NTSX – WisdomTree 90/60 U.S. Balanced ETF – Review & Summary

NTSX from WisdomTree is a relatively new ETF designed to provide access to asset class diversification without sacrificing returns. I think the fund is pretty clever, simple, and elegant. Here’s my summary and review.

Disclosure:  Some of the links on this page are referral links. At no additional cost to you, if you choose to make a purchase or sign up for a service after clicking through those links, I may receive a small commission. This allows me to continue producing high-quality, ad-free content on this site and pays for the occasional cup of coffee. I have first-hand experience with every product or service I recommend, and I recommend them because I genuinely believe they are useful, not because of the commission I get if you decide to purchase through my links. Read more here.

NTSX – The What, Why, and How

NTSX is a relatively new ETF from WisdomTree that launched in late 2018. Its name is the WisdomTree 90/60 U.S. Balanced Fund. It holds entirely U.S. securities, investing in 90% straight S&P 500 stocks (think 90% VOO or SPY, for example) and 10% 6x treasury bond futures using a bond ladder of different durations, providing effective exposure of 90/60 stocks/bonds, which is essentially 1.5x leverage on a traditional 60/40 portfolio, considered to be a near-perfect balance of risk and expected return.

Hopefully you didn’t exit out of the page after you read the word “leverage.” Leverage per se gets a bad rap from survivorship bias and confirmation bias, because you only hear about the extreme cases, which are usually disastrous. In the right circumstances, I think it can be particularly useful and can even decrease risk, such as with the idea of Lifecycle Investing, applying leverage while young and deleveraging as you get older in order to diversify across time.

I’m always talking about how young investors with a long time horizon can reasonably expect to boost returns by using a “modest” amount of leverage applied to a broad index (or preferably, multiple indices), and that this is statistically a far better bet than stock picking. “Modest” is admittedly subjective, but I’d say it’s anything between 1 and 1.5.

I think NTSX perfectly embodies that idea. It’s effectively applying 1.5x leverage but doing so with a diversified allocation of stocks and bonds (technically, bond futures), which are uncorrelated to each other, meaning when stocks zig, bonds tend to zag. This reduces the portfolio’s volatility and risk. The traditional belief is that bonds – and more specifically, treasury bonds – are inherently less risky that stocks and provide downside protection during stock market crashes. Historically, this has been true.

The idea is that levering up a balanced 60/40 exposure to 90/60 should provide roughly stock market returns with lower volatility and risk, and indeed this has been the case historically. Think similar returns to the S&P 500, with smaller drawdowns. We can say that over the long term, on average, compared to 100% stocks, we would expect NTSX to outperform during bear markets, underperform slightly during bull markets, and exhibit less volatility. I think this makes it a perfect investment for the medium-risk-tolerance investor who wants returns similar to that of 100% stocks but who can’t stomach the volatility and drawdowns.

The fund only uses leverage on the bonds side in the form of futures contracts on treasury bonds, so no credit risk. The stocks side is unleveraged – just a plain ol’ straight tracking of the S&P 500 index. This is a simple yet elegant way in which NTSX was specifically built with tax-efficiency in mind, making it one of the few (if not the only) leveraged funds appropriate for a taxable account. It’s cheaper to lever up bonds than stocks, and by using futures on a bond ladder, they’re not using daily-reset leverage usually seen with leveraged ETFs, so no volatility decay to worry about, and we’re also largely avoiding counterparty risk, as bond futures markets are highly liquid. 

All this comes at what I think is a low cost of only 0.20% for a packaged solution that novice investors would likely not be able to implement on their own. It’s also been speculated that this is precisely the reason why the fund hasn’t soared in popularity among portfolio managers. The theory is that ETFs that combine asset classes for you aren’t popular among advisors because they’re doing the work of the advisor. The aforementioned perception of the word “leverage” also may have something to do with it.

Those wanting a DIY version of this fund can achieve roughly the same exposure with 90% VOO (S&P 500) and 10% TMF (3x long treasuries), rebalanced monthly, but it would be terribly tax-inefficient. You’d also still have an overall fee of roughly 0.132%, not to mention all the unwanted things like volatility decay, counterparty risk, greater borrowing costs, etc. A DIY version just doesn’t seem worth it in my opinion when NTSX itself is already sufficiently liquid, simple, elegant, relatively low-cost, and incredibly tax-efficient.

