##  [# Risk Parity Fails to Keep Pace With 60/40 Model ](/sections/news/risk-parity-fails-keep-pace-6040-model) 

 

# Risk Parity Fails to Keep Pace With 60/40 Model 

 

 

Once touted as the new core allocation, risk parity has been less effective than was envisioned.



 

 

 

 

 [![Jeff_Benjamin](/sites/default/files/styles/author_image_icon/public/2023-08/Jeff_Benjamin_author.png?itok=-fUp7EJP "Jeff_Benjamin")](/authors/jeff-benjamin) 

[By Jeff Benjamin](/authors/jeff-benjamin)

 Jan 03, 2024

 Edited by: ETF.com Staff

 

 

 [ + Follow ](/etf/login) 

     Share  <a class="a2a a2a_button_email"> Email </a><a class="a2a a2a_button_linkedin"> LinkedIn </a><a class="a2a a2a_button_facebook"> Facebook </a><a class="a2a a2a_button_x"> X (Twitter) </a> 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  
            googletag.cmd.push(function() {
                googletag.display('js-dfp-tag-article_page_302x26');
            });
    
    

 

 

  

 



 

 

  Loading 

 

 



 

 

Where risk parity strategies went wrong is difficult to pinpoint, but wrong they have been for at least two years now.

Popularized by mega hedge fund shop Bridgewater Associates as something that could overtake the classic 60/40 model, risk parity investing concentrates on the amount of risk each asset class contributes to a portfolio instead of performance potential.

The idea sounds brilliant for a core holding until you start to appreciate the way investors employ these active strategies to sometimes measure past volatility, predicted volatility or a blend of the two.

Financial advisors and investors must often [dig deep](https://www.markovprocesses.com/blog/risk-parity-not-performing-blame-the-weather/) beneath the surface to understand what they’re getting into, which typically includes at least 40% weighting in bonds.

In the ETF space, only a few examples of risk parity exist, including the $671 million [**RPAR Risk Parity ETF (RPAR)**](https://www.etf.com/RPAR) and the $87 million [**UPAR Ultra Risk Parity ETF (UPAR).**](https://www.etf.com/UPAR)

The late-year stock market rally helped both those funds to finish 2023 with gains of just under 7%. But that less than a 60/40 proxy like the $2.2 billion [**iShares Core Growth Allocation ETF (AOR),**](https://www.etf.com/AOR) which gained 16% last year.

And if the rebound of 2023 might seem like an unfair comparison with a strategy that focuses on risk, consider the data from 2022, which has been described as the worst year ever for the 60% stocks, 40% bonds model.

The high correlation across asset classes saw AOR finish 2022 down 16%, which compares to a 22.8% drop for RPAR.

Meanwhile, there is a risk parity mutual fund, AQR Multi-Asset I (AQRIX), that only dropped 10% in 2022, and gained 11.1% last year.

“I have looked at risk parity, and we modeled a few iterations, but I don’t like the return stream nor how they seem to feed on each other as a trend gains steam,” said Paul Schatz, president of Heritage Capital.

“The idea is sound, but it’s not so much on delivery,” he added.

This doesn’t mean there’s never a time or place for risk parity, which also goes by the names balanced beta and all-weather. But instead of touting it as the new 60/40 core, maybe this model would fit better in a smaller bucket designed for diversification.

*Contact Jeff Benjamin at* [*Jeff.Benjamin@etf.com*](mailto:Jeff.Benjamin@etf.com) *and find him on X at @BenjiWriter*





 

 

 [ + Follow ](/etf/login) 

 [ Jeff Benjamin Wealth Management Editor ](/authors/jeff-benjamin) 

 

 

  Jeff Benjamin is the wealth management editor at etf.com, responsible for coverage related to the financial planning industry. This includes writing,…   [View Bio](/authors/jeff-benjamin)

 



 

 


 Related Topics  [Bond](http://www.etf.com/topics/bond) 

 [Equity](http://www.etf.com/topics/equity)