19th June 2026

Multi-asset investing: why the 60/40 debate misses the bigger picture

Recent market volatility and shifting asset class correlations have prompted a familiar question: can the traditional 60/40 equity–bond portfolio still be relied upon to deliver the balance of risk and return investors expect? 

What this difficult environment exposes is not a failure of diversification itself, but the risks of relying on a narrow set of investment building blocks.

Bonds behaving badly?

In the first quarter of 2026, both equities and conventional fixed income came under pressure simultaneously. Elevated energy prices and inflation expectations, driven by supply side disruptions, pushed bond prices down and yields higher when investors might have expected fixed income assets to provide more of a cushion. This reduced the diversification benefit traditionally associated with a simple equity–bond mix. 

It’s important to note, however, that this was not a normal market setback. The outbreak of war in the Middle East created a broader macro shock, most visibly through higher energy prices, renewed inflation concerns and a repricing of interest-rate expectations. This put pressure on both sides of a traditional equity-bond portfolio at the same time: equities were affected by weaker risk appetite, while conventional bonds struggled as yields moved higher. The issue, therefore, was the nature of the shock - one that affected several major asset classes simultaneously - rather than a fundamental failure of diversification.

Read more

Investments