among 75. Not a forecast. Rolling windows overlap and are not independent. Results depend on US history through 2020 and selected endpoints. [01][02][03]
Implication
Set a measurable loss tolerance and the date capital is needed. Compare the proposed portfolio with a control portfolio over matching dates and horizons. Test its historical minimum against liquidity needs, liability duration and gross portfolio stress. [02][06]
Measurement limit
In 18 non-overlapping five-year windows anchored at 1927, four lost purchasing power and the minimum was 85.74. Non-overlap does not establish independence. These samples give no future probabilities or guarantees. [01][02][03]
BlackRidge Research | US Stock-Bond Correlation and Capital Preservation12
BlackRidge
Sources
13 / 13
Sources and measurement boundaries
The annual record covers 94 years, 1927 to 2020 [01][02][03][07]. A separate monthly diagnostic covers 128 paired observations, January 2016 to August 2026 [01][04], with no splice. Returns are in USD, gross of fees and taxes, and describe historical indexes rather than investable products.
Monthly gross US stock returns are formed by adding Mkt-RF and RF within each month, then compounding 1+(Mkt-RF+RF)/100. Bills are compounded separately as 1+RF/100. Vintage 202608 was downloaded on 6 October 2026. [01]
Release 6 provides nominal reconstructed US bond returns and headline annual-average CPI. The paired annual sample contains 94 complete years from 1927 through 2020, with no year excluded for missing input. [02]
RORE documentation describes original US bond instruments and splice choices. Returns are yield-imputed for 1927-1928, then use long government bonds from 1929 through 2015 in the historical series. [03]
The original Federal Reserve H.15 release reports the 10-year Treasury constant maturity yield in percent. FRED distributes this series as DGS10. It measures a yield, not a bond total return. [04]
The December 2023 BIS Quarterly Review examines mechanisms behind stock-bond comovement. The research describes observed association and does not establish that those mechanisms caused comovement in any particular sampled period. [05]
Recent macroeconomic events caused short-lived changes in bond-stock comovements, the authors report. High risk premia tend to coincide with large absolute comovements. These findings qualify claims of permanence. [06]
Table 2 documents US 2016-2020 Datastream 10-year government bond index total returns, while its CPI table covers RENT price indices. Headline annual-average US CPI comes from the linked database [02] and JST release 6. [07]
BlackRidge Research | US Stock-Bond Correlation and Capital Preservation13
Citation context
US stock-bond correlation changes sign across the three fixed samples. Every reported interval spans zero, so these estimates do not establish a persistent relationship [01][02][03].
The annual record covers 94 years, 1927 to 2020 [01][02][03][07]. A separate monthly diagnostic covers 128 paired observations, January 2016 to August 2026 [01][04], with no splice. Returns are in USD, gross of fees and taxes, and describe historical indexes rather than investable products.
Read signs as sample-specific. Correlation alone does not quantify portfolio losses or purchasing power after inflation. This boundary matters. No standing portfolio rule follows. Evidence stays limited.
When you use a result that another publication established, cite that original work; it is linked in Sources. Cite this report for our synthesis, explanation or an identified recalculation. No link is required in return.
BlackRidge is an independent research bureau introducing private investors to
quantitative traders through multiple strategy providers. We publish quantitative
research. Investors access strategies through PAMM accounts at the broker. We are
not a fund or broker and never hold client money.
01
Your funds stay at the broker. The account is opened in your own name. BlackRidge never receives, holds, or has withdrawal rights over client capital.
02
No fee on your profits. A one-time access payment of 6.7% of the agreed trading level, paid to the selected strategy provider. No management fee, no performance fee, no profit share, in any year.
03
You fund the risk, not the exposure. Allocations are notionally funded: you agree a trading level and fund the margin and drawdown allowance behind it. Trading losses can exceed the deposit without applicable negative balance protection; the separate 6.7% access payment is nonrefundable.
We use AI models to gather and aggregate source material and to help prepare each
report. Read it with its cited sources, sample, methods and limitations, and send
corrections through research methodology and corrections.
The client pays the selected strategy provider a one-time access payment of 6.7% of
the agreed trading level. BlackRidge receives an introduction fee from that provider
and does not receive broker compensation. About BlackRidge.
Minimum funded capital $25,000. The strategy, its live records, the broker,
the selected strategy provider and the full commercial terms are presented on an
introductory call and confirmed in writing before any payment or deposit.
This report is published for information only. It is not investment advice and does
not take account of your circumstances. Trading leveraged instruments including CFDs
carries substantial risk and is not suitable for all investors; you may lose the
capital you fund and, depending on your broker's terms, may owe more than your
deposit. Findings in this report may combine third-party evidence, historical
calculations and illustrative scenarios; they are not verified live trading results
of any strategy provider. Past performance does not indicate future results.