NTSX is not unlike SWAN, though SWAN is designed more specifically for downside protection to hedge against black swan events, as the name suggests, aiming for 70/90 stocks/bonds exposure through options contracts. SWAN also commands a much larger fee.

NTSX can also be thought of as essentially a milder, cheaper version of the famous Hedgefundie Adventure.

NTSX Performance vs. the S&P 500

Remember, NTSX is designed to roughly deliver stock market returns but with lower risk. Conveniently, the bond bull market over the last 40 years or so has allowed a 90/60 portfolio to deliver above-market returns with lower risk:

Use Cases for NTSX

Interestingly, NTSX is suitable for different investors with different goals depending on how it’s used. For a young investor in the accumulation phase, 100% NTSX wouldn’t be a bad idea. You’d basically be treating it like a less volatile S&P 500. This use case is illustrated in the backtest above.

The primary use case suggested by WisdomTree themselves, on the other hand, suitable for older investors, even retirees, or anyone wanting more diversification, would be to use this fund at around 67% and diversify with that other 33% across other assets to further reduce the volatility and risk of the portfolio. The possibilities here are endless:  international stocks, TIPS, factor tilts, gold, etc. In this case, NTSX basically provides a way to hold a traditional 60/40 portfolio – considered a near-perfect balance of risk and return – and still have room to diversify further.

A reasonable portfolio for this diversification use case in my mind, if one’s desire is to reduce volatility and risk, would be something like this:

• 60% NTSX
• 10% Small Cap Value
• 10% Emerging Markets
• 5% Developed Markets
• 10% TIPS
• 5% Gold

This portfolio would provide effective exposure of 79/46/5 stocks/bonds/gold.

Here’s a link for that pie for M1 Finance. I wrote a comprehensive review of the M1 platform here if you’re interested.

Risks for NTSX

Originally, fundamental risks of liquidity and fund closure were concerns. I got into NTSX when its AUM was a little under $100M, with the cautious expectation that it may close within the year. Thankfully, AUM has now grown to around 5X that. Again, it seems that it hasn’t taken off with retail investors perhaps because it seems like a sophisticated product (with no marketing behind it), and it hasn’t taken off with advisors/managers because it potentially puts them out of a job.

An obvious shortcoming of this fund – solved somewhat by the above proposed use case – is the lack of geographical diversification in equities. WisdomTree may have heard that complaint from investors; they recently filed for 2 new products like NTSX using Developed Markets and Emerging Markets. Whether or not those will materialize into viable ETFs is another story yet to be seen.

The downfall of this fund would be what I would argue is a rare simultaneous combination of economic factors:  rising interest rates, hyperinflation, and slow economic growth. But this scenario would also wreak on virtually any diversified portfolio that holds mostly stocks and bonds. This concern can also be mitigated with an allocation to TIPS, as I suggested above.

I actually think that’s why it’s important to note that the average effective duration of the bond allocation is intermediate (about 7 years), not long-term, posing less interest rate risk. This is why NTSX still outperformed the S&P 500 during periods where interest rates rose slowly.

Conclusion

I think NTSX is an extremely interesting and useful product that can be inserted into different strategies, risk tolerances, and time horizons. The fund is incredibly tax-efficient, and it provides a packaged solution for retail investors who want the returns of 100% stocks without the associated volatility and risk. The fund’s risks are easily mitigated by diversifying across other assets and geographies, and its intermediate effective bond duration should bode well for future performance even in a rising rate environment.

What do you think of NTSX? Let me know in the comments.

Disclosures:  I am long NTSX in my own portfolio. It comprises most of my taxable account.

Interested in more Lazy Portfolios? See the full list here.

Disclaimer:  While I love diving into investing-related data and playing around with backtests, I am in no way a certified expert. I have no formal financial education. I am not a financial advisor, portfolio manager, or accountant. This is not financial advice, investing advice, or tax advice. The information on this website is for informational and recreational purposes only. Investment products discussed (ETFs, mutual funds, etc.) are for illustrative purposes only. It is not a recommendation to buy, sell, or otherwise transact in any of the products mentioned. Do your own due diligence. Past performance does not guarantee future returns. Read my lengthier disclaimer here